911 Site Usurped by Terrorist Sympathizers

But I feel a tad uncomfotable when a sitting administration asks the DOJ to write an opinion on torturing prisoners who in thier opinion are not covered under the Genava Convention.

So does this mean that whe another combatant group or country captures one of our soldiers that they should excercise their opinion that our guys arent covered by the Geneva Convention and torture them?
Click to expand...
The language, and particularly the emphasis, of these statemenets suggests a predisposition to the view that the administration cavalierly declared a group of people to not be subject to the Geneva Convention and then asked the DOJ to opine on the legality of torturing those people.

The accounts I have read suggest that the administration asked the DOJ to help analyze the administration's interpretation of where those people fell (or did not fall) under the Geneva Convention and what standards of treatment those people were entitled to.

The Geneva Convention is long, complex, and not easy to read. Frankly, I can't tell exactly which provisions, if any, of the Geneva Convention apply, for instance, to Islamic jihadis who go to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight clandestinely against the US or the local governments. Underlying the entire structure of the Geneva Convention is the concept of sovereign nations, or established and wannabe governments of a sovereign nation, being the parties to a conflict. Toss in an extra-national group like Al Quaida and I am really stumped about how the Geneva Convention applies.
 
Back to the original topic...

Everything has its place. This planned display belongs somewhere, but not at the WTC site. That should be a memorial to the fallen, nothing more. The planned display should be placed somewhere else, and then tourists can vote with their feet, instead of being force-fed anti-American propaganda at a site where natural human emotions and curiousity will take them.
Click to expand...

I can think of several things I learned from the terrorist attacks.

It can happen here.
The U.S. is not an island unto itself.
Our people can come together in a crisis.
Self-defense is not vigilante-ism and maybe should be encouraged among our countrymen, even in the airline industry.
Guns don't kill people; box cutters don't kill people- evil men kill people.

Please note that nowhere in there is "America's done a bunch of evil crap and got what it deserved"

Yes, everything has its place. The place for the IFC "museum" is in Iran. I don't see why there has to be a message at all on the WTC site. WTC should be dedicated to the memory of what was done that day and nothing else. To place a museum with the message America-got-what-it-had-coming is wrong. That's a slap in the face. Wrong message and wrong place for it.
 
Eghad

1) Most of the people interned at Gitmo, the one captured on the field of battle, do not meet the burden of "lawful combatants" as outlined in the Geneva or Hague Conventions. They did not wear uniforms, did not belong to established military units and gave every appearance of being anything but soldiers. However, as captured persons whose status was not immediately identifiable by the capturing unit (Infantrymen are not lawyers), they were required to be detained until a competent legal authority could determine their status. The process for doing so is laid out in the Geneva Conventions, and that appears to be what the U.S. did. As unlawful combatants, any of them suspected of killing a U.S. or Coalition servicemember can legally be tried for murder, and if found guilty sentenced to death. Holding them in merely uncomfortable conditions is, in my opinion, much more humane. There are others interned at Gitmo, but neither you nor I know enough about the circumstances of their arrival their to say whether or not their continued detention is lawful...no matter what their friends, family or lawyers may say. Hinckley was caught on freaking tape shooting Reagan, and his parents denied all the way up to the trial that their son pulled the trigger.

2) Many people sling around the word torture like they have a clue what it is. I highly doubt that they do, or you would not use it in such a cavlier fashion. I've seen torture victims...quite a few in fact. I have yet to see or hear of a credible report of torture from Gitmo. I have, however, seen handwritten, photocopied and computer printed manuals that are currently in use by terrorists in Iraq...manuals that specifically call for released detainees to claim that they were tortured in order to gain sympathy for their cause. In any event, torture victims do not provide reliable information. Torture is counterproductive at an interrogation facility. The techniques of isolation, restriction of meals and changing physical position are time-tested and currently in use in jails all across the world from London to Omaha to Tokyo. If we can use them on a car thief, or a gang-banger, why can't we use them on an international terror suspect?

3) Is it possible that abuse has occured at Gitmo? Sure. No matter where you go, whether it be Gitmo, or Riker's Island, or LA County, or any detention facility in the States, there is bound to be at least one sadistic guard who gets off on making prisoners miserable. Does that mean that it shows an institutional bias, or that such activity is condoned? Absolutely not. Will such activities damage our reputation abroad? No...as the rest of the world already believed what it wants to about the U.S., no matter what the facts actually are. Check out memritv.org for subtitled news broadcasts from across the Middle East.
 
IZHUMINTER:

Well written. I was reading through these posts, about to go on a rant about the difference between torture and interrogation, when I came across yours.

Anybody remember the various beheadings posted on the net by the jihadis? Please explain to me how you can seriously compare making someone stand uncomfortably for long periods or wear inderwear on their head to THAT?

At the risk of being repetative, nearly all those detained are NOT lawful combatants and are NOT protected under the Geneva Convention. However, we extend most of the protections to them anyway, especially those concerned with basic human rights. We are already going above and beyond what the treaty requires.

I was going to post the defiintion of a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Convention, but it's a little long. You can find it here under Article 4, and it does not apply to these folks.

I believe that THIS is most likely the primary reason the DOJ was asked to tender an opinion on the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the detainees:
"Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities." Geneva Convention III, 12 Aug 1949, Article 118.
Whether or not we can continue to detain them, not whether or not they can be tortured for amusement.
 
This is the kind of attitude that has fueled most if not all totalitarian regimes in history.
Click to expand...
No, this is the kind of attitude that makes me want to re-up, grab a rifle, and kill those that would happily kill every man, woman, and child in this country.
I am very tolerant of other beliefs, religions, cultures, and whatever. I'm tolerant of them even when I strongly disagree with them. I am NOT tolerant of people who believe in torturing and killing anyone that doesn't subscribe to their beliefs. These "people" enjoy killing. It's a way of life with them. Even most animals don't kill for fun. They do. Let's see how tolerant you are when they target a crowd of people that just happens to include your wife and kids, and unless they're stopped, by any means, that could eventually happen. :( :mad:
 
Eghad said:
I dont recall the part in the pledge of Alliegence where it says justice for just American Citizens? or maybe they changed the meaning of all recently?
Click to expand...
I Pledge Allegience......to the FLAG...... of the United State of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one NATION, under GOD, indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice.... for ALL.

I interrpret that this pledge pertains to this country and it's citizens. We are obligated by no means to protect anyone else. Hell, the government is under no obligation to ensure your safety let alone a non-US citizen. My interrpretation, might be wrong but I doubt it.

The reason these devils are not kept on U.S. soil is specifically geared to not having to provide the devils with protection afforded by the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other such things we as citizens are lucky enough to take advantage of (by right of our fallen soldiers who've protected these very things). I think it's freakin' brilliant, myself.

I find it sickening that some people feel these prisoners (read: terrorists) should be protected by the laws/rights/privileges that the very same terrorists loathe - and I might add are part of the "western" culture they despise.

Eghad said:
So if the our enemy feels it needs to get information it should torture our captured troops if we torture thier folks to get information....
Click to expand...
Your one of the ones... wow, glad to have finally met you. One of the ones, that is, who so easily forgets the beheadings of our CIVILIAN citizens (not military), along with other countries civilians...

We can completely ASSUME these barbarians would perform torture and other attrosities on our MILITARY when you consider what they're doing to peaceful citizens.

What if we had done the same to their civilians. Ah, what would it matter, you'd forget about it and bitch the government out for the underwear on the heads of the Gitmo/Gharib prisoners not being as white as they should be. It's a travesty that we cannot provide enough Clorox to keep their tighty whitey's... white!

Ya know, what we did at those prisons is not "right"...... but I am easily able to get over it. Our enemy has no code of ethics. The things they've done since we've occupied this region are over-looked as quickly as they occur. Yet liberal media like the NY Times will run front page editorials on what the U.S. does to these prisoners over, and over, and over.

The U.S., regarding this subject matter, is being treated the same as Christianity in this country, compared to the other religions. It's time for a witch hunt and the U.S. and Christianity are accused of sleeping with the devil.

:barf:
 
Capt Charlie
No, this is the kind of attitude that makes me want to re-up, grab a rifle, and kill those that would happily kill every man, woman, and child in this country.
Click to expand...
And out of those incarcerated in Cuba, Iraq and being shipped off for "interview" elsewhere in the world - exactly how many of them are guilty of or would happily kill every man, woman, and child in this country?

Let's see how tolerant you are when they target a crowd of people that just happens to include your wife and kids, and unless they're stopped, by any means, that could eventually happen.
Click to expand...
"Tolerant"? If we wanted to increase the chances of our survival we wouldn't be wrecking, rebuilding and guarding real estate half way around the world - or attempting to police their population.

Until our tolerant, compliant and world-minded George Bush turns his actions towards closing our borders and getting those out who should not be here, the chances of many people becoming targets here remains potentially very high.
 
If we wanted to increase the chances of our survival we wouldn't be wrecking, rebuilding and guarding real estate half way around the world - or attempting to police their population.
Click to expand...

I thought this whole thing was brought about by people who came from halfway around the world to wreck real estate here.

Until our tolerant, compliant and world-minded George Bush turns his actions towards closing our borders and getting those out who should not be here, the chances of many people becoming targets here remains potentially very high.
Click to expand...

The chances of people becoming targets here remains strong as long as there are people abroad who hate Americans. Will the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan change that? I don't know. We had to kill half a million Japanese halfway around the world with the most destructive weapon ever used on mankind before they would stop hating us. I don't think we've done anything nearly that cruel in the Middle East.

I'm not condoning embarrassing prisoners at Abu Graib or killing civilians, but similar things have happened in wars past when we weren't so enlightened. Everything came out o.k. in the end.

It amazes me how quickly when tragedy strikes, the people will jump and say we have to do something, we have to teach them a lesson, so we go to war. We overrun the country with little resistance, and get our soldiers in there. The rally cry goes out "Support our troops!" At the first sign of trouble, the rally cry is "Bring our boys home!" (retreat).

I think most of this country have forgotten that there are things worth fighting a war for. And that fighting a war isn't anything as perfect as you see in a movie.

I think this is why the WTC memorial should be about those killed that day. Lest we forget.
 
Well put Wayne, but I've got a feeling LAK won't be satisfied with anything less than a kinder gentler war where both sides use paint ball guns and the bad guys get a 30 minute time out. I wouldn't mind that either, but I got a feeling they wouldn't play fair. It amazes me that some here plot and play ways to shoot a street punk, but find excuses to name America as the bad guy when the real bad guys are plotting our very genocide. As far as Gitmo is concerned, I doubt very much that we grabbed people off the streets of Iraq just because they were wearing a beard. We'll probably never know for sure, but I suspect every person detained at Gitmo has definite ties to Al Quaida, and were the rolls reversed, they'd no doubt be doing far worse to us than taking pictures of us naked. Nobody wants war, but dammit, if you've got to fight, fight like you mean it. As far as the WTC site is concerned, I have no problem with them putting up their "display" anywhere else, but to do it there is spitting on the graves of the 3000 people that died there, and a lot of other graves at Arlington. :mad:
 
Yeh I must be one of those ones who thinks justice in the US should be the same for all. If justice can be denied for one group which group is next. Who is the next group we detain without trials becuase an administration decides to.

Im not a bleeding heart liberal, I served almost 29 years of military service and have been overseas as part of the Global War on terrorism. I just happen to beleive in the oath I took to uphold and protect the Constitution. That all people in this country are entitled to justice regardless of citizenship.

When our founding fathers started this country they beleived that all men were created with inalienable rights and had a right to justice. All peoples rights to justice should be protected even those you hate or disagree with. If you deny justice because of hatred or because you disagree with somebody then justice is nothing more than a lynch mob.

Yes the terrorists dont play by the rules..so does that mean we must roll in the mud with them?

I am all for rooting the bastards out and bringing them to justice. I want to be proud of my country and its justice sytem.

so yeh I guess I am one of them.......
 
Well put Wayne, but I've got a feeling LAK won't be satisfied with anything less than a kinder gentler war where both sides use paint ball guns and the bad guys get a 30 minute time out.
Click to expand...
BS.

There is a time for killing and a time for war. Get your phoney president to start acting like the threat is real here at home and I'll be convinced. Otherwise what has been done in Iraq is nothing more than grabbing real estate and geo-political engineering.
 
Get your phoney president to start acting like the threat is real here at home and I'll be convinced.
Click to expand...

This isn't about the immigration thing, is it? I think 90% of the get-rid-of-the-threat-at-home-deport-illegals outcry is really about using terrorism as an excuse to kick Mexicans out of the country.

There's 300 million people in this country. 50 terrorists would blend in like... well like the 9/11 terrorists did. You could drop Osama Bin Laden in the middle of the Fort Lauderdale and no one would ever find him. (Actually, I think I saw him at McNab and Powerline Road yesterday.) I don't see how you expect to find and deport everybody who may be a terrorist.

If this wasn't about illegals and was about some other way you think the president should be focusing on the threat at home, please expound on that.
 
Wayne,

The immigration thing is a side issue here and has been well-discussed in other threads. Trying to mix it in as a "political consideration" with our national security is exactly what Pinnochio Bush and Co are doing - as if it is somehow "debatable" whether we can avoid dealing directly with our vulnerabilities in this regard.

As long as we have many millions of migrant people here, and thousands a day entering freely - the prospect that many thousands of them include drug smugglers, arm smugglers, people smugglers, organized crime and gang members - some either directly or indirectly involved in "terrorism" - is very high. And it will not only continue to remain very high, it will increase with every thousand unknowns that are strolling across the border daily.

Buy an apartment complex in a crack neighborhood, employ Pinnochio's "strategy" for "keeping the neighborhood safe" - and see what happens.

Doesn't take alot of brainstorming now Wayne does it?
 
There is a time for killing and a time for war. Get your phoney president to start acting like the threat is real here at home and I'll be convinced. Otherwise what has been done in Iraq is nothing more than grabbing real estate and geo-political engineering.
Click to expand...

Okay...I was kinda following you until here, but I don't understand why you call Bush "your phoney president." Seems like just named calling to me. I also fail to understand how domestic policies you disagree with suddenly turn unrelated foreign policies into Empire building.
 
IZHUMINTER said:
I also fail to understand how domestic policies you disagree with suddenly turn unrelated foreign policies into Empire building.
Click to expand...
Of course you would fail to understand. Your a rational person. ;)
 
LAK.

You're telling me immigration is a side issue, then you go on a rant about what a big problem immigration is. If you have another issue with Bush's domestic anti-terrorism policy, tell me what it is.

Buy an apartment complex in a crack neighborhood, employ Pinnochio's "strategy" for "keeping the neighborhood safe" - and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that the immigrants are the ones doing crack? In all the crack neighborhoods I've been in, the only ones on crack were the Americans. Are you saying the immigrants are the ones bringing the crack here? I can't see where all Jose-on-the-lawn-crew's money is going. I don't think drugs funds paid for his bicycle or his $300 a month trailer.
 
Last edited:
So, some of y'all think the WTC site memorial should be about all the oppressed and not just the Americans (citizens and workers) who died that day?

I don't.

You can return to your arguing and hair splitting now.

John
 
"The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond."

What the hell does this have to do with September 11?



"not just the Americans..."

No, it shouldn't be just about the Americans...

It should also be about the Britons, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Isralies, the Belgians, the Brazilians... You know, ALL of the people who were murdered there that day, no matter which nation they hailed from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top