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. I'm sure they also want a vest laden with explosives and a plane ticket to new york. And possibly an attractive virgin goat for those long lonely nights.
That seems a broad statement, even for Cheney. Everything they could possibly want??
If it's so great there, why doesn't he move in when his tenure as VP is completed?
I'm sure most of them would put being formally charged with something and having legal counsel right up there on the top on their wish-lists.
by mojo on Sun Jun 26, 05 12:11pm
[+]
No, the hoods at Abu Ghraib were much more stylish.
I will say, yet again: These people have not been tried; their guilt has not been established.
They're essentially POWs cath, when have we ever tried people caught in arms against the US?
If they are indeed POW's, why are they not granted the rights set down inthe Geneva Convention?
They are being granted all those rights steel.
Bushy and his gangsters are denying that they are POWs, and refuse to allow them to be classified that way. Essentially, they are maintaining, that because the Bush Administration disapproves of them, they have absolutely no rights, whatsoever, ever, under any circumstances.
That approach certainly fits in with the Bushy dictator mentality, and parallels nicely with the way the Nazis treated prisoners of war during WWII.
To Herzog: How can they be if the US have rejected the convention?
Because although they don't fall under the geneva convention, and they don't there is no doubt of that, we still offer them all it's protections. We are not obligated to, but we do anyway.
Believe it or not the GC doesn't force nations to treat pows well, neither does not using it force them to brutalize prisoners. The convention didn't exist during wwII, we still treated pows well.
Sorry, laughing too hard to answer you last couple of points....
Right now I would suggest you actually read the geneva convention, it's not too long. It clearly defines what people are covered by it, and terrorists aren't.
It also clearly defines what a prisoner is entitled to, and these prisoners are recieving everything they should according to it.
I'm sure you'd be alarmed to know that a trial is not required, nor are we required to let them go so as to avoid hurting their feelings.
Ah, thats convenient, if you capture a soldier, label him a terrorist and you can do whatever you like to him.
God bless America, brings a tear to my eye.
Actually steel, as I take it you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the subject, the geneva convention clearly labels these people as not falling under it's protection. If you don't fight wearing a recognizable uniform you aren' considered a soldier, and you aren't covered.
I'll wait while you go educate yourself, so this all won't need repeating.
Herzog telling others to educate themselves has to be the best piece of satire I heard this week.
Fine, I'll go get you the quotes if you're too lazy to find them yourself.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
There you go, I've proven my point and you've learned something today. A win win situation.
Herzog, they have been specifically labeled "enemy combatants so they would not qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention. That is a fact. Now, whether they are actually being given those rights is another question.
The only thing I could learn from Herzog, is how to become self interested and sycophantic of my masters
herz: They were taken on broad sweeps and were not necessarily even enemy combatants.
BTW, please inform GWB of their status ... he obstinatley refuses to grant them POW status.
They don't have the due process of law that our Constitution espouses so firmly.
Cath, et al. Bush is legally correct in not granting them POW status. Read the excerpt I have provided for you, do you think they qualify?
I agree with Herzog. These men were bearing arms against us, but not as military participants in uniform so we are not bound to grant them GC rights. The fact that we do anyway is completely ignored by the GWB haters.
Zerhog's lying is getting so compulsive that he'll contradict himself in the same ballot! First he says they are POW's, then later he claims they aren't. Amazing, truly amazing. The truth just doesn't mean anything to that boy.
And Ceejjj:
The US isn't abiding by the Geneva Convention, and has made it clear it has no intentions of doing. Zerhog is just making up nonsense that fit his twisted arguments.
Of course, Zerhog could be spending his time more productively by joining the military and serving his country in Iraq.
'Zerhog's lying is getting so compulsive that he'll contradict himself in the same ballot! First he says they are POW's, then later he claims they aren't. Amazing, truly amazing. The truth just doesn't mean anything to that boy.'
My god, you can't be that dumb, you just can't. If you were you'd have drown in your own saliva by now.
I never once said they were pows, they aren't. I said we granted them the same status as pows, even though they don't really qualify.
Ever time you type something I think that's as stupid as he'll get, that you've hit the absolute rock bottom of human ignorance, and then next time you post you manage to surprise me.
'The US isn't abiding by the Geneva Convention, and has made it clear it has no intentions of doing. Zerhog is just making up nonsense that fit his twisted arguments.'
I take it you didn't read the quote I gave you. My fault, it was rather long and had a few big words in it. Basically what it said was that if they are caught in arms against the US without wearing something that clearly identifies them as soldiers of some nation, a uniform of some sort, then they are not to be considered POWs. Were any of those words to big for you? I have no problem explaining things to you in simple terms if it means you will elevate yourself out of the horrific ignorance you live in at the moment.
'Of course, Zerhog could be spending his time more productively by joining the military and serving his country in Iraq.'
And you could spend your time more productively as a speed bump.
If you're so smart, Zerhog, then surely you see the logic of a young, pro-war conservative avoiding living the rest of his life in shame by joining the military and serving his country in the war that he supports.
You'll never forgive yourself if you don't.
P.S.
I seem to be annoying you, Zerhog. Did I say something wrong?
Like I said crank, I'll join right after you go an aid your terrorist buddies by serving as a human shield. Let me know when you ship off.
Stop lying, Zerhog.
I'm not a supporter of terrorism, never have been.
You, however, are a supporter of Bushy's Iraq war, and are a flaming hypocrite if you don't join up and serve your country.
It's time. Be a man.
Sure you aren't, I think you're just afraid. You know your terrorist breathren aren't as concerned with human life as the US military. So when are you getting your turban and explosive vest?
|
|
