Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9141516171819
Results 361 to 379 of 379
  1. #361  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    You're right, everyone brings something....my issue with clulup is the continuous rant against the US as if the entirety of what America brings to the table is far out-weighed by those things clulup does not agree with.
    You are confusing things. I am not against the US per se, but I don't agree with the behaviour of the Bush administration, specially regarding their handling of Iraq. That's not really the same, is it? I don't remember that I ever had a problem with the Clinton area, for instance. Not even with the war in Afghanistan, but that was certainly not the same.

    So what's your problem? That you don't have any arguments against mine in this discussion? You need more pampering or what?

    I noticed that you did not reply to my answer to your last complaint about me, that was when you accused me of "espousal of opinion with fact". Here's my post again, so that you can address my points.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #362  
    Oh, and one more thing: I'll be away over the weekend, so don't think I ran out of arguments in case I don't answer right away...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #363  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Oh, and one more thing: I'll be away over the weekend, so don't think I ran out of arguments in case I don't answer right away...
    I'll wait with baited breath.....by the way, I too was away late today, thus I didn't have the opportunity to reply......but I'll be happy to oblige.
    Last edited by treo2die4; 05/20/2005 at 09:10 PM.
  4. #364  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You are confusing things.
    Perhaps you feel that way, I don't happen to share you opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I don't remember I ever had a problem with the Clinton area, for instance.
    Now there's a shocker

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So what's your problem? That you don't have any arguments against mine in this discussion? You need more pampering or what?
    What's wrong, boy, don't you hear too good? (just teasing) And no pampers for me, thank you

    I lurked around here for quit some time before I ever got involved. And I must say, you are consistent if nothing else. All I ask is that you at least try to look at things from both sides, not just from the "they are the devil incarnate" point of view

    ....if you hadn't made it clear that you're from Switzerland, I'd have sworn you were in fact one of the many libs in this country that can't stand the idea that everyone doesn't agree with your opinions. Must be nice to be from a country that doesn't believe in anything enough to defend it and then snipe from the cheap seats when others act on their convictions.

    I noticed that you did not reply to my answer to your last complaint about me, that was when you accused me of "espousal of opinion with fact". Here's my post again, so that you can address my points.
    Please accept my sincerest apoligies for not waiting on the edge of my seat for you to reply so I could immediately return the favor. A thousand pardons.
  5. #365  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    The response of an *****.
    Well, you almost got it right - it's to an *****
  6. #366  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You also complain about me "espousing opinion as fact", but I don't see what you mean. In the post you quoted, I had written

    - That the US send prisoners to Guantanamo because basically no jurisdiction really applies there, neither US legislation nor that of another country.

    - That the US coined the new term "enemy combatant" in order to avoid the Geneva Convention, because that would not allow how the prisoners are treated.

    - That the Newsweek article may not be 100 % accurate, but that it is not difficult to imagine that this sort of thing has happened. Keep in mind that in the meanwhile the Red Cross has confirmed that similar incidents have happened in the past at Guantanamo.

    Which point is opinion and not fact?

    Lets start by looking at the definition of fact:

    Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
    A thing that has been done

    You tell me do these statements fit the definition?

    "That the US send prisoners to Guantanamo because basically no jurisdiction really applies there, neither US legislation nor that of another country." How is this fact and not your opinion?

    "That the US coined the new term "enemy combatant" in order to avoid the Geneva Convention, because that would not allow how the prisoners are treated." And who is it that specifically told you this is the case - or is this again your opinion?

    As for the Red Cross - from your very own post:

    "Red Cross backs claims of Koran abuse in US prison camp" so is it fact? You even sited "had never witnessed such incidents" - is it not possible that the detainees were trained to claim such things? And no, I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm showing you that your "facts" are not truly fact.
  7. #367  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    You tell me do these statements fit the definition?
    Clulup already said he wasnt going to be here and I did a quick search to find some of these answers. Decide for yourself if what he said is 'fact'.

    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    "That the US send prisoners to Guantanamo because basically no jurisdiction really applies there, neither US legislation nor that of another country." How is this fact and not your opinion?
    http://www.icj-aust.org.au/?no=15

    What law applies in Guantanamo Bay?

    Following the Spanish-Cuban-American war, the Cuban Constitution of 1901 was adopted which restricted Cuba’s ability to run its own affairs and allowed the USA to intervene directly in Cuban affairs.

    In February 1903, the US signed a lease covering Guantanamo Bay with the US-supported Cuban president for use as “coaling or naval stations only and for no other purpose”.2 The lease was varied in 1906 and again in 1934, to add a requirement preventing termination of the lease without mutual consent, unless the USA abandoned the base. The US occupation of the Bay survived the 1959 Revolution and remains a significant bone of contention with the Castro regime, which refuses to accept lease payments from the US.

    The lease provides: “While on the one hand the United States recognises the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas...”.3

    The US Supreme Court has agreed to consider the issue as to whether prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to the rights under various US Constitution Amendments. They provide, inter alia, for protection against self-incrimination and cruel and unusual punishment, for equal protection under the law, the right of people not to be deprived of liberty without charge or due process of law, to be informed of allegations against them, to a speedy and public trial by jury, to call and to cross-examine witnesses, and to retain counsel of their own choosing.

    US State courts have already considered the issue and denied these protections to non-US citizens held at Guantanamo Bay. They rejected the argument that a person, of whatever nationality, deprived of liberty by US officials, is necessarily entitled to the Constitutional rights. They concluded foreign nationals held outside the USA are not protected by the Constitution, and despite America’s “complete jurisdiction and control” over Guantanamo Bay, Cuba’s “ultimate sovereignty” is preserved in the 1903 lease and therefore it is not US territory. No prisoner has embarked on the futile exercise of a habeas corpus application in Cuba’s courts.



    If US law doesnt apply to non-citizens held there and the lease gives the United States complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas then at least it appears that there is no jurisidiction that covers non-citizens in Gitmo.

    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    "That the US coined the new term "enemy combatant" in order to avoid the Geneva Convention, because that would not allow how the prisoners are treated." And who is it that specifically told you this is the case - or is this again your opinion?
    I dont know if the US coined the term but it at least appears that the US is interested in NOT having the Geneva Convention apply to enemy combatants because the US has labeled some that way and the rights are different depending on how you classify them.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/qatar.combatant/
    A Qatari man President Bush designated an "enemy combatant" Monday was an al Qaeda sleeper operative tasked with helping other militants get in position for future attacks, Justice Department officials said.

    It was the second time since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that Bush has transferred a defendant from the criminal justice system to more restrictive military custody, where he is afforded fewer rights.

    He joins enemy combatant Jose Padilla as the second known criminal defendant removed from the criminal justice system.



    Rights under the Geneva Convention:

    http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm
    Every captured fighter is entitled to humane treatment, understood at a minimum to include basic shelter, clothing, food and medical attention. In addition, no detainee – even if suspected of war crimes such as the murder of civilians – may be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or humiliating or degrading treatment. If captured fighters are tried for crimes, the trials must satisfy certain basic fair trial guarantees.

    Prisoners of war (POWs) are entitled to further protections, commensurate with respect for their military status as soldiers. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions provide that prisoners of war must be quartered in conditions that meet the same general standards as the quarters available to the captor´s forces, e.g. the U.S. armed forces. In addition, POW´s prosecuted for war crimes must be tried by the same court under the same rules as the detaining country´s armed forces. In the current conflict, an Afghan POW could not be tried by the proposed military commissions, although they could be tried by an American court-martial.

    Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state´s armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not quality. Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.



    From what we have heard about the Red Cross report:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov30.html
    The International Committee of the Red Cross found "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during inspections there last summer, and issued a formal report in July that said some interrogation tactics come close to torture, a source who has seen portions of the report said yesterday.

    The human rights group decried tactics used on some detainees -- including severe temperatures, loud music and other sounds, the sharing of medical information with interrogators, and forced nudity -- that it said violate international rules against torture adopted by the United States and other countries.



    If the detainees were protected under the Geneva Convention and these incidents occurred, then it would in fact be violations of the Geneva Convention. By the administration classifying them as enemy combatants, they have less legal rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    As for the Red Cross - from your very own post:

    "Red Cross backs claims of Koran abuse in US prison camp" so is it fact? You even sited "had never witnessed such incidents" - is it not possible that the detainees were trained to claim such things?
    Its possible that they were trained to say these things, but there also appears to be testimony that collaborates the IRC report:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4631899
    Former Army sergeant Erik Saar and journalist Viveca Novak, a correspondent for Time magazine have collaborated on the new book, Inside the Wire. Saar spent six months at the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from December 2002 to June 2003. He was a military intelligence linguist, translating Arabic for guards and interrogators. During that time, he saw female guards use sexual interrogation tactics on detainees as well as other disturbing practices.

    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    And no, I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm showing you that your "facts" are not truly fact.
    What I have shown with these links may or may not persuade you that they are facts...but my intention is simply to show that Clulup's comments may be founded on more than his opinions
  8. #368  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    What I have shown with these links may or may not persuade you that they are facts...but my intention is simply to show that Clulup's comments may be founded on more than his opinions
    And I do not take issue with anything you are posting - in my mind the difference between your post and his is you did not make a definitive statement that it was fact - Clulup does.

    As far as this part of your statement: Clulup's comments may be founded on more than his opinions

    I disagree, I see his conclusion as opinion, based on his interpretation of what he has read, not fact. That's not to say his interpretation is incorrect, but that it cannot be considered as fact.

    And by the way, help me see how your response has anything to do with the quote from my post - I see nothing about the Koran in your answer?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treo2die4
    As for the Red Cross - from your very own post:

    "Red Cross backs claims of Koran abuse in US prison camp" so is it fact? You even sited "had never witnessed such incidents" - is it not possible that the detainees were trained to claim such things?



    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Its possible that they were trained to say these things, but there also appears to be testimony that collaborates the IRC report:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...storyId=4631899
    Former Army sergeant Erik Saar and journalist Viveca Novak, a correspondent for Time magazine have collaborated on the new book, Inside the Wire. Saar spent six months at the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from December 2002 to June 2003. He was a military intelligence linguist, translating Arabic for guards and interrogators. During that time, he saw female guards use sexual interrogation tactics on detainees as well as other disturbing practices.
    Last edited by treo2die4; 05/20/2005 at 11:43 PM.
  9. #369  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    I see his conclusion as opinion, based on his interpretation of what he has read, not fact. That's not to say his interpretation is incorrect, but that it cannot be considered as fact.
    Thats fine but then it begs the question of when is something a 'fact' and then is there really a point when we can say that we 'know' something?
  10. #370  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Thats fine but then it begs the question of when is something a 'fact' and then is there really a point when we can say that we 'know' something?
    I think the clear anwser to that question is yes.
  11. #371  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Must be nice to be from a country that doesn't believe in anything enough to defend it and then snipe from the cheap seats when others act on their convictions.
    What exactly are those convictions you talk about? The conviction that you had to protect the US from Saddam's WMD? Look at the historical background of the Iran/Iraq situation:

    In 1953, Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944, and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax"). Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil.

    Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After more than a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by popular vote. The new theocratic political system instituted some conservative Islamic reforms, as well as engaging in an anti-Western course, in particular against the United States, for its involvement in the 1953 coup which had toppled the elected government and fixed the Shah's repressive regime for more than 25 years. The new government inspired various groups considered by a a large part of the Western World to be fundamentalist. As a consequence, many countries, currently led by the USA, consider Iran to be a hostile power. In 1980 Iran was attacked by neighbouring Iraq and the destructive Iran-Iraq War continued until 1988. (Source)


    So what have we got? An elected Prime Minister (Mossadeq) is toppled with the help of the CIA, a cruel, ruthless dictator (Shah Pahlevi) is strongly supported for more than two decades until he is swept away by the hatred of his own people (who know about the role of the US regarding the Shah and Mossadeq), then another ruthless dictator (Saddam Hussein), who attacks Iran is strongly supported, even when he uses tabun, a nerve agent, and mustard gas against his ennemies and even parts of his people, the Kurds, and only loses support when he attacks another neighbor, Kuwait...

    Now, how did we get here? Ah, yes, convictions... what were those again?

    Don't get me wrong, I know the US are more on the side of democracy and freedom, that's good, but isn't it also true that if the support of a cruel dictator serves their interests better, they will also support him? What about Pinochet, Stroessner, et. al. in South America, or - just the latest example, the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan? I don't think that other nations are better in this respect or that other nations don't - first of all - make sure their own interests are protected (be it economical or political interests), but thinking the US are always on the side of the good guys and always follow their "convictions" (of democracy, justice, a world of human rights without torture etc.) is not very realistic.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #372  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    In 1953, Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944, and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax"). Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil.

    Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After more than a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by popular vote. The new theocratic political system instituted some conservative Islamic reforms, as well as engaging in an anti-Western course, in particular against the United States, for its involvement in the 1953 coup which had toppled the elected government and fixed the Shah's repressive regime for more than 25 years. The new government inspired various groups considered by a a large part of the Western World to be fundamentalist. As a consequence, many countries, currently led by the USA, consider Iran to be a hostile power. In 1980 Iran was attacked by neighbouring Iraq and the destructive Iran-Iraq War continued until 1988. (Source)


    So what have we got? An elected Prime Minister (Mossadeq) is toppled with the help of the CIA, a cruel, ruthless dictator (Shah Pahlevi) is strongly supported for more than two decades until he is swept away by the hatred of his own people (who know about the role of the US regarding the Shah and Mossadeq), then another ruthless dictator (Saddam Hussein), who attacks Iran is strongly supported, even when he uses tabun, a nerve agent, and mustard gas against his ennemies and even parts of his people, the Kurds, and only loses support when he attacks another neighbor, Kuwait...

    Now, how did we get here? Ah, yes, convictions... what were those again?

    Don't get me wrong, I know the US are more on the side of democracy and freedom, that's good, but isn't it also true that if the support of a cruel dictator serves their interests better, they will also support him? What about Pinochet, Stroessner, et. al. in South America, or - just the latest example, the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan? I don't think that other nations are better in this respect or that other nations don't - first of all - make sure their own interests are protected (be it economical or political interests), but thinking the US are always on the side of the good guys and always follow their "convictions" (of democracy, justice, a world of human rights without torture etc.) is not very realistic.
    Let's put your previous post regarding Iran into perspective. What was happening in the world as a whole during this time? Ah, yes, the cold war - do you suppose that had anything to do with who was or was not supported and what was allowed to take place during that time?

    And 1980 - remind me again how many hostages were taken from the US Embassy and what it took to secure their release or that climate existed at the time? You don't suppose that had anything to do the a response or lack thereof do you?

    I'm sure your intention was not to get into a ledger of the good vs the not so good/bad that the US has done in the world over the past 100 years so I'll leave it at that.

    Clearly you and I will have to agree to disagree as I have no intention of "coming to the dark side" (timely, don't you think) - nor do you
  13. #373  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    And by the way, help me see how your response has anything to do with the quote from my post - I see nothing about the Koran in your answer?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by treo2die4
    As for the Red Cross - from your very own post:

    "Red Cross backs claims of Koran abuse in US prison camp" so is it fact? You even sited "had never witnessed such incidents" - is it not possible that the detainees were trained to claim such things?
    I think the point I was trying to make (and it appears that it wasnt that clear) was that we 'know' that we are interrogating people at Gitmo. I also 'think' that we are using methods that go beyond what is accepted under the Geneva Convention because of whats been reported by the IRC and other sources (i.e.Army Sgt Erik Saar). That doesnt conclusivly lead to the issue of the Koran being flushed in the toilet but its circumstantial evidence to at least support the claim.
  14. #374  
    This kind of sums the situation up for me about Newsweek's story.
    http://www.markfiore.com/animation/why01.html
  15. #375  
    That was hilarious...I like the prison guard part ;-)
  16. #376  
    jeez - you guys are so serious here!

    and here I thought that the treo was about being cool fun
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  17. #377  
    Well, to tie everything together, I dropped my old 600 into the toilet last year...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18.    #378  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    jeez - you guys are so serious here!

    and here I thought that the treo was about being cool fun
    You must have the Off Topic area confused with the newbie thread. No one here takes anything seriously. Well except maybe for him, oh and him, and him, and maybe him...well nevermind
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #379  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    You must have the Off Topic area confused with the newbie thread. No one here takes anything seriously. Well except maybe for him, oh and him, and him, and maybe him...well nevermind
    lol
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9141516171819

Posting Permissions