user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
No, not if we don't want to.
I should have added that we expect everyone else to comply.
OKAY! everybody listen up! WE are in charge, YOU are not! People asking questions will be shot. Any questions?
and by the way, we don't care, we don't HAVE to, we're in charge!
^I like it lol.
If they fit with our beliefs and don't run counter to the constitution.
If they fit with our beliefs and don't run counter to the constitution. Of course we do comply with the geneva convention, and to sign the ICC would be unconstitional.
The United States rejected the Geneva Convention, calling it "quaint," and pretending that it didn't apply to OUR war crimes. Although, after the numerous torture scandals, Bushy backed off, in public, at least.
^What about the heads that got cut off? Forgot about those, Im sure.
Have a look at the School of the Americas - an establishment in Central America where, for a price, you can be trained in the techniques of torture by the US Army. Just type "School of the Americas" or "Escuela de las Americas" into a browser.
A few dumb ass soldiers just put underwear on prisoners heads, terrorists actually cut peoples heads off. Whose prisoner would you rather be?
^I'm not calling all soldiers dumb-just the ones who made this stupid mistake that made everyone look bad.
Crank: when US troops commit the horrific war crime of taking naked pictures of prisoners they are kicked out of the military and face a court marshal. Does that sounds like we're ignoring the geneva convention? When was the last time you heard of the military actually torturing someone without facing reprisals?
Following the geneva convention and other similiar agreements doesn't mean that US soldiers will never commit these acts, signing a peice of paper won't make anyone into a saint. It does mean that when people do screw up they will be punished. But since you've set this standard for our men in uniform will you apply it evenly across the board? For instance; is the UN guilty of war crimes for the thousands of women and children their soldiers have raped and murdered over the years? Seems like a war crime to me. Of course that's completely different than the abu gharib situation, the UN has never taken steps to weed out or punish these people the way the US has.
Pussy is a War Prize..a form of loot or booty..(now there's an interesting association..booty, hmmm..)let's not be calling rape a war-crime. and as far as beating people up, well let's just look how much money is spent on prize boxing..we LOVE mayhem and the less organized the better..!
Hmm. Nobody prepared to comment on the Escuela de las Americas, then?
So crank: raping women and children is ok, but taking naked pictures of men is a war crime? Good thing you aren't just hypocritically trying to make the US look bad while ignoring far worse crimes by everyone else.
The ballot was referring to the US. Too bad you are hypocritically trying to divert attention to the war crimes of others in an attempt to rationalize the war crimes of the US.
So crank: raping women and children is ok, but taking naked pictures of men is a war crime? Good thing you aren't just hypocritically trying to make the US look bad while ignoring far worse crimes by everyone else.
by herzog on Apr 07, 2005
I guess you're still trying to pretend that Abu Ghraib prison is some kind of holiday camp. Well it certainly wasn't just sleep deprivation and photos. There were apart from RAPES, SODOMIZATION of prisoners, and similar disgusting sexual & perverse stuff, at least 20 victims who DIED due to TORTURE at the US military run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. People have been tortured in Abu Ghraib with electricity, with phosphoric acid being poured on them, and even kids were tortured to intimidate the parents.
American legal investigators have discovered evidence of abuse, torture and rape throughout the US-run prison system in Iraq. A Michigan legal team meeting with former detainees in Baghdad during an August fact-finding mission gathered evidence supporting claims of prisoner abuse at some 25 US-run detention centers, most of them so far not publicly mentioned as being embroiled in the Iraq torture scandal.
"That list was something that we came back with -- we only knew of three prisons going there," investigator Mohammed Alomari told The NewStandard, referring to the few detention centers in Iraq where concerns over treatment of prisoners have already been raised publicly.
The list includes some actual prisons, such as Al-Salihiya Prison in Baghdad, the notorious prison in Abu Ghraib, and a prison at Camp Bucca, a Coalition-built POW camp in the southern port city of Um-Qasr. Other detention centers have been established at military bases, such as the US Military compound at Al-Dhiloeia, north of Baghdad; a US base outside Fallujah; and the Hilla military compound, a joint US-Polish base where Alomari said he has recently been informed of allegations against US and Polish personnel.
"Nobody talks about it. All everyone talks about is Abu Ghraib because of the pictures," said Alomari. "But in these other places, there's tons of acts of torture, abuse, rape."
ASK THESE FOLKS WHAT HAPPENED AT ABU GHRAIB;
A 35-year-old woman named Sundus (she asked that I use only her first name) was hired by Burke’s legal team last summer to meet with former detainees and find out about their experiences. A graduate of Iraq’s Al-Mamoun University College, where she studied English poetry and Shakespeare, she works to promote civil society in Iraq and is involved in election monitoring. “She’s among the new generation who’s trying to build Iraq through and civil society,” says Salah Aziz, president of the Tallahassee, Florida-based organization American Society for Kurds, who met Sundus in Iraq last summer when she attended his National Endowment for Democracy–funded workshop on NGOs. “She’s a strong lady.” Between August and December 2004, Sundus says, she interviewed 54 former detainees.
“I think many women who were held at Abu Ghraib were raped by Americans,” says Sundus. She wears a lilac hajib, which she fiddles with during interviews. She has received death threats because she works with Americans, and she says one Iraqi man told her that if she spoke negatively about the resistance, “‘We will put you in the back seat of the car like Margaret Hassan.’”
Sundus explains how Selwa and Selwa’s sister came to her office last August. Selwa said she wanted to speak about her detention privately. Her sister left the room. Then Selwa sat down with Sundus. “They did everything bad to me, and may God take them all to hell,” Selwa told her. “She began to weep bitterly,” recalls Sundus. “She didn’t tell the truth to her family.”
Male detainees, too, have described the abuse of women. A 42-year-old car broker, Saleh, who was held at Abu Ghraib from October to December of 2003, spoke with Huntington Woods, Michigan-based attorney Shereef Akeel, a member of Burke’s legal team, in March 2004. “He said he saw a woman being raped: ‘She was on all fours in a hallway outside my cell, and a soldier was raping her. She was looking at me, and I couldn’t do anything to help her. Her eyes looked dead,’” says Akeel.
Mahal, a 70-year-old tribal sheik who wears a charcoal tunic and has a gray-speckled mustache, told me he met a female detainee on May 4, 2004, the day they were both released from Abu Ghraib, on a bus ride home. “She sat two rows away from me,” he says. “She was wearing a hajib, and her face was completely dried up. It looked as though she hadn’t seen the sun in a very long time. ‘I’ve seen terrible things,’ she said. ‘We went through hell.’ She was crying and saying women had been tortured and raped.”
Nabil is a 37-year-old human-rights lawyer married to Selwa’s oldest daughter. He is a tall man with a high forehead, and he is dressed in a white shirt, cufflinks, a wool vest, and wire-rimmed glasses. (He asked me not to use his real name “so I can sleep soundly at night.”) He was arrested on September 28, 2003, and held at various detention facilities, including Abu Ghraib, until May 28, 2004. A military official confirms that Nabil was released from Abu Ghraib on that date.
“In November or December, I really can’t remember, I was in a room and could hear sounds coming from outside,” he says, drinking tea in an Amman hotel room. “The windows were broken, and they were covered with wooden panels. Sometimes I could hear screams and shouts. Women were calling for mercy. There were also children between the ages of 10 and 12. The children became hysterical. I was told the women were tortured in front of their children. One day, a sheik came back from a medical clinic where he’d been treated. He was in tears. ‘What happened?’ we asked. He told us he had seen a young girl, 15 years old, with internal bleeding. She had been raped over and over again by the soldiers, and she could no longer talk.
The Geneva Conventions state that 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” (Part IV, Chap. 1, Article 48).
Just another part of the Geneva Convention that the USA generally ignores.
Hell no! Do what is right, not what is popular.
DoK seems to be having the same trouble as cranky: signing the geneva convention doesn't mean that none of our soldiers will ever screw up. It means two things; 1) we won't make those things that break the GC part of our national policy, and 2) when soldiers screw up they will be punished. You keep pointing out abu gharib as 'proof' that the US isn't following the GC, which couldn't possibly be farther from the truth. Here's some points you neglected to mention: the soldiers were not following any sort of orders, they were acting on their own. They are not being praised, they are being charged with very serious crimes and face very serious jail time. They were not supported by any other troops and all the soldiers I've talked to think these guys were a bunch of idiots who deserve to be punished. So how exactly does this illustrate our lack of committment to the geneva convention? Actually it seems to point out that we are in fact committed to it, otherwise there would be no scandal, no trials, no punishments.
2) when soldiers screw up they will be punished. You keep pointing out abu gharib as 'proof' that the US isn't following the GC,
- by herzog on Apr 08, 2005
You didn't read the rest of my post did you? American legal investigators have discovered evidence of abuse, torture and rape THROUGHOUT the US-run prison system in Iraq, at least 25 prisons. That's not just a few soldiers. There's also plenty of evidence that the actions at Abu Ghraib prison were not isolated events, and the few soldiers being charged are being scapegoated while those who ordered the torture have so far gotten away with it. At least 20 victims were TORTURED to DEATH at Abu Ghraib prison. That's not the work of a few soldiers despite your crap and the coverup by the US govt as they pretend to investigate.
1) we won't make those things that break the GC part of our national policy
- by herzog on Apr 08 2005
Yes, the USA does and continues to do so, and uses. Cluster bombs break the Geneva Convention. DU ammunition breaks rthe GenevaConvention. The use of firebombs on CIVILIANS breaks the the Geneva Convention and napalm-like weaponry was used against the city of Fallujah. There's plenty of evidence of other banned weapons being used in Fallujah as well. Even your puppet govt in Itaq has gotten pissed off with that. The USA has ignored their own treaties countless times and has beeen guilty of massive atrocities against civilian populations far too many times. Over a million civilians died in total in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima,, and Nagasaki when their cities were targeted, not any specific military targets in the cities, but the CITIES FULL OF CIVILIANS. The USA is a habitual mass murderer.
First off the whole 'prisoners were tortured to death' thing is a lie. Second, look at what you said; *american* *legal* investigators have found evidence of this. If americans are looking into this and trying the people doesn't that mean that we are following the geneva convention? Otherwise we wouldn't be looking in to it. You just don't get it.
PS: the US never used napalm in fallujah, that was a lie concocted by al-jazeera, and even the most anti-american news agencies weren't able to find any evidence of this. Cluster bombs are not illegal, nor are DU rounds. You seems to get all your *facts* from al-j which is of course a huge mistake, and even then you apply them incorrectly.
First off the whole 'prisoners were tortured to death' thing is a lie. - by Herzog on Apr 09 2005
No, it's actual fact.
Second, look at what you said; *american* *legal* investigators have found evidence of this. If americans are looking into this and trying the people doesn't that mean that we are following the geneva convention? Otherwise we wouldn't be looking in to it. You just don't get it. - by Herzog on Apr 09 2005
No, you don't get it. The American legal investigators investigating this, and the many cases of torture being committed in 25 US-military prisons across Iraq are not representing the US govt, they're representing the victims and are from a private legal firm. So, no, the USA is not following the Geneva Convention, but rather there are growing piles of evidence that USA is still in breach of it and international law, repeatedly.
PS: the US never used napalm in fallujah, that was a lie concocted by al-jazeera, and even the most anti-american news agencies weren't able to find any evidence of this. . - by Herzog on Apr 09 2005
I agree, the USA didn't use napalm in Fallujah - they used a napalm-like firebomb that's essentially the same thing. It wasn't a lie spread by Al Jazeera, actually your Iraq govt has said that the USA used chemical weapons, including a napalm-like weapon against the people of the city of Fallujah and that a great many civilians were killed by these weapons. There have been many witnesses to this, and that Italian journalist that was nearly killed on her way back to Baghdad airport (along a secure road (not the airport road), by a single US armoured vehicle, shooting at the Italians' car from behind) had found evidence of this breach of the Geneva Convention too. She wasn't the only journalist with evidence of it either. You're full of BS to say that no evidence has been found, actually a lot of evidence has been found and it's been coming out in public for at least the past two weeks.
"First off the whole 'prisoners were tortured to death' thing is a lie."
No actually there was a US soldier in Abu Ghraib who saw his commanders beat a guy to death and put him in a body bag with ice. You forgot about that one.
The US does violate the Geneva convention and rules of war, not just rules of war but the basic fundemental laws of what's ethical or not.
Also, depleted uranium is illegal in war; read this article...
' After NATO?s use of Depleted Uranium weapons in Kosovo in 1999, the Council of Europe?s parliamentarians called for a worldwide ban on the manufacture, testing, use and sale of weapons using depleted uranium , asserting that NATO?s use of DU weapons would have "long term effects on health and quality of life in South-East Europe, affecting future generations." The call went unheeded.
-- Larry Johnson, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, USA, 4 August 2003, "War?s Unintended Effects: Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons Lingers As Health Concern" '
?='
Doesn't work well with the copy-paste. I got the article from nukewatch.com
note: nukewatch.com didn't come up with the article themselves.
Cluster bombs are not illegal, nor are DU rounds.
. - by Herzog on Apr 09 2005
You show complete ignornce of the rules of the Geneva Convention. Yes, cluster bombs and DU ammunition are illegal according to those rules. I've read them. Maybe you should too.
Cluster bombs are prohibited by the Geneva Convention, because of their indiscriminate nature (Protocol 1, Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Article 51). Failure rates leave thousands of un-exploded bomblets that are a danger to the civilian population. There are thousands of cases of innocent civilians maimed by these barbaric instruments of war every year. They have been widely condemned by just about every medical institution in the world.The big problem with cluster bombs is that they are entirely indiscriminate, and continue to maim and kill long after the cessation of hostilities. This is particularly so when they are dropped on urban areas, as has been done by hte US in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. For this reason it is impossible to claim that their use is ever entirely directed against legitimate military targets (there are no such things as "legitimate" political targets).
Under the Geneva Convention, it is illegal to leave harmful materials on a battlefield after the conflict has ceased.
A UN resolution also classifies the DU munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction. DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects; babies born with one eyes, no arms, or no brain. It's also long term and has been shown to affect American veterans of 1st Gulf War who excrete it in their urine and semen still now. DU is chemically toxic, pyrophoric -- meaning it burns fiercely on penetration -- and usually spreads aerolisized particles over a large area on impact. DU creates long-term health problems. DU explosions create microscopic airborne particles which can spread across kilometre-wide areas, upto 40km away. They are sufficiently soluble to contaminate soil, groundwater and surface water. When ingested or breathed in, DU accumulates in the bones and kidneys and like lead is permanently deposited. It causes irreversible damage to the kidneys and the growth of tumours. DU crosses the placenta during pregnancy - children are particularly vulnerable to it's toxic effects because their cells are dividing rapidly as they grow. When inhaled toxic and radioactive particles are trapped permanently in the lungs increasing the risk of cancer. The U.S. is, in effect, using poisoned weapons as gene busters in war.
The Geneva Gas Protocol outlaws, “... asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices.” The Hague Conventions explicitly outlaw poison saying, “It is especially forbidden: To employ poison or poisoned weapons.”
"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'." -- Neil Mackay, "US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal' ", Sunday
Herald, March 30, 2003.
Because the U.S. government has known since at least 1984 about the poisonous effects of its DU warfare, the commanders of its bombing raids over Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan may hope the White House wins its fight for immunity in the International Criminal Court. If not, the Pentagon’s dirty bomb contamination may move from the gene pool and the water table into the courtroom.
The USA sucks. It's too big and doesn't serve anyone anymore.
|
|
