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

[Comrade Tribune]

He also cannot count. In the post before, I used *four* sentences of my own, then I quoted the entire article2 of the Charter, which is another *eight* sentences.

[blackice]

Soldiers? what soldiers?

[bartman]

pardon my intrusion, i am new at this. i read the whole posts, all of them, and i just cant believe it. no one has offered any proof, besides what some newspapers claimed, that the prisoners have been treated poorly. everyone who has seen them, including the red cross, has said they are doing allright. they are living better then they would have been hiding in freezing caves in afghanastan, starving to death while dodging bombs. they are being treated almost to the letter of the geneva convention, and the only real reason we dont wan't to call them POW's is because legally that would legitamize Al Queda, and thus we couldn't treat them ass a terrorist organization. So none of you people arguing about the poor prisoners has a point at all.

And i'd like the guy who wrote the reply to the moral relativism post, who said that we should not infringe on national soviergnety (sp?) even if they are butchering their people, because they have a right to enact thier own laws... that is moral relativism in the grandest sense. You can live with your guilt, knowing that you had the power to save millions of innocent lives, lives of women and children starved to death, raped and murdered, and instead decided to not help in the name of national sovreignity? you are a sad poor excuse for a human being. no notion of national rights should ever be more powerful then even one persons life.

[blackice]

Cheers!!

[Fidel]

Roland, thank you for msging me on this brilliant thread.
One question for Chris, faded glories and the likes. Has Dubbya:
a) actually read Geneva Convention
b) gone wimpy
c) gone defetist
d) rejected oh-so-beloved unilateralism?
The last thing I read, your guvvament decided that they are, after all, POWs. So, how do you feel now, having to object (as a matter of principle and on the basis of your extensive legal expertise) to the position of your guvvament. Isn't thinking differently considered treason after 9/11?

cheers

[Docfeelgood]

Fvck'em!?

They wanna kill in the name of god?
well
We will hog tie and incarcerate in the name of justice!

MF are so eager to git to Alla, what do ya care?



Me? I would give them a one way ticket to paradise for free

[Roland]

Originally posted by LaRusso
Roland, thank you for msging me on this brilliant thread.

Holy crap, your reaction time sucks!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by LaRusso
Isn't thinking differently considered treason after 9/11?

They are building a new Office of Homeland Security to deal with that.

The traitors will be put safely behind barbed wire.

And Chris and FG might be among those who have it happen to them, if they get second thoughts about anything.

[Fidel]

cmon people, pop a line....
you supported your guvvament, it betrayed you.
what do you think of their spineless U-turn now?

[Docfeelgood]

This sacrilage act of killing has really put a test to my beliefs.

I value human life above all else, but these are not humans in my eyes.

I think THEY have the right idea " eye for an eye".

Send them to alla on a oneway ticket to hell.

[Daniel Khan]

Re: I wonder how Americans....

Well, if American soldiers had done the things that these guys did, I would fully expect them to be treated that way or worse. America has a responsibility to show the world that we mean business about this terrorist thing.

[rah]

Ok, let's look at the U-turn in a slightly different light.

Q. Why didn't we do it in the first place.
A. Because we wan't to interrogate them.
We wanted to make sure we wouldn't be hampered by basic things like their rights.
We wanted to keep them around.

Now the interrogation part. We have already interrogated them. And with most intelligence, the more time that has passed the less uselful the info is. So we don't have to worry about that anymore.

We don't want to release them. We can sidestep this one and say we're at war with them indefinately. Or more commonly, just keep argueing definitions.

Their rights, hahahahahahha, the government has been trampling over rights for years and that's for citizens. Much easier on prisoners. Especially if you claim them as POWs so the focus is diverted. Americans have a short attention span, and they will be quickly forgotten.

In summary, since it realy doesn't make any difference anymore, we might as well get whatever PR we can get out of it. I must admit, since their change in status, I've seen like zippo in the news about it, (after the initial flurry)

RAH

[Roland]

The bizarre thing is that it was a semi-u-turn that was half withdrawn later on. Intentional or based on incompetence, it is utter confusion.

And the PR game is lost. Huge minus, for gaining absolutely nothing.

[rah]

The true test will be whether anyone is talking about it /or even cares 30 days from now. Except for an occasional mention on page 10 of the papers, I think not. But we'll see.

RAH

And in the future, we can say that we did classify them as POW's so the PR will be in the future.

[Roland]

"The true test will be whether anyone is talking about it /or even cares 30 days from now. Except for an occasional mention on page 10 of the papers, I think not."

Are we talking about US media or non-US media ? Because following both, I am now convinced there are two earths.

"And in the future, we can say that we did classify them as POW's so the PR will be in the future."

May work for the US, but anyone with the slightest grudge against the US will have a long memory. And exactly that point will be just another lie that won't fly.... (rhyme unintended)