allthumbs Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 Would it be considered "torture" if we translate Hank Williams Sr. to Arabic and play his tunes over loudspeakers 24/7 for Abdul and company? Would they then answer all of our questions, and then hurl themselves off a cliff? I'd dig it. Quote
JGowans Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 Question: If 2 Americans had been held by a foreign country for the past 2 years without access to lawyers, against the terms of the Geneva convention, their charges were never communicated, they weren't allowed to call any witnesses or present evidence, and faced being sentenced to death in a secret military tribunal, would you be outraged? Two British citizens currently face that prospect in Guantanemo. Maybe they are indeed guilty. Of what, I and no-one else has any idea. I do think though that they have a right to a fair judicial process. Just more rantings from a leftist Euro liberal though. Quote
Greg_W Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 JGowans said: Question: If 2 Americans had been held by a foreign country for the past 2 years without access to lawyers, against the terms of the Geneva convention, their charges were never communicated, they weren't allowed to call any witnesses or present evidence, and faced being sentenced to death in a secret military tribunal, would you be outraged? Two British citizens currently face that prospect in Guantanemo. Maybe they are indeed guilty. Of what, I and no-one else has any idea. I do think though that they have a right to a fair judicial process. Just more rantings from a leftist Euro liberal though. Afghanistan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention, for one. Two, lawyers have nothing to do with it; this is not a civil or criminal trial, they are prisoners of war. By the way, the Japs did this to many of our men in WWII. Can you say Bataan Death March? Sure, I knew you could. Quote
allthumbs Posted July 7, 2003 Author Posted July 7, 2003 Hey fuckers, how 'bout gettin back to my question? Thread driftin cockbiters....I'll tell ya. Quote
JGowans Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 Greg_W said:Afghanistan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention, for one. Two, lawyers have nothing to do with it; this is not a civil or criminal trial, they are prisoners of war. The U.S. and Britain are signatories of the Geneva convention though. Why do lawyers have nothing to do with it Greg? I am not suggesting innocence and don't want to seem insensitive to what preceeded this situation, but merely want to suggest that the rules have been bent or broken once again, and had the shoe been on the other foot, this would not be allowed to happen. Quote
gapertimmy Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 i can already tell today's spray is going to be so suck maybe i should start a maynaise thread, or a shit covered in mayo thread, that sounds ripe! Quote
allthumbs Posted July 7, 2003 Author Posted July 7, 2003 don't blame me all I was sayin was that HW Sr's musik sucks ass then off the tangent goes to the middle east and shit fukkas Quote
sk Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 gapertimmy said: i can already tell today's spray is going to be so suck maybe i should start a maynaise thread, or a shit covered in mayo thread, that sounds ripe! PLEASE DON"T Quote
Ade Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 By the way, the Japs did this to many of our men in WWII. Can you say Bataan Death March? Sure, I knew you could. Right... And those Japanese responsible were prosecuted as war criminals. If the cause of death of some detainees are proven to be homicide then I hope those responsible will be similarly brought to account. "In March, Amnesty wrote to President Bush to complain about the treatment of detainees after US military officials reportedly confirmed that post-mortem reports in the cases of the two men who died at Bagram gave cause of death as 'homicide' and 'blunt force injuries'. " they are prisoners of war No. If there had POW status this wouldn't be a problem, as they would have some legal status, rights and recourse, but they don't. The classification of "enemy noncombatant" has no legal standing, largely because it was invented after 9/11 and is not recognised internationally. Quote
allthumbs Posted July 7, 2003 Author Posted July 7, 2003 GODDAMNIT, WHAT ABOUT HANK WILLIAMS SR. LOUSY SONGS? Quote
vegetablebelay Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 (edited) Are you ready for some football? Edit: Oops, you said HW Sr. Edited July 7, 2003 by vegetablebelay Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 Fucking . Come on, people; y'all can do better than this. Quote
allthumbs Posted July 7, 2003 Author Posted July 7, 2003 Dr_Flash_Amazing said: Fucking . Come on, people; y'all can do better than this. shut up faggot Quote
mattp Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 Ade said: By the way, the Japs did this to many of our men in WWII. Can you say Bataan Death March? Sure, I knew you could. Right... And those Japanese responsible were prosecuted as war criminals. If the cause of death of some detainees are proven to be homicide then I hope those responsible will be similarly brought to account. "In March, Amnesty wrote to President Bush to complain about the treatment of detainees after US military officials reportedly confirmed that post-mortem reports in the cases of the two men who died at Bagram gave cause of death as 'homicide' and 'blunt force injuries'. " they are prisoners of war No. If there had POW status this wouldn't be a problem, as they would have some legal status, rights and recourse, but they don't. The classification of "enemy noncombatant" has no legal standing, largely because it was invented after 9/11 and is not recognised internationally. You just don't get it. It's a totally different thing because We are America, damn it! We don't need them; they need us. Quote
allthumbs Posted July 7, 2003 Author Posted July 7, 2003 y'all listen to Mr. Perkins - he gets the big picture Quote
iain Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 mattp said: You just don't get it. It's a totally different thing because We are America, damn it! We don't need them; they need us. That's right on the money matt Quote
JoshK Posted July 7, 2003 Posted July 7, 2003 Ade said: By the way, the Japs did this to many of our men in WWII. Can you say Bataan Death March? Sure, I knew you could. Right... And those Japanese responsible were prosecuted as war criminals. If the cause of death of some detainees are proven to be homicide then I hope those responsible will be similarly brought to account. "In March, Amnesty wrote to President Bush to complain about the treatment of detainees after US military officials reportedly confirmed that post-mortem reports in the cases of the two men who died at Bagram gave cause of death as 'homicide' and 'blunt force injuries'. " they are prisoners of war No. If there had POW status this wouldn't be a problem, as they would have some legal status, rights and recourse, but they don't. The classification of "enemy noncombatant" has no legal standing, largely because it was invented after 9/11 and is not recognised internationally. Well said, ade. It's also worth pointing out that plenty of "Japs" were also held illegal by this country during WWII. It cuts both ways. Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted July 8, 2003 Posted July 8, 2003 iain said: oh shit... i just messed myself... Quote
JGowans Posted July 11, 2003 Posted July 11, 2003 UK slant on the situation at "Git'mo". Might Blair and Shrub have a lover's tiff? Trouble brewing? Quote
allthumbs Posted July 11, 2003 Author Posted July 11, 2003 If Bush tells Blair to bend over, Blair will ask, "how far?" puppet leader for a puppet state Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.