Poor POW..........

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Choro Ex, May 24, 2003.

  1. Choro Ex

    Choro Ex First time out of the vault

    29
    Apr 15, 2003
    What if this happened to you?

    You just an Iraqi citizens, never hear any song except national anthem, arabic song, and Saddams speech, and you never watch anything except the heroism of Islamic warrior, Iraqi history, Iran-Iraq War, belly dancer show (trust me, i watch plenty of these in Syria and Egypt) and Saddam's speech. One day you were conscripted, given an AK and told to guard some post just to captured few days later. And thos CIA Interrogator put you to a dark room, put you on a Headphones playing Metallica Heavy Metal SOng. After that, they put you in front of a screen, taped your eye lid , and PLAYED YOU BARNEY THE PURPLE DINOSAUR SHOW!!!!!

    Well, it's the truth, they do this tricks to interrogate Iraqi POW. Im sure this methods works veeeerrryyyyy fine.....
    WHERE ARE THE UN? AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL? HENRY DUNANTCENTRE? OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION? THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATION???

    I'd rather shot in the middle of desert with 12 inch Cannon. And if anyone do this to me? I'll talk!

    Heh...heh...heh... previously I think those Psychotest in JA2 is only a joke....
     
  2. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Those organisations are irrelevant. America has been holding Afganese prisoners in Cuba illegally since the war. People care, certainly, but no one can do anything about it.

    As long as America has the power, it can do whatever it want. The olden day of Lincoln saying "Let us hold firmly in our belief that right makes might" are over, these days, "might makes right".

    That's how it always goes with every superpower. Nothing can be done about it, it's reality.
     
  3. rad-X

    rad-X First time out of the vault

    45
    Apr 16, 2003
    They refuse to acknowledge suspected terroists as prisoners of war, which denies them a hell of a lot of rights, even though he himself called it a 'war on terroism'.
     
  4. «ºTone Caponeº»

    «ºTone Caponeº» Vault Fossil
    Orderite

    May 3, 2003
    I think it has to do with the fact that they aren't soldiers in a sovereign nation's military. They are considered terrorists/criminals not soldiers.

    Something should be done about it though, they shouldn't just hold them down there without some sort of trial or such...
     
  5. Ratty Sr.

    Ratty Sr. Formerly known as Ratty Moderator Orderite

    Apr 23, 2003
    now that you brought this up, what the hell is a US army base doing on Cuba and how come Castro hasn't done anything about it? this really puzzles me.
     
  6. Malky

    Malky Lived Through the Heat Death
    Orderite

    May 7, 2003
    We own part of Cuba.

    And Castro isn't really hostile anymore...wasn't it just a couple months ago that he came up here (VA/DC) for a screening of that Cuban Missile Conflict flick?

    ...And hey! What's wrong with 'Tallica and Barney?

    -Malky
     
  7. «ºTone Caponeº»

    «ºTone Caponeº» Vault Fossil
    Orderite

    May 3, 2003
    Barney sucks, fortunately my kids don't like it.

    As for Metallica, well, having been to the middle east, their culture is very different and it would be culture shock to many. I mean, if we strapped you into a chair and played their "call to prayer" music, you might have a fit after a while, because it is probably not something you are accustomed to.

    I actually think it sounds pretty cool, and actually had KSM send me some of it.

    I think we have more of a lease on a part of Cuba, but I'm not sure...

    "You want the truth?! You can't handle the truth!!!"

    As for calling something a "war". We have the war on drugs (not sure if it is still called that), but that does not make drug dealers on the streets of U.S. cities "soldiers" anymore than "terrorists" are "soldiers" in the war on terror.
     
  8. spader

    spader First time out of the vault

    35
    Apr 25, 2003
    come on the terrorists have some kind of a political backgraund
    not like drug dealers who are only for the money

    I am not saying it is right to kill people but man I can understand some of the terrorists like Palestins
     
  9. MrMarcus

    MrMarcus Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    370
    Apr 3, 2003
    Rights? In America?

    These days fighting for your rights isn't considered very appropriate, as sad as that sounds coming from the country that prides itself on such. And with the federal government currently in step two of a three-step plan to completely subjugate the American population (via PATRIOT acts I, II, and III) I don't think that will change until the current administration leaves office, hopefully in 2004.
     
  10. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Heh, if you ask me, Dubyah will win the next elections.

    I mean, the economy may be shit, but if he starts another war (against, say...Iran, Syria or Korea), nobody'll care.

    Hey, if the people want to be buggered, who's to stop them? That's democracy.
     
  11. «ºTone Caponeº»

    «ºTone Caponeº» Vault Fossil
    Orderite

    May 3, 2003
    Well, he is starting to get some opposition from his prior supporters (like me). However, he will probably be the best choice for us in the next elections. I'm not sure who is going to emerge at the top of the Democratic ticket, but while I'm a Republican myself, and vote Republican the majority of the time, I am not opposed to voting for Democrats (I've voted for Congressman Peter DeFazio (D) every 2 years since I've turned 18).

    The Patriot act is ridiculous.
     
  12. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    The patriot act is rediculous? How dare you? Are you not patriotic!? Oh n0z0rs!

    How 'bout voting for the 3rd party?
     
  13. «ºTone Caponeº»

    «ºTone Caponeº» Vault Fossil
    Orderite

    May 3, 2003
    It depends on who is running in the third party. I'd vote for Bill O'Reilly if he ran as an independent.
     
  14. welsh

    welsh Junkmaster

    Apr 5, 2003
    Geesh! YOu folks!

    Ah, here comes the America bashing!

    I am not going to argue about the Patriot Act, but I will add that, to the best of my understanding, the Patriot Act has not been fully litigated before the Supreme Court and thus its constitutionality is still in question. The Supreme Court has been tough on criminal rights over the past ten years, but with luck it won't let the Act go so easy. The Act was passed during a time of "national emergency" and like similar events (like the 50s Red Scare) it might take some time, or a new administration, to roll it back.

    As for terrorists and POWs. POWs should be covered under the Geneval Conventions. Not sure if Barney or Metallica are part of that process.

    Terrorists are a bit more dicey. There is a strong argument that Terrorists should be treated like pirates (like the Barbary pirates)- subject to the criminal laws of whatever country gets their hands on them.

    Cuba- Yes, "You Can't Handle the Truth!" The US leased Quantanimo Bay a long time ago, before Castro, and the lease is still good by international law. It's a military instillation and there are limits to how the Supreme Court will review matters of criminal law. This creates a sort of limbo for the prisoners there.

    Until Congress passes a bill allowing this, and the bill is deemed constitutional, I doubt there is much that the Court can do. I am guessing that this is subject to the same kind of review that decided the case of In Re Yamashita after the Second World War when McArthur wanted to see General Yamashita (conqueror of Singapore, occupier of the Philippines and responsible for many nasty things) to swing. The Court was reluctant to step in the way of military law on that one.

    But it doesn't mean that people are pissed off about it, or worried, or think its wrong. But then its hard to show a lot of sympathy for a bunch of guys who belong to the same gang that flew a couple of airplanes into skyscrapers and killed near 4,000 people.

    Ask me, yes, I worry about this as a legal principle. They should have some rights. I am worried about the abuse of justice this might mean. But sympathy for the terrorists on Quantanimo Bay?

    I can think of hotter places they should be sent.
     
  15. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Re: Geesh! YOu folks!

    Well...America runs its own ways too much, "terrorists" (also known as freedom fighters in other parts of the world) can be treated as you will without even caring for the basic rights of the human being, while, obviously, Americans MAY NOT be held at the international court of justice! Why? 'cause they're Americans!

    The hypocricy is thicker than maple syrup.

    Those 4,000 lives aren't more important than any other 4,000 lives, anywhere. That's the problem with being a civilised country, you have to face that, sooner or later, or be stamped as "barbaric"

    EDIT: PS: a person is innocent unless proven guilty, those held captive in Cuba never saw a trial, there's no real way of knowing if they were part of the terrorist group either.

    PPS: Al'Qaida seems to have grown a lot bigger since the Afghanistan war, wouldn't you say? Somehow, they are linked up to everything these days.
     
  16. welsh

    welsh Junkmaster

    Apr 5, 2003
    Oh Kharn

    Kharn-

    You are not going to get any arguments from me that 4,000 American innocents are worth more than 4,000 any innocents. What I am saying is that there is not much sympathy going to be given to the people who killed 4,000 Americans, not by Americans at least.

    Innocent till proven guilty, yes. And I believe some of the prisoners on Cuba have been released because they were found to be innocent.

    ANd yes, those bastards who were behind the bombing should roast. My position on this is totally nationalistic.

    ANd if they could, they should roast again. ANd if there is a lot being said about them, I am also guessing that there are fewer of them then there used to be.

    Do these folks deserve a trial, yes. ANd I think that the judicial branch should have the right to review the practices of the military in holding these folks captive. I am hoping that the legal system works out so that they do get their trial, and I am hoping that more people protest this.

    Don't expect me to vote for Bush next election. There are times I even think of leaving.

    But I certainly have more faith in this system than yours.

    Nobody gets brought up on charges at the International Court of Justice. The International Court is a forum for nations, not people. There is an international criminal court, and yes, the US has decided to opt out, although it came close to joining a few times. There are also international criminal tribunals for certain cases - former Yugoslavia and Rwanda for example.

    I doubt that there will be an international criminal court for Al-qaida. As you point out, one persons terrorist is another person freedom fighter. And its easy to turn your back or hold up your hands and say, what a tragedy. Like Bosnia and Kosovo. Its easy to recognize one part of a fractured country, realizing that recognition will lead to violent civil war and ethnic cleansing, especially if you won't take responsibility for it. But that's German sovereignty for you.

    Its hard to take responsibility, but its easy to criticize and its easy to turn your eyes away even while you profit from it.

    The reasons why the US opted out are complex, and they don't concern only the fear of propaganda against the US, or the danger of trumped up charges or even real charges against US heads of state or political officials (like Kissinger). The matter does have to do with jurisdiction and sovereignty. It also has to do with the importance of rule of law in this society, which is not found elswhere.

    There are lots of problems with being labelled civilized. Generally you don't see to many Americans using that word. We don't always understand it.

    For example, under old rules of international law, to be recognized as a sovereign country one had to be "civilized." This is old style international law. This was changed under the UN Convention, a convention written in New York and pushed by the US government.

    It was this change, and the ommission of the idea of "civilized nations" that ended practices such as colonialism. After all it was ideas like "civilized" that allowed trading companies like the Dutch East India company to wipe out people in pursuit of trade. Of course that's history and the colonies are mostly no more- (even if it took years for countries to decolonize and often after long, bloody combat- like the Netherlands in Indonesia).

    Personally I support the idea of more personal responsibility in international law. International criminal court, more international responsibility for companies too. I think it would be a wonderful thing if the other countries would pass a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act so that their companies would have some legal restraint in their business practices abroad.

    Kharn, have the dutch passed a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act yet? Or Can Royal Dutch Shell do what it wants?

    Has the Netherlands made up for Indonesia yet, Kharn?

    Have the Netherlands taken responsibility for the fact that drugs from Amsterdam are spilling over into other countries, that laundered money from drugs throughout the americans and europe, and the money flows through Dutch banks?

    Hypocricy is a big word. Its a difficult word too, even if its thicker than maple syrup, or oil.

    If the Dutch were still a major power, as once they were, would the world be that much better a place? The track record ain't great, Kharn.

    Does the US have blood on its hand. Oh yeah. Lots and Lots of blood.

    That's hardly hypocricy. Hopefully the legacy of the past near 60 years is better than what came before that, but yes, there's a fair share of blood there.

    Is that barbaric? Well that makes us brothers, doesn't it Kharn.
     
  17. welsh

    welsh Junkmaster

    Apr 5, 2003
    Re: Oh Kharn

    Oh, hypocracy is also sharper than the conflict diamond that get cut in Amsterdam. Be careful how you play with that word, you might just bleed.
     
  18. APTYP

    APTYP Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 2, 2003
    People just need more spice in their life. For some it's SARS, terrorists, unemployment, and violent crimes next door. For others it's the sinister shadow of America that threatens the free world and jewish conspiracy...

    I think the mankind just gave up on the future and chose to live like worms. Money and fun is more important than the survival of the human species.
     
  19. SkynetV4

    SkynetV4 Mildly Dipped

    589
    Jan 25, 2005
    Byt Po Semu

    I'll drink to that APTYP. I seems that humankind has given up on life and spend their time pursuing money and power, things that though they might provide a respite from the harshness of the system, they are ephemeral. Instead of making the world a place that's more livable, we have worked to destroy it, yes and with such singlemindedness that it is sickening.
     
  20. welsh

    welsh Junkmaster

    Apr 5, 2003
    Postmodernism

    Damn that Post-Modernism!