2
   

Guantanamo suicides confirmed

 
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 06:59 pm
quote:
Yes. Those who attacked US soldiers are guilty of attempted murder.
.
Those who killed US soldiers are guilty of murder.
......................................
Does that mean that US soldiers who kill soldiers or civilians are murderers too? Or does the US decide who is guilty and who is squeaky clean. This is not a Hollywood production.
.
A 'war on terror' is wishful thinking. It could last a hundred years.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:07 pm
Yes, Detano- Those who kill civilians outside of the rules of combat are murderers too. They will be courtmartialed. I don't think they will be released after three months like some of the scum that murder in the USA and are released. There is no POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in an Army Court Martial.

Or, perhaps, Detano, we should save ourselves all of the trouble of following the rule of law and allowing even people that may have murdered their day in court-Perhaps we should utilize the Islamo-Fascist fanatic tactics--Hold the soldiers in custody for two or three days and then cut off their heads!!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:21 pm
BernardR wrote:
Yes, Detano- Those who kill civilians outside of the rules of combat are murderers too. They will be courtmartialed. I don't think they will be released after three months like some of the scum that murder in the USA and are released. There is no POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in an Army Court Martial.

Or, perhaps, Detano, we should save ourselves all of the trouble of following the rule of law and allowing even people that may have murdered their day in court-Perhaps we should utilize the Islamo-Fascist fanatic tactics--Hold the soldiers in custody for two or three days and then cut off their heads!!

Why yes of course Mr. Possum, lynching is almost always preferable to due process.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:34 pm
detano inipo wrote:
oralloy wrote:

Yes. Those who attacked US soldiers are guilty of attempted murder.

Those who killed US soldiers are guilty of murder.


Does that mean that US soldiers who kill soldiers or civilians are murderers too?


US soldiers are lawful combatants. That means it is not murder if they kill an enemy soldier or accidentally kill a civilian.

Should they deliberately kill a civilian, that would be a war crime amounting to murder.



detano inipo wrote:

A 'war on terror' is wishful thinking.


No, it is reality. Pretending that we are not at war will not make the war go away.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:40 pm
BernardR wrote:
Yes, Detano- Those who kill civilians outside of the rules of combat are murderers too. They will be courtmartialed. I don't think they will be released after three months like some of the scum that murder in the USA and are released. There is no POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in an Army Court Martial.


The Iraqi government has proposed an amnesty for all Iraqis guilty of murdering US soldiers.

I propose an amnesty for all US soldiers guilty of murdering Iraqis.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:40 pm
oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Either try them and find them guilty, or let them go.


International law says we can hold captured enemy fighters until the end of the war. Deal with it.



In the first place there is no war declared. It was officially pronounced over by Bush on the deck of an aircraft carrier - remember? Given that Afganistan is now under UN jurisdiction led by the Canadians there is no longer any rationale for holding any combatant in that theatre.

However if you still insist that they are POW's or captured enemy fighters they should be allowed access by the Red Cross and not subject to torture and interogation, as they are only required to give their name, rank and serial number.

Why has the US disregarded the Geneva Convention, since they expect everyone else to go along with it?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:46 pm
Oralloy wrote:

International law says we can hold captured enemy fighters until the end of the war. Deal with it.

He is correct!
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:50 pm
The Red Cross has unfettered access to the detainees at Gitmo. They're satisfied with the treatment the scumbags are receiving.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:51 pm
BernardR wrote:
pachelbel- Do you deny that the Guardian writer wrote the following for publication?





Props to the Drudge Report.

In an abominable October 23, 2004, attack on President Bush, Charlie Brooker of England's Guardian newspaper, wrote,

He [Bush] blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool ...

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. - where are you now that we need you? (bold, emphasis added)


I am sure that you realize that this is a message that could lead kooks to try to assassinate the President!

Are you in favor of such a move?


Yes, except:

#1: It would make The Jerk a martyr.

#2. It would make Cheney president.

The 'kooks' are located in the White House.

I favour a BJ so he could be impeached. Anyone want to volunteer?

The remarks made by Brooker are entirely correct. I have never listened to a speech by Bush where he sounded like anything else than a complete idiot. The man cannot form a sentence. Haven't you noticed, or do you talk that way too?

What an embarrassment to your country Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:52 pm
BernardR wrote:
pachelbel- Do you deny that the Guardian writer wrote the following for publication?





Props to the Drudge Report.

In an abominable October 23, 2004, attack on President Bush, Charlie Brooker of England's Guardian newspaper, wrote,

He [Bush] blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool ...

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. - where are you now that we need you? (bold, emphasis added)


I am sure that you realize that this is a message that could lead kooks to try to assassinate the President!

Are you in favor of such a move?


Yes, except:

#1: It would make The Jerk a martyr.

#2. It would make Cheney president.

The 'kooks' are located in the White House busy assassinating other people.

John Hinkley was a family friend of Bush's, as was binLaden. Go figure.

I favour a BJ so he could be impeached. Anyone want to volunteer?

The remarks made by Brooker are entirely correct. I have never listened to a speech by Bush where he sounded like anything else than a complete idiot. The man cannot form a sentence. Haven't you noticed, or do you talk that way too?

What an embarrassment to your country Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 07:59 pm
BernardR wrote:
Oralloy wrote:

International law says we can hold captured enemy fighters until the end of the war. Deal with it.

He is correct!



The WAR was officially declared OVER. According to Bush. What did he mean when he said all hostilities had ended?

Why is the US still keeping these people?

You deal with the fact that the US has slipped quite a bit in the world's view.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 08:30 pm
SierraSong wrote:
The Red Cross has unfettered access to the detainees at Gitmo. They're satisfied with the treatment the scumbags are receiving.


Yes. They have access. And this is what they said according to the Associated Press report. Check the link: www.msnbc.msn.com

Updated: 3:23 p.m. PT May 11, 2004
GENEVA - Intelligence officers of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, the Red Cross said in a report that was disclosed Monday, and Red Cross observers witnessed U.S. officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in total darkness in empty cells.
Abuse was, "in some cases, tantamount to torture," it said.

Shame on the US.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 08:35 pm
You need to get your facts straight, pachelbel.

Only POW's cannot be interrogated. Unlawful combatants can and are. They're lucky they landed at Gitmo.

What prison in the world would supply them volleyball and basketball courts, a library, televisions with video recorders and meals prepared in accordance with their religious requirements (including desserts)?

Would the prisons run by 'your' country stand up as well?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 09:35 pm
SierraSong wrote:
Only POW's cannot be interrogated.


POWs can be interrogated. We just have to accept it if they choose to only answer with their name, rank, and serial number.

However, it is correct that the guys at Guantanamo are not POWs, but are unlawful combatants.

As soon as the Supreme Court sets the rules for trying them (ruling will probably be sometime this week) we can begin trying them for murder and attempted murder.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 09:45 pm
SierraSong wrote:
You need to get your facts straight, pachelbel.

Only POW's cannot be interrogated. Unlawful combatants can and are. They're lucky they landed at Gitmo.

What prison in the world would supply them volleyball and basketball courts, a library, televisions with video recorders and meals prepared in accordance with their religious requirements (including desserts)?

Would the prisons run by 'your' country stand up as well?


My country has a conscience. It would never stand for such torture camps, er - prisons.

Sounds like Club Med by your description. Strange that they are commiting suicide isn't it? The movies must be really bad Cool
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 09:50 pm
".....70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, the Red Cross said....."


How'd you like to be there, especially as it appears MOST are innocent??? They are not murderers. Interesting that you are guilty until proven innocent in the US. Thought it was the other way around.

I notice you did not comment about your statement about the Red Cross. It isn't Club Med to them. Get a clue.

Suicides don't happen at Club Med.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 09:50 pm
pachelbel wrote:
SierraSong wrote:
You need to get your facts straight, pachelbel.

Only POW's cannot be interrogated. Unlawful combatants can and are. They're lucky they landed at Gitmo.

What prison in the world would supply them volleyball and basketball courts, a library, televisions with video recorders and meals prepared in accordance with their religious requirements (including desserts)?

Would the prisons run by 'your' country stand up as well?


My country has a conscience. It would never stand for such torture camps, er - prisons.

Sounds like Club Med by your description. Strange that they are commiting suicide isn't it? The movies must be really bad Cool


I can't comment on what 'your' country does or doesn't do, since I don't know which country that would be.

You'll be along to tell us, since you're so proud of it, though, I'm sure. Smile
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 09:57 pm
pachelbel wrote:
Sounds like Club Med by your description. Strange that they are commiting suicide isn't it? The movies must be really bad Cool


Or they just really, really hate volleyball. Cool
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 06:39 am
Depleted uranium, cluster bombs and destroying cities are war crimes. Whoever commits them is a criminal, no matter which nationality he belongs to.
......................................
The use of depleted uranium is a war crime. Article 23 of the Geneva Convention IV is clear: "It is forbidden to employ poison or poisoned weapons, to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army, to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." the Geneva Protocol of 1925 explicitly prohibits "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gasses, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices."
.
War Crimes From The Air
.
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or destruction not justified by military necessity." -- Nuremberg conventions, Principle VI

Combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives." -- Geneva Conventions, part IV, Article 48
.
Under the Geneva Conventions and customary law, it is a war crime to launch indiscriminate attacks affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attacks will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects. The distinction between combatants and non-combatants is fundamental to all humanitarian law.
.
No Iraqi citizen who survived the air war in Iraq, especially the sustained six-day bombing of Baghdad, a city of 5 million people, will ever forget the devastation and terror of the "shock-and-awe" campaign against Iraq.
.
According to Peter Ford of the Christian Science Monitor, the air war over Iraq was "the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that U.S. forces have fought since Vietnam." Reports gathered from hospitals, homes, mosques and morgues show a level of civilian casualties that far exceeds the First Gulf War, which cost about 5,000 civilian lives. Nearly 100 villagers, for example, "were killed by U.S. bombing and strafing on April 5, including 43 in one house. 'There was no military base here,' said Hamadia. 'This is just a peasant village.' " (Christian Science Monitor, May 22)
.
The radiation produced by depleted uranium in battle is a poison, a carcinogenic material that causes birth defects, lung disease, kidney disease, leukemia, breast cancer, lymphoma, bone cancer, and neurological disabilities.
.
It is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Geneva Conventions, Article 85 "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army." -- Hague Conventions, Article 23
.
"The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited" -- Hague Conventions, Article 22
.
The formal war in Iraq has ended, and most of the big guns have fallen silent. Yet the death toll continues to rise, not merely because of the brutality of occupation and the resistance, but because of one of the most heinous, unpredictable weapons of modern war -- the cluster bomb.
.
All over Iraq, unexploded cluster bombs, originally dropped by U.S. troops in populated areas, are still killing and maiming civilians, farm animals, wildlife -- any living thing that touches them by accident.
.
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/pr_uswc.html#Anchor-Cluster-35882
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 09:10 pm
detano inipo wrote:
Depleted uranium, cluster bombs and destroying cities are war crimes. Whoever commits them is a criminal, no matter which nationality he belongs to.


Incorrect. There is nothing illegal about DU or cluster bombs.

Whether the destruction of a city is illegal depends on the circumstances of its destruction.



detano inipo wrote:
The use of depleted uranium is a war crime.


No it isn't.



detano inipo wrote:
Article 23 of the Geneva Convention IV is clear: "It is forbidden to employ poison or poisoned weapons, to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army, to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." the Geneva Protocol of 1925 explicitly prohibits "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gasses, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices."


DU is not a poison weapon, it is not designed to cause unnecessary suffering, and the only people employing treachery are the Iraqi insurgents.



detano inipo wrote:
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or destruction not justified by military necessity." -- Nuremberg conventions, Principle VI


Very nice. Now can you show where we did anything like that?



detano inipo wrote:

No Iraqi citizen who survived the air war in Iraq, especially the sustained six-day bombing of Baghdad, a city of 5 million people, will ever forget the devastation and terror of the "shock-and-awe" campaign against Iraq.


That is a neat memory trick, considering the fact that we never carried out Shock and Awe.



detano inipo wrote:

The radiation produced by depleted uranium in battle is a poison, a carcinogenic material that causes birth defects, lung disease, kidney disease, leukemia, breast cancer, lymphoma, bone cancer, and neurological disabilities.


The radioactivity is minimal. It is mildly toxic in the areas immediately around destroyed tanks, and it should be cleaned up. But it shouldn't be overblown.



detano inipo wrote:
"It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army." -- Hague Conventions, Article 23


Again, the only ones partaking of treachery are the Iraqi insurgents.



detano inipo wrote:

All over Iraq, unexploded cluster bombs, originally dropped by U.S. troops in populated areas, are still killing and maiming civilians, farm animals, wildlife -- any living thing that touches them by accident.
.
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/pr_uswc.html#Anchor-Cluster-35882


It is a shame that cluster munitions were used in urban areas. That was a war crime.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Story of Jumah al Dossari - Discussion by Diest TKO
Shame on Obama for not closing Gitmo - Discussion by Olivier5
9/11 Families Outraged - Discussion by H2O MAN
A Gitmo what if - Discussion by H2O MAN
Sigh, more lies about abuses - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/29/2024 at 01:13:41