I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Chris 62
All of you, wake up and smell the coffee, these sh1theads are killers, that would murder you in a heartbeat, and we will deal with them accordingly.

Don't you think the Islamic fundamentalists might be saying the same thing about you?

[TheBirdMan]

Finnish Foreign Minister criticizes treatment of Al-Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo

If we talked about US prisoners, the US Foreing Minister would act like a lunatic.

And the danish FM would still sit - quiet - waving with his little tail for his US master.

[uh Clem]

They're not "mad dogs," and they're no more "animals" than anyone else. Dehumanizing your enemy makes fighting him a much easier job, but that doesn't make the statements one makes about him any truer.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
To what it are you refering to? The daily calls to prayer? The three meals a day? The Korans that have been provided? I'm kind of curious which "it" you are refering to so that we can stop doing it immediately.

Dino, you're an intelligent person, don't be deliberately obtuse just to prove a point.
The 'it' to which I refer was the 'poor' treatment of captives. The americans in this thread complaining about PoWs in Vietnam etc. seem to think that because they were treated thus, it somehow makes it 'ok'. That's revenge, and you aren't officially doing that. You had a position of 'right' when this began, and Bush doesn't seem to bothered whether he keeps it.
*feels sympathy for victims of terrorism for any morons who might beleive I don't*

[TheBirdMan]

Agree Wombat and Clem.

[Sava]

The US should clone Stalin and make him the warden of that prison.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Don't you think the Islamic fundamentalists might be saying the same thing about you?

When I go about blowing up buildings and smashing planes, you may have a slight point, but not before.

They're not "mad dogs," and they're no more "animals" than anyone else. Dehumanizing your enemy makes fighting him a much easier job, but that doesn't make the statements one makes about him any truer.

And yet another of the "hate Chris" brigade is heard from.

Did they:

Join a terrorist organization with the express purpose of killing those that don't bow to their demands?

Hide in caves in a nation that was not their own, serving a man who preaches only hate and death to those who don't agree with him?

Did they not try to kill everyone they could, they they deemed unworthy?

Did they not state they would try to crash the planes they were being flown to Cuba in?

Did they not swear to kill an American while in captivity?

Your compassion seems strangly out of place in light of these facts, now doesn't it?

Animals they are, and yet we still treat em better then they idiot they followed, the edtorial in the Mirror was factually incorrect, and incredibly biased, but you wouldn't see that, now would you?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Chris 62
When I go about blowing up buildings and smashing planes, you may have a slight point, but not before.

I didn't mean you personally

I meant you as in the US or westerners in general.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Chris 62

And yet another of the "hate Chris" brigade is heard from.

And thus the persecution complex manifests.

Hey Chris! They're all against you

[uh Clem]

Did they:
Join a terrorist organization with the express purpose of killing those that don't bow to their demands?
Hide in caves in a nation that was not their own, serving a man who preaches only hate and death to those who don't agree with him?
Did they not try to kill everyone they could, they they deemed unworthy?
Did they not state they would try to crash the planes they were being flown to Cuba in?

None of this makes them "mad dogs." (And BTW, they're not guilty just because Rummy says so.) They're entitled to certain protections irrespective of who they are or what they may have done, not from "compassion," but because WE have standards to which we adhere. The protections for them assure protections for everyone else. By the same logic, attacks against giving them those protections are attacks against against everyone else's freedom as well.

A few hundred losers in a camp in Cuba are nowhere near as big a threat to this society as self-righteous hysteria is.

Incidentally, I didn't say that I necessarily think that they have in fact been abused. I agree that these prisoners deserve special handling, but I'm also glad that human rights groups are watching closely (or as closely as they can).

[Dis]

I have a feeling if we put them up in a holiday inn there would still be complaints

people complain about stupid things because they are whiney losers with no life.

So I suggest the U.S. buy a holiday inn in New York City and put all the terrorists up there. Maybe then I can get some peace and quiet.

[Faeelin]

A lot of the people here seem to be a little slow, so I"ll explain why we've been leery of giving them pow status. If we give them that, we can't interrogate them, according to the Geneva convention.

That convention, BTW, was designed to deal with a world where people didn't crash into buildings for their god. it's also almost 100 years old. So I sugest that we update the convention. Since, you know, things have changed since then.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Faeelin
A lot of the people here seem to be a little slow, so I"ll explain why we've been leery of giving them pow status. If we give them that, we can't interrogate them, according to the Geneva convention.

That convention, BTW, was designed to deal with a world where people didn't crash into buildings for their god. it's also almost 100 years old. So I sugest that we update the convention. Since, you know, things have changed since then.

When did the Geneva convention ever state that you can't interrogate POWs? It only says that you can't compel them to answer, except for their name, rank, and sexual orientation.

[Dis]

sexual orientation. good one

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


When did the Geneva convention ever state that you can't interrogate POWs? It only says that you can't compel them to answer, except for their name, rank, and sexual orientation.

"Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Routine law enforcement custodial interrogations fall under the "any other form of coercion" - you can't even discuss charging them criminally and offering a plea bargain for cooperation.