Cable Forum - View Single Post

Jerrek · 16-11-2003, 02:13

How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists?
Who said anything about imprisoning innocent people?

Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists.
They were fighting for the Taliban, eh?

If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels?
Yes, they should put them in front of military tribunals. I guess they are just waiting a bit.

I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity.
And I don't think so. His approval rating was in the 80s when the act was passed.

The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights.
Funny, but I have a different version. I was told it was about looking into the possession of WMD (as declared by the U.N.), and then investigating it.

At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter).
So you have just proved that the United States is NOT violating the Geneva Convension because it applies to PoWs. These guys are not PoWs.

but their human rights are being violated
And my heart is pumping purple p*ss for them.

and they are not treated in a way that US citizens (such as mr. Walker) would have a right to in similar circumstances.
They are not American citizens and thus not entitled to protecting by the Constitution. Or would you have us extend our Constitution to everyone in the world now? I wonder how the Second Amendment, the right to keep in bear arms, will go down with the French Government.

Have you ever lived in Zimbabwe?
No, but I've been there, and I know people that do live there. What has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid
At one time the majority of Britons believed in owning slaves.

So kronas, let me get this straight: You will support invasion of Zimbabwe, right?

16-11-2003, 02:13	#210
Jerrek Inactive Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,545	Re: anti americanism fashionable How does imprisoning innocent people protect against terrorists? Who said anything about imprisoning innocent people? Because I doubt that all of those 650 people they are holding without charge are terrorists. They were fighting for the Taliban, eh? If the US Government have evidence that these people are terrorists, why not persue them through the normal legal channels? Yes, they should put them in front of military tribunals. I guess they are just waiting a bit. I think the act was partially concieved to boost his popularity. And I don't think so. His approval rating was in the 80s when the act was passed. The Iraq war, I felt was something different. We were told it was about WMD, which weren't found, then we were told it was because of links to Al Qa'eda, which was never proven (and quickly dropped). Then, we were told it was to liberate the people of Iraq, as Saddam was violating human rights. Funny, but I have a different version. I was told it was about looking into the possession of WMD (as declared by the U.N.), and then investigating it. At the same time, the US is treating foreign nationals in a way which is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (which the US have ratified), and its own law. Only by applying a couple of tricks (these are illegal combatants, not POWs, and holding prisoners outside the US), do they (seemingly) get away with breaching the Geneva Convention, and its own law or even constitution. (And as I understand, you're very own supreme court may have a thing or two to say about the latter). So you have just proved that the United States is NOT violating the Geneva Convension because it applies to PoWs. These guys are not PoWs. but their human rights are being violated And my heart is pumping purple pss for them. and they are not treated in a way that US citizens (such as mr. Walker) would have a right to in similar circumstances.* They are not American citizens and thus not entitled to protecting by the Constitution. Or would you have us extend our Constitution to everyone in the world now? I wonder how the Second Amendment, the right to keep in bear arms, will go down with the French Government. Have you ever lived in Zimbabwe? No, but I've been there, and I know people that do live there. What has this got to do with the price of tea in China? More than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid At one time the majority of Britons believed in owning slaves. So kronas, let me get this straight: You will support invasion of Zimbabwe, right?