America admits suspects died in interrogations

Status
Not open for further replies.
NOT a deliberate attempt to lessen or detract from any of the other attacks. Just didn't convey that in the writing. An accident. Please excuse my lack of clarity.
No problem.
Deep thoughts about motivations/reactions/mentations, to the exclusion of the details of the actual events.
At least you are thinking about it. Many of our countrymen seem to have forgotten already.
So, I apologize for any misunderstanding. Not trying to make anybody mad here!
No problem here either. It's just that this subject really gets my blood up.
Much.

The news media has played down the ultimate goal of Islamic radicals for as long as I have been alive. So I shouldn't be surprised when people just don't get the big picture.

Most people think that terrorism revolves around the fight over Jerusalem or Israel or Palestine or the Middle East.

They couldn't be more wrong.

The resolution of the Palestine/Israel deal has ZERO to to do with the death-cult nuts in the Phillipines/Pakistan/Trashcanistan/India etc...

Their goal is now, and always has been, to establish a worldwide theocracy. Nothing more, nothing less.

"The first thing I am calling you to is Islam." Osama bin Laden

What they did, and are doing now, is war.

What they recieve in return will be HELL!
 
jmbg29.........

Bing!-Bing!-Bing!
You win the clarity and focus prize:D

Why (rhetorical, of course we know why) cannot the mass of people see what is at work here? Religion is being used as a motivator for the angry/militant faction of this large segment of the world's population which, until relatively recently has been locked away in the 12th Century. This violent faction has found devotees, funding, weaponry and most significantly, organization.

Worldwide Theocracy...or as much as they can conquer, like back in the glory days of Islam.:uhoh:
 
This is for the end justifies the means crowd.

If it’s OK to torture somebody to save "us", then you are saying it’s morally justified. In that case "they" are just as justified in performing their atrocities since they are also defending "their own".

So which is it? Are you saying torture is morally neutral like war? Or are you saying immoral acts are OK?

PS I consider torture a form of terrorism, which neatly ties in to the irony to which Pax refers.
 
jmbg29

You made assertions that were patently false. I cited several documents i.e. The Geneva Convention(s) and our own Constitution. I'm still waiting for you to cite something substantive.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U. S. 2 (1866): Grew out of military restrictions on civil liberties in the North during the Civil War.
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942): President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a military commission to try German saboteurs during World War II.
Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1 (1945): A naturalized citizen was charged with treason for giving aid and comfort to the enemy during World War II.
In re Yama****a, 327 U. S. 1 (1946): A World War II era case involving the command responsibility doctrine in review of the conviction of a Japanese commander in the Philippines by an American military tribunal.
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304 (1946): Concerned with Japanese exclusion, the case considered wartime curtailment of fundamental civil liberties by military authority.
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950): German nationals were confined in the custody of the United States Army following their conviction by a military commission for engaging in military activity against the United States.
Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U. S. 341 (1952): The Court ruled that a civilian committing a crime could be prosecuted by a military tribunal.

Those are a list of SCOTUS cases on "enemy combatants. Please find one that deals with something other than spying.

When I said that you were out of your depth, I meant every word of it, and I stand by it.
Where did you recieve your international law degree? Because without it we are both laymen.

I submit that it is you that believe that we are justified in becoming monsters by suggesting that we allow the cowards a way out.

It takes more courage not to fight.

Had the French any honor at all, they would have fought as men in uniform. Instead the rolled over like a Suzuki Samurai.

Moore, Bob, ed. Resistance in Western Europe. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2000,.

Liebling, A.J., and E.J. Sheffer. La Republique to Silence: The Story of French Resistance. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1946.

Knight, Frida. The French Resistance, 1940-1944. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975.

They can explain better what the resistance fighters did than I can. And rules or no rules killing someone for being a spy is morally wrong.

while it is true that the Taliban et al. don't understand why they shouldn't hide behind children when they open fire, that ignorance on their part does not constitute grounds for an excuse on our part.

Odd that you should say Taliban, In an April 11 2002 report to congress, Jennifer Elsea Legislative Attorney for the American Law Division said that President Bush considers the Taliban fighters to be POWs.

You made assertions that were patently false.

Most of my statements have been about morality and it is impossible for them to be false because they are opinion. You however have been making broad and over reaching statements without attribution on legal matters and saying they are the voice of God.

Your views are your own business, but if you wish to accuse Americans of things that they haven't done, or as yet been found guilty of

I haven't accused anyone of anything. I simply took the position that it is morally wrong to torture and kill. Your opinions of Nietzsche or any other philosopher don't concern me.

And if anyone is using feelings in this it is you. I can understand that you are emotional over the situation but be warned these tatics if used against our enemy will one day be used against Americans by our own government. I don't need a German or Jewish philosopher or a legal book to tell me that, just look at history. I would love to continue this but we are clearly worlds apart and niether is likly to change our minds, but more importnatnly you sir are rude and I feel if I keep writing I will only say somethig I will later regret.

DE,

That is the problem Derek. Who does decide such things.

They do, those that are in power. If Clinton would have thought of it Randy Weaver and probably some radio show hosts would fall in that catagory.

Adieu
 
Johnson v. Eisentrager
339 U.S. 763 (1950)

The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.


Thanks for proving my point for me. You are correct on one point though, we're done.
 
Let's see, this is not a legally declared war as the libs say so how can it be war crimes? Too bad, beat them, starve them, cause them pain, do what is necessary to get the job done. I would not expect kind behavior if I was captured by them.

Look at your children or grandchildren and realize that these scum want them dead. Puts it into perspective for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top