Those pesky things called 'rights'

Squiggy said:
These points are all designed to confuse. How the hell can anyone be called an unlawful combatant for defending their country from aggressors? And then be taken prisoner and held in limbo in a third country...:confuse3: Can you imagine that happening to Americans? I said long ago, we're making up new rules as we go here. and some of them may come back to bite us on the ass...It worries me...:disgust2:
Click to expand...

Since a few of those folks are from countries outside of Afghanistan, how can they justify attacking US troops? I can use the same warped logic to prop up both sides, Squiggy. As for you, Gonz, I'll say this one more time. Congress never declared war. They only authorized the president the use of whatever force he deemed necessary at the time. This act, in and of itself, does not contain a formal declaration of war. I, as a serviceman, know the difference, as does Squiggy, who happens to be a former jarhead. There may not seem to be a difference for those doing the fighting, but there is a difference for those making the policies. (hint...it's all about the money) ;)
 
But it just gets more confusing, Gato. Assume those Canadians attached to US units were captured. They would be listed as US POWs. My point is, we are circumventing international law with a bunch of technicalities and its going to come right back at us sooner or later. One day the cry is "We're at war!" The next its just an action....Those are humans in those cages in Cuba whether anyone hesitates to admit it or not...And WE are denying them their rights. Unlawful would indicate that there would and should be legal rights attached. POW would indicate that they are entitled to the rights under the Geneva convention. The problem is, we won't commit to either classification and we're doing it that way so we can deny them any rights. Rather contradictory to the mission statement that resulted in their being captive in the first place. When some terrorist group decides to take some American prisoners and lable them the same, those who defend our current actions will say "They can't do that!" And that will make us look even worse...and on...and on...and on...
 
Squiggy said:
But it just gets more confusing, Gato. Assume those Canadians attached to US units were captured. They would be listed as US POWs. My point is, we are circumventing international law with a bunch of technicalities and its going to come right back at us sooner or later. One day the cry is "We're at war!" The next its just an action....Those are humans in those cages in Cuba whether anyone hesitates to admit it or not...And WE are denying them their rights. Unlawful would indicate that there would and should be legal rights attached. POW would indicate that they are entitled to the rights under the Geneva convention. The problem is, we won't commit to either classification and we're doing it that way so we can deny them any rights. Rather contradictory to the mission statement that resulted in their being captive in the first place. When some terrorist group decides to take some American prisoners and lable them the same, those who defend our current actions will say "They can't do that!" And that will make us look even worse...and on...and on...and on...
Click to expand...
Psst...I was agreeing with you on the right to council/courts. I was just debating on the whole war declaration/war powers act argument. ;)
 
I knew that. My point, though it may have been lost :D, is that we (collective) argue it from both sides depending on the better fit. One day they are POWs the next they're criminals. But never do we grant them the rights of either. And it will go on that way till 'they' do the same to us. Then it will suddenly be 'wrong'....

By the way....the use of force that Congress approved was specifically dor "those responsible for the acttack on 9/11." Not for "anyone that looks like them and bothers us..."
 
Squiggy said:
...and you can go kill people because thats what you want to do. Don't waste your time sitting here arguing with us liberals.... Show us how patriotic and brave and committed you are to this cause..DO IT!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Listening to too much NPR? :lol2:

As Gen. Patton said, "I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the bastards are and can kill them." :winkkiss:
I thought this thread was about detaining enemy combatants or giving them civil rights (or not), but as you wish. No one wants war, but weren't we attacked recently on our own shores? 3,000 innocent civillian American lives were lost. Mean anything to you? Hello?? Realize it or not the future of our country is being threatened. This war is fought against terrorism, and as much as you despise the fact we need to establish a presence where it thrives: in the Middle East. Yet the Left is concerned with attempts to undermine public confidence in President Bush, and thus hamper his ability to lead our nation's fight against terrorism. From where's WMDs, unjust war, Bush's lies, cowboy, the way he walks, talks, dresses, comes from Texas, where's Saddam/bin Laden, to what about mission accomplished, what, no exit strategy, to thanksgiving day photo op, any and every comment regarding the war by the Left is treasonous, and it stems from your true angst: that Bush took back the executive branch. It's what is really is. You guys got that attitude of entitlement from Clinton, didn't you? Just a leeetle bit superior? When time comes for the general election you liberals should try to find one or two substantive policies rather than opposing President Bush for the sake of venting your ill will towards him. Talk about partisanship. :rolleyes:
 
We weren't attacked by Iraq. All they did was stick their tongue out at us. We were attacked by Bush's good friends in Saudi Arabia. Do the facts mean anything to you? Or do you just want to kill "something" ?
Like i said, If it all means that much to you go put your ass on the line for it. Don't forget to wait for them to shoot so you know where they are.
 
The Other One said:
Yet the Left is concerned with attempts to undermine public confidence in President Bush.
Click to expand...

He doesnt need the left to undermine him, anyone with a basic grasp of the english language can see hes an idiot without liberals pointing it out.

The war wasn't about terrorism, it was about oil... There were no WMD's... your government lied to you and you dont even care? You still stick up for them?

I'd much rather see Bush moving towards a multilateral disarmament, hell Russia offered a disarmament policy in 1991, the US declined it, now the Russian mafia are selling nukes to terrorists...

And next time you start running out of oil, instead of spending billions on a war, spend millions developing higher mileage cars... they use less gas, and sick of violating that pesky Kyoto agreement with your CO2 emmisions? Instead of telling the UN to go fuck themselves, the higer mileage cars give off less CO2 too! And they cost less!

No more fucking war.
 
The war wasn't about terrorism, it was about oil... There were no WMD's... your government lied to you and you dont even care? You still stick up for them?
Click to expand...

It's called "propaganda" and a large part of the population will buy into it for one reason or another.
 
We didn't give them planes. They stole them.

We didn't supply certain other countries with the makings for nukes. The weapons w did supply them with had/have distinct markings, identifiable to specialists. Those are long gone.
 
Gonz said:
We didn't supply certain other countries with the makings for nukes. The weapons w did supply them with had/have distinct markings, identifiable to specialists. Those are long gone.
Click to expand...

But they used them to set up a dictatorship and start a nuclear program... that's just as bad. Where are they 'gone' to Gonz?
 
Bungi said:
The war wasn't about terrorism, it was about oil... There were no WMD's... your government lied to you and you dont even care? You still stick up for them?
... spend millions developing higher mileage cars... they use less gas...
Click to expand...

I guess by lending a hand to rebuild Iraq your country hopes it will see cheaper gas--some gleaned from that 'war for oil no doubt ' :rolleyes: ....
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030503/2003050322.html
"The United States and Australia will jointly help rebuild agricultural production, the food delivery system and the agriculture ministry in Iraq, says J.B. Penn, U.S. under secretary of agriculture for farm and foreign services."

I mean, jeeze, Auntralians pay $2.35 per gallon of gas! No wonder you whine about the mythical 'war for oil'. Do you see unicorns too?

David Kay's report on WMD in Iraq:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

" Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The very scale of this program when coupled with the conditions in Iraq that have prevailed since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities.

Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks.

Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them: Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."

Simply because your gov lies to you about, oh, Pine Gap, it doesn't follow that all govs don't tell the truth---especially when the topic is as serious and life-threatening as the war on terrorism.
 
Dude...You're out to lunch on the whole matter. its not about lower gas prices. Its about the American companies monopolizing the world oil market. Then prices will be astronomical. If you want to pretend to see, at least open your eyes. :rolleyes:
 
The Other One said:
Auntralians pay $2.35 per gallon of gas!
Click to expand...

We don't pay anything per gallon, we have that new-fangled metric system down here ;)


The Other One said:
"Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom..."
Click to expand...

Says the US govt. official with no proof... Who'd have guessed the CIA would say there were WMDs...

The Other One said:
especially when the topic is as serious and life-threatening as the war on terrorism.
Click to expand...

Iraq... terrorists... more unsubstantiated claims... last I checked the 9/11 attacks were much more closely linked to Saudi Arabia, why not bomb them? Oh right, the oil thing...
 
Bungi said:
But they used them to set up a dictatorship and start a nuclear program... that's just as bad. Where are they 'gone' to Gonz?
Click to expand...

I can answer that question...

Back in the 1980's there was a little thing called the "Iran Iraq War", when we doled out several hundred-million dollars worth of weapons to Saddam Hussein because of the whole fiasco the US went through after the Shah was deposed. A Shah, BTW, that we stuck back into power because the US got a rather rude awakening about dependence on foreign oil during the oil embargo of 1973.
I'll state this, for the record so that nobody (Squiggy or Gonz)will get upset. I don't like policies of convenience, nor do I agree with those who make them...this includes presidents from Kennedy on down. I do, however, have an obligation to fulfill those policies, whether I like them or not. Most, if not all, foreign policies of the second half of the 20th century have been policies of convenience. Instead of the endless, and sometimes mindless, reactions of both sides (liberal and conservative) of the issue of US foreign policy blunders. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the mess we're in today, and getting into these mud-slinging contests gets us nowhere. Instead of trying to assess blame, try offering a solution.

Bungi, I worked with several RAAF personnel when I was in Saudi and they all told me that "It's about time that you Yanks started doing something" when I mentioned both Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war on terror. Not officers, mind you, but low to mid-level enlisted. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top