What Is The US Military Afraid Of?

>There's some scary thoughts going on here.

Good - you should be scared, bitch. I like that.

>1. There's a war, so anything is OK, including killing people

>you suspect of being the enemy.

HAHAHAHA. Yes, that is what happens in war. You kill the people you believe are your enemies without first conducting a trial.

Other than France, whcih fights wars with white flags, I don't know of any country which fights a war any other way. Do you?

>First, there is no war.

THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY SICK STATEMENT.

>A war requires an enemy state.

Says who? I think if an organized entity with nasty weapons is detonating bombs and killing thousands of innocent people across multiple continents, that's a fucking WAR!!!

>Second, even in war, you are not allowed to torture,

>interrogate or kill your prisoners of war.

There is a difference between prisoners of war and enemy combatants, and always has been. Too bad you never learned the difference, but your ignorance - just like your pussy leftist pacifistic fear - doesn't govern anything other than your own twitching scared hole

>2. We don't know what's going on at Guantanamo.

>

>We don't know for certain because the US military won't allow

>most of us to go there. The media, for example, is generally

>excluded. I wonder what they're trying to hide.

If you don't know, how can you say that there's anything improper going on?

>3. Bush has an approval rating of 60% so that makes it OK.

>

>Adolf Hitler was very popular too. So was Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden in some places.

Sorry to break it to you and say bad things about your hero, but Saddam Hussein wasn't popular. And comparing Bush to Hitler, Hussien and bin Laden syas more about your sicknesses than I could every say, but I'll keep trying.

And I just pointed out Bush's RISING popularity to show you how the more people like you scream, the more you turn other people off.

>5. I'm a dangerous loony irrelevant lefty liberal.

Yes - do you understand that even in your country, your views are hated?

And why don't you tell all the nice people here who don't follow Australian politics as closely as I do about how the Labor Party ahd to get rid of its leader because you were heading to humilatiing defeat in the elections, and the new leader has a criminal record and a history of saying things as shrill and stupid as you do.

I LOVE JOHN HOWARD.

>

>Compared to at least one person who's posted, that's a genuine

>compliment. I'd rather have principles and be able to tell

>the difference between right and wrong.

>

>

Do you really think they care or are they even told???

You kill the

>people you believe are your enemies without first conducting a

>trial.

In battle, yes. But not when they are captured. You should look at the Geneva Covnentions, to which the USA subscribes and which the USA has faithfully followed for several hundred years, including the Civil War. You cannot kill prisoners. Simple to understand.

>>First, there is no war.

>

>THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY SICK STATEMENT.

Oh yes? Where is this war? Where is the battlefield? Where are the troops. And, most importantly, WHERE IS THE ENEMY STATE?

>

>>Second, even in war, you are not allowed to torture,

>>interrogate or kill your prisoners of war.

>

>There is a difference between prisoners of war and enemy

>combatants, and always has been. Too bad you never learned

>the difference, but your ignorance - just like your pussy

>leftist pacifistic fear - doesn't govern anything other than

>your own twitching scared hole

Sorry, but you're wrong. An enemy combatant on the battlefield is fair game during the battle. When an enemy surrenders or is captured, there is no right to kill him, torture him, or interrogate him. Basic principles, faithfully followed by the USA for 200 years. Until now, apparently.

>

>>2. We don't know what's going on at Guantanamo.

>>

>>We don't know for certain because the US military won't

>allow

>>most of us to go there. The media, for example, is

>generally

>>excluded. I wonder what they're trying to hide.

>

>If you don't know, how can you say that there's anything

>improper going on?

Because what we do know is enough to show that it's improper.

Let's go just on what the US military has told us so far.

We know the prisoners are facing military tribunals.

We know that they face the death penalty or life iimprisonment if found guilty (of what, of course, is an interesting question, since the military hasn't even got around to working out what the charges might be yet).

We know they are kept in small cages barely big enough to lie down in.

We know they have been interrogated, without access to the usual safeguards.

That seems to be enough to be going on with. What else is going on that the US military is too afraid to let us know about?

>

>>3. Bush has an approval rating of 60% so that makes it OK.

>>

>>Adolf Hitler was very popular too. So was Saddam Hussein and

>Osama bin-Laden in some places.

>

>Sorry to break it to you and say bad things about your hero,

>but Saddam Hussein wasn't popular. And comparing Bush to

>Hitler, Hussien and bin Laden syas more about your sicknesses

>than I could every say, but I'll keep trying.

I compared Bush to these other leaders because you were stupid enough to say that what Bush does must be OK because he's very popular. Popularity does not determine what is right or wrong. Hitler was very popular - and very wrong. Just because Bush is popular doesn't make his policy right.

Now that wasn't very difficult to follow, was it?

>

>And I just pointed out Bush's RISING popularity to show you

>how the more people like you scream, the more you turn other

>people off.

>

So what? What on earth has that got to do with anything? If it is right to complain and protest about the illegal and immoral activities of the US in Guantanamo Bay, who cares if people like you are turned off? What do you suggest we do - sit back and do nothing because George Bush is popular? Do you have ANY sense of right and wrong?

>>5. I'm a dangerous loony irrelevant lefty liberal.

>

>Yes - do you understand that even in your country, your views

>are hated?

>

>And why don't you tell all the nice people here who don't

>follow Australian politics as closely as I do about how the

>Labor Party ahd to get rid of its leader because you were

>heading to humilatiing defeat in the elections, and the new

>leader has a criminal record and a history of saying things as

>shrill and stupid as you do.

>

And why don't you tell all the nice people here that Australia's policy in Iraq is unpopular, that 2/3 of the population according to the opinion polls are opposed to our invovlement in the Iraq war, and that this particular part of Howard's policies is not an election winner for him. His other policies probably are - but not this one, and he knows it.

Of course, what this has to do with anything in this thread is also difficult to follow. Even if John Howard is popular, it doesn't make his policies right for that reason alone.

>I LOVE JOHN HOWARD.

>

Well, bully for you. May I remind you that people in Germany loved Adolf Hitler too. Being loved by the people is not a mark of moral virtue. Franklin Roosevelt was loved by the people, not because he was charming and popular, but because he was a good and great leader who tried hard to restore American prosperity and prestige. He was right, but not because he was popular.

>>

>>Compared to at least one person who's posted, that's a

>genuine

>>compliment. I'd rather have principles and be able to tell

>>the difference between right and wrong.

Interesting, you haven't responded to this one. Presumably the reason is that you are unable to tell right from wrong.

>You kill the

>>people you believe are your enemies without first conducting

>a

>>trial.

>

>In battle, yes. But not when they are captured.

Has the U.S. killed any of its prisoners in Guantanamo? Or any other captured prisoners? No - so what are you talking about?

You should

>look at the Geneva Covnentions, to which the USA subscribes

>and which the USA has faithfully followed for several hundred

>years, including the Civil War. You cannot kill prisoners.

>Simple to understand.

Why are you babbling about this? The U.S. has killed no prisoners.

And are YOU aware that it is a basic principle of international law that the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to illegal combatants. If members of the Irish Republic Army are captured while trying to bomb a shopping mall - or the Spanish Government captures Basque terrorists doing the same thing - do you understand that the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to such individuals?

They are not soldiers; they are illegal combatants, and the Geneva Convention, on its face, is inapplicable. Why do you keep ignoring this?

>>>First, there is no war.

>>

>>THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY SICK STATEMENT.

>

>Oh yes? Where is this war? Where is the battlefield? Where

>are the troops. And, most importantly, WHERE IS THE ENEMY

>STATE?

Who the fuck ever said that you can only be at war with another country? Do you think that the IRA has been waging war? Do you think that Basque separatists have been waging war? Do you think that Hezbollah and Hamas are wagaing war? Ask any of their targets and you'll find out how incoherent it is to insist that you can only have a war with another country. Who told you that?

>Let's go just on what the US military has told us so far.

>

>We know the prisoners are facing military tribunals.

So what? What is wrong with military tribunals? They have existed forever. What country, in the middle of a miliary conflict, places captured enemy warriors into their civilian juducial system and holds trials that way? Which ones?

>We know they have been interrogated, without access to the

>usual safeguards.

If you think that the U.S. is going to - or should - refrain from interrogating enemies associated with terrorist groups, then you are advocating recklessly criminal behavior. These are not prisoners of war - they are illegal combatants with ties to terrorists groups, and there is no treaty that prevents interrogation of such individuals. If there were any such treaty, it would be a sick treaty and should be incinerated immediately.

>I compared Bush to these other leaders because you were stupid

>enough to say that what Bush does must be OK because he's very

>popular. Popularity does not determine what is right or

>wrong. Hitler was very popular - and very wrong. Just

>because Bush is popular doesn't make his policy right.

Popularity by itself may not determine what is right or wrong, but in a democracy, where leaders of a country are held accountable to their population through elections -- a principle which, rather critically, applies to George Bush but not to the tyrants you cite (Hitler dispensed with the election show once he assumed real power, and only then did the atrocities really start) -- the fact that a leader's popularity increases with his actions shows pretty clearly that his conduct is in accordance with the values of the population.

>So what? What on earth has that got to do with anything? If

>it is right to complain and protest about the illegal and

>immoral activities of the US in Guantanamo Bay, who cares if

>people like you are turned off? What do you suggest we do -

>sit back and do nothing because George Bush is popular? Do

>you have ANY sense of right and wrong?

See above. I have defended the treatment of terrorist illegal combatants as a matter of principle. I also pointed out how revolting your views are to most Americans. Don't pretend that because I did the latter, that somehow means I didn't do the former.

>And why don't you tell all the nice people here that

>Australia's policy in Iraq is unpopular, that 2/3 of the

>population according to the opinion polls are opposed to our

>invovlement in the Iraq war, and that this particular part of

>Howard's policies is not an election winner for him. His

>other policies probably are - but not this one, and he knows

>it.

He never backed down - not one iota - from his unyielding support of the war in Iraq. And he is headed to smahsing electoral success - so much so that your party is in complete disarray and in a state of utter humiliation. Period.

>>>Compared to at least one person who's posted, that's a

>>genuine

>>>compliment. I'd rather have principles and be able to tell

>>>the difference between right and wrong.

>

>Interesting, you haven't responded to this one. Presumably

>the reason is that you are unable to tell right from wrong.

There's nothing to respond to there - it's just name-calling. But I will say this. In terms of "right and wrong," I can think of no more reckless and criminally negligent view than yours - to pretend that the Western World is not at war with a highly organized, multi-national army of Islamic fundamentalists warriors whose goal is to destroy the West, and to urge that Western countries refrain from engaging in action necessary to prevent further attacks and to defeat that enemy.

If you want to understand right from wrong, begin with the unthinkable consequences from following your pacifistic, self-destructive course.

>Has the U.S. killed any of its prisoners in Guantanamo? Or

>any other captured prisoners? No - so what are you talking

>about?

....

>Why are you babbling about this? The U.S. has killed no

>prisoners.

November 30, 2003

Amnesty Criticizes U.S. for Afghan Deaths

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:32 p.m. ET

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Amnesty International criticized the U.S. military on Monday for failing to announce the results of a criminal investigation into the deaths of two Afghans at a prison inside Bagram air base a year ago.

The two men died about a week apart while in U.S. custody at the base north of Kabul, the Afghan capital, and official autopsies concluded their deaths were homicides.

The U.S. Army then announced a separate criminal investigation, but no reports on its progress or conclusions have been made public, Amnesty said.

The deceased were Mullah Habibullah, about 30 years old, who died on Dec. 3, 2002, and a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver, Dilawar, who died on Dec. 10, 2002. The U.S. autopsy reports found ``blunt force injuries'' in both cases. Like many Afghans, Dilawar only had one name.

``When apparent homicides occur in secret prisons, and promised investigations show no results, the country's cherished values of humane treatment and respect for the law are dishonored,'' William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in a written statement. ``The failure to account for the prisoners' deaths indicates a chilling disregard for the value of human life.''

Asked about the Amnesty report before its release, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said in Bagram on Saturday, ``I accept that people under custody died here. I deny that they were mistreated.'' Hilferty said more than 100 detainees are kept there now, adding: ``If we find the detainees are not anti-coalition and anti-Afghanistan, we let them go.''

Habibullah and Dilawar were among hundreds of people who have been held without charge and interrogated at Bagram air base, one of several overseas prisons operated by the United States, including one at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Amnesty said that interviews of former Bagram prisoners that were conducted by the human rights group and by journalists have shown that detainees were subjected to ill treatment that may constitute torture, including blindfolding, prolonged forced kneeling, sleep deprivation and the cruel use of shackles.

The alleged abuses took place at an interrogation section on the second floor of the Bagram detention facility, it said. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross are reportedly denied access to the area when they visit other parts of the facility, Amnesty said.

It's a shame that doug69 can't read, isn't it?

What are the deaths at Guantanamo? None yet, but the US military has said that prisoners in the camp face the death penalty if found guilty after their "trial". If the US goes through with that policy, they will have killed prisoners of war, on doug's analysis. Hence the reference to the Geneva Convention.

The IRA is an equally ludicrous analogy, and one that shows just how out of touch doug really is. The IRA was dealt with by the British Government through the criminal justice process. If an IRA suspect was accused of being involved in, say, a murder, he or she was charged with murder and tried as a criminal.

When Indonesia, Britain, and many other nations, deal with terrorists through the criminal justice process, why is the USA following a line normally expected of fascist dictatorships?

So I repeat my question: what is the US military afraid of? What is it trying to hide?

"What country, in the middle of a miliary conflict, places captured enemy warriors into their civilian juducial system and holds trials that way? Which ones?"

Well, let's take your assumption that there is a war on against terrorists.

in that case, the following countries have faced military conflicts against terrorists in the last 30 years:

Britain

Indonesia

Germany

Italy

Spain

India

And ALL of them - note that, doug, ALL OF THEM - tried terrorists in the civilian judicial system, giving all of them trials.

In your mindless anger and personal abuse you have probably forgotten that I began this thread by drawing the comparison between the USA and Indoneisa. Both have faced major terrorist outrages in the last 2 years. The USA has chosen to hold most of its terrorist suspects in detention in Guantanamo, with a view eventually to trying them before closed military tribunal with few safeguards. Indonesia, by contrast, has tried its terrorist suspects in open court, fully reported in the media, with full access to legal representation.

Makes you really wonder why it is that Indonesia is setting an example for the USA in how to conduct a fair and open judicial system.

lies after endless lies... where did you get your diploma? Romber Room?

how do you know what's NOT going on?

chase your tail around some more honey... it's what dogs to best -- and put a red bag on your head while you're at it -- I hear Fidel gets a hard one by that

Oh, and doug, here's an update on the latest opinion polls, taken just last weekend in the midst of the turmoil over the Labor leadership in Australia:

Labor 42%

Coalition (led by John Howard) 40%

John Howard's smashing triumph in the polls is far from assured. On these figures he would have lost an election held now.

As a postscript, and especially for the benefit of dough69 who obviously has absolutely no idea what's going on down at Guantanamo Bay:

Three US Senators (two Republicans and a Democrat) have just finished a tour of the prison. While commending the efficient running of the facility, they have issued an open letter to the Defense Secretary asking when the prisoners are either going to be charged with some offence or released.