anti americanism fashionable - Page 15

Stuart · 16-11-2003, 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

So, these guys were combatants in a situation referred to as "the war on terrorism", yet because your government tells you they are guilty (the same government that will pick the members of the tribunal which in most countries would be considered a conflict of interests) you believe them. Do your law enforcment people and military never make mistakes?

And if the United States is acting in a fair and legal way by imprisoning people without charge, why not do it on US soil?

Quote:

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

Intelligent Answer. Beliefs change. At one time, the human race believed the world was flat and the sun orbited us.

downquark1 · 16-11-2003, 13:18

I saw the interview on breakfast with frost and George Bush is still saying that Sadam should have disarmed,

So he demanded that they disarm
They said they have no arms
They invade because they say they do have arms
They find no arms
They say Sadam should have disarmed in the first place

What am I missing?

danielf · 16-11-2003, 13:19

Quote:

Jerrek

They were fighting for the Taliban, eh?

are people not allowed to defend their own country?

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.

No, I proved that the US used a semantic hack to avoid being in direct breach of the Geneva Convention. In spirit they still are, and I'm very interested in the verdict of the supreme court.

You may also want to take a look at this:

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 2, 7, 9 and 10 make interesting reading.

And my heart is pumping purple p*ss for them.

Yes, you seem very interested in a reasonable and rational debate

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.

When it comes to detaining and trying people yes, I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens. And don't be silly, you have no say over French law. I think you're smarter than that.

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?

Nothing, I was just interested.

Ramrod · 16-11-2003, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

it must be remembered that they were only reacting or over-reacting to the hate already there.

What hate?!

Ramrod · 16-11-2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

It's not funny. Not to the people in Burma anyway...

I was laughing at how I could see Bush being tempted by the booty, not at the Burmese peoples plight....

Jerrek · 16-11-2003, 16:35

are people not allowed to defend their own country?
Of course they are! But danielf, what does that have to do with the point you were making? They were fighting, and now they are cought. End of story.

It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 2, 7, 9 and 10 make interesting reading.
Luckily for you, I don't buy into that document. It is a socialist's wet dream. For example,

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Wrong. I don't buy the right to life crap. You murder someone, you're gonna be executed.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Bull**** once again. If it is predominantly Middle Easterners that blow themselves up in the States, you can bet we're going to focus on them. I couldn't care less if it is disciminatory.

Everyone has the right to work
Wrong. If everyone refuses to employ you, where are you going to exercise that so called right?

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
This is so funny and so full of ****.

I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens.
Then let us agree to disagree.

downquark1 · 16-11-2003, 16:42

Quote:

are people not allowed to defend their own country?
Of course they are! But danielf, what does that have to do with the point you were making? They were fighting, and now they are cought. End of story.

The point of the rules for prisoners of war is that they are not punished for the crimes of their country. If you are called to fight and you are captured you were merely doing your bit to defend your country and should be detained in fitting accomadation until the war is over and then returned to your country.

Quote:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Wrong. I don't buy the right to life crap. You murder someone, you're gonna be executed.

I believe that isn't refering to the death penalty

Ramrod · 16-11-2003, 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Luckily for you, I don't buy into that document. It is a socialist's wet dream.
.

downquark1 · 16-11-2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

What hate?!

The hate for america the muslim extremists have

Ramrod · 16-11-2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

I believe that isn't refering to the death penalty

....the right to life?

downquark1 · 16-11-2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

....the right to life?

I always thought that the right of life didn't apply to people who had been sentanced (legally) to death

But then again I'm against the death penalty

danielf · 16-11-2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I was laughing at how I could see Bush being tempted by the booty, not at the Burmese peoples plight....

Yeah, sorry. I overreacted.

danielf · 16-11-2003, 17:16

Of course they are! But danielf, what does that have to do with the point you were making? They were fighting, and now they are cought. End of story.

It relates to them being called illegal combatants rather than POWs

Luckily for you, I don't buy into that document.
Why is that lucky for me?

Bull**** once again. If it is predominantly Middle Easterners that blow themselves up in the States, you can bet we're going to focus on them. I couldn't care less if it is disciminatory.

I don't have a problem with that, but with certain people being detained without being charged, when this is against your own law and treaties the US have ratified. Especially if the Us are going to point the finger and accuse other of human right violations.

Everyone has the right to work
Wrong. If everyone refuses to employ you, where are you going to exercise that so called right?

I agree that sounds a bit silly.

I think they should be given the same rights that you give your own citizens.
Then let us agree to disagree

Since I don't see each other coming any nearer to each other, let's.

Ramrod · 16-11-2003, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

I always thought that the right of life didn't apply to people who had been sentanced (legally) to death

But then again I'm against the death penalty

I really don't know, I'm in deep uncharted waters here

Ramrod · 16-11-2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Yeah, sorry. I overreacted.

np m8. I'm not that much of an as**hole