U.N. report: U.S. committed acts 'amounting to torture' at Gitmo

catocom said:
I guess I could take a picture of me standing beside my tv.
Click to expand...
Something would be good because it doesn't make much sense that they would be charged when they were picked up and have no charges at all now.

again, it was all over tv man. I'll see if I can find you a link though...
Click to expand...
That would be good. I can't imagine them expecting "we're invading...everyone leave the country" to work.
 
flavio said:
Something would be good because it doesn't make much sense that they would be charged when they were picked up and have no charges at all now.
Click to expand...
The thing is...Who's law are we going by...our country, No, their county?
International? just coalition rules?...
It doesn't matter if it makes sense, just if it keeps more of the troops from dieing.
flavio said:
That would be good. I can't imagine them expecting "we're invading...everyone leave the country" to work.
Click to expand...
Dude, where have you been the last 4 years. :confused:
We told them we were coming, if they didn't hand over Bin-ladan.
We also told Saddam we were coming.....
*thinks back to that video Gato posted a link to* "NOBody was listening"
 
flavio said:
Many countries trust us to a greater or lesser extent. If signed treaties, agreements, mandates. and alliances mean nothing then there would be little reason for leaders of other countries to even meet with our president.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Indians.

As it turns out, countries sign treaties that work to their leaders' advantage. If a country's leaders think that it's to their advantage to ignore a treaty they'll do it in a heartbeat. Everyone involved understands this. No trust is involved. Right and wrong are no part of the equation. Countries keep treaties either because it's to their advantage or because the country they've signed the treaty with is powerful enough to make them, period.

See, this is another similarity between you and Gonz. You both seem to think that some utopian dream world (not the same one, of course :D ) can somehow be magically brought about. I keep trying to tell you both, not as long as there are humans in it.
 
catocom said:
The thing is...Who's law are we going by...our country, No, their county?
International? just coalition rules?...
It doesn't matter if it makes sense, just if it keeps more of the troops from dieing.
Click to expand...
I don't see any charges under anybody's law.

Dude, where have you been the last 4 years. :confused:
We told them we were coming, if they didn't hand over Bin-ladan.
We also told Saddam we were coming.....
*thinks back to that video Gato posted a link to* "NOBody was listening"
Click to expand...
Hand over Bin Laden? Find anything about telling all Iraqis to leave their country?
 
chcr said:
Tell that to the Indians.

As it turns out, countries sign treaties that work to their leaders' advantage. If a country's leaders think that it's to their advantage to ignore a treaty they'll do it in a heartbeat. Everyone involved understands this. No trust is involved. Right and wrong are no part of the equation. Countries keep treaties either because it's to their advantage or because the country they've signed the treaty with is powerful enough to make them, period.

See, this is another similarity between you and Gonz. You both seem to think that some utopian dream world (not the same one, of course :D ) can somehow be magically brought about. I keep trying to tell you both, not as long as there are humans in it.
Click to expand...
I'm saying the US should obey international laws that they've agreed to follow. If we stick to things we agree to it can only help encourage more diplomatic negotiations and less conflict.

I didn't claim we have always done this.....we should.
 
flavio said:
Find anything about telling all Iraqis to leave their country?
Click to expand...
How did you jump to Iraq? That's a whole other thing. Different circumstances all together. :confused:
 
catocom said:
How did you jump to Iraq? That's a whole other thing. Different circumstances all together. :confused:
Click to expand...
BBC: "thousands of Iraqis are being held without charge or trial"

flavio: "If there's no charges against them they shouldn't be imprisoned. That doesn't seem reasonable?"

catacom: "There were charges, when they were detained."

What do you mean "jump to Iraq"?
 
I don't know right now man.
I got crossed up back at post #133. I'm jumping back and forth between
here, and programming, and I'm getting tired. I'll try to pick it back up tomorrow,
and make more since. :alienhuh:
 
I quit reading sometime back when the talk turned to lumber.

When the UN stops putting countriess like Syria on the Security Council & Cuba on teh Human Rights Commission, I may consider listening to them. Not gonna happen so I'm safe.
 
flavio said:
I'm saying the US should obey international laws that they've agreed to follow. If we stick to things we agree to it can only help encourage more diplomatic negotiations and less conflict.

I didn't claim we have always done this.....we should.
Click to expand...
I agree it would be nice, I just don't believe that it will ever happen.

History shows that as a species we are far more likely to fight than to agree (think about how you and Gonz or you and Gato interact). I personally believe that it is a hard-wired response and the fact that we ever manage to overcome at all it is amazing. I've never heard or read it anywhere, but I think that this aggressive contentiousness is a precursor, an evolutionary marker if you will, on the road to self-awareness.
 
flavio said:
You argue that you don't need to listen to the UN yet try to use what they say to justify an invasion, therefore you are a hypocrit.
Click to expand...

Hands up everyone who's not?
 
Fearing militants or even their own governments, some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from China, Saudi Arabia and other nations do not want to go home, according to transcripts of hearings at the U.S. prison in Cuba.

Uzbekistan, Yemen, Algeria and Syria are also among the countries to which detainees do not want to return. The inmates have told military tribunals that they or their families could be tortured or killed if they are sent back.

President Bush has said the United States transfers detainees to other countries only when it receives assurances that they will not be tortured. Critics say such assurances are useless. The U.S. has released or transferred 267 prisoners and has announced plans to do the same with at least 123 more in the future.

Inmates have told military tribunals they worry about reprisals from militants who will suspect them of cooperating with U.S. authorities in its war on terror. Others say their own governments may target them for reasons that have nothing to do with why they were taken to Guantanamo Bay in the first place.
Click to expand...

Forbes
 
flavio said:
You argue that you don't need to listen to the UN yet try to use what they say to justify an invasion, therefore you are a hypocrit.
Click to expand...

Since American & British jets were fired upon, almost daily, that was sufficient justification.

Since Hussein failed to follow thru on his end of the bargain, with an entity that the left loves, it is presented as just another justification. Not the sole one & has never been presented as such. Quit being so one dimensional.
 
Gonz said:
Since American & British jets were fired upon, almost daily, that was sufficient justification.
Click to expand...
US and UK planes in Iraqi no-fly zones under false authority dropping bombs and killing civilians were "fired on".....so invade and kill tens of thousands and blow a trillion dollars?

I like the new justification. Before you always used the UN resolution which I guess Iraq shouldn't have bothered paying attention to at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top