[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The funny thing is Canada is activlely involved in all these very things in Afghanistan.[/quote]
Again, what Canada does is of no importance in the discussion. Note that we’re in Afghanistan as part of our U.N. and NATO engagements. The majority of Canadians favor pulling out our troops.
As for being involved in “all these things”, you’re making stuff up again. Unless you can point out our secret prison where we detain people indefinitely without recourse? And I’m aware of one case of torture for which the Prime Minister has publicly apologized to the victim and paid 10.5 millions in reparation.
I’d also like to know when we recently held a public execution, or decided to invade a country unilaterally after the UN refused to back us up.
If we’re “involved in all these things”, you should be able to put your money where you mouth is, right? Or is your foot taking up all the available room?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The funny thing is Canada is activlely involved in all these very things in Afghanistan.
Again, what Canada does is of no importance in the discussion. Note that we’re in Afghanistan as part of our U.N. and NATO engagements. The majority of Canadians favor pulling out our troops.
As for being involved in “all these things”, you’re making stuff up again. Unless you can point out our secret prison where we detain people indefinitely without recourse? And I’m aware of one case of torture for which the Prime Minister has publicly apologized to the victim and paid 10.5 millions in reparation.
I’d also like to know when we recently held a public execution, or decided to invade a country unilaterally after the UN refused to back us up.
If we’re “involved in all these things”, you should be able to put your money where you mouth is, right? Or is your foot taking up all the available room?
[/quote]
Of course Canada lets the US do the dirty work of detaining terrorist, Taliban and AQ prisoners. Are you bragging that Canada is two faced about this?
Do you think they should be released?
Do you think armed combatants captured on a foreign battlefield are entitled to the same rights as POW’s or true civilians?
Do you think they should be summarily executed?
Do you have a position or do you just want to criticize?
[quote]orion wrote:
…
He was talking about Guantanamo, not that Canada wipes the floor with the US in ice hockey…
…
[/quote]
WTF is wrong with Guantanamo? We have released plenty of people from that place and they have turned around and involved themselves in acts of terrorism.
The last time Austria was involved in a war they treated their prisoners far less humanely.
Too many people want to pretend that this is not a war and rules of civilian life should apply.
They don’t. Get over it.
It is hard to take anyone seriously that whines about Gitmo. That place is an island paradise. Those scum live more comfortable lives than our combat soldiers.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is hard to take anyone seriously that whines about Gitmo. That place is an island paradise.
It’s hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this.
Are you purposely focusing on the political presentation of how great Gitmo is or are you just trying to ignore the various issues related to Gitmo?[/quote]
I have already aked the pertinent questions with what to do with the prisoners.
The living conditions of the prison itself are excellent and the prisoners are treated well. Much better than many US prisons and most prisons around the world.
People try to pretend it is a house of horrors and expect their political opponents to recoil at the mention of the place because it has been so demonized.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
WTF is wrong with Guantanamo? [/quote]
How about actually charging them with something? Last I checked, you had no right arbitrarily detaining people indefinitely without charges.
But Gitmo is only the tip of the iceberg. The real horror show happens when you kidnap people and throw them in jails of “friendly” dictatorial regimes you overtly support (e.g: Egypt, Turkey, Morocco…)
Those that are innocent? Yes. Or are you entirely certain that every one of the people you’re holding are guilty of terrorism? If so, how do you know?
There’s currently a grey area concerning armed fighters who aren’t attached to a regular national army. While I don’t have a perfect solution to offer, treating them like objects or cattle is not the solution.
Innocent people might be detained for years (for life even) without recourse. Doesn’t that bother you? What if it was you or your wife or kids that was in that situation?
No. I’m not big on executions.
My position is that the country who claims to hold the moral high ground in its armed interventions should not stoop to using all the methods of dictators and other scum of the Earth. To put it more bluntly, your values and principles should show through your actions throughout the world and not simply be empty slogans.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
He was talking about Guantanamo, not that Canada wipes the floor with the US in ice hockey…
…
WTF is wrong with Guantanamo? We have released plenty of people from that place and they have turned around and involved themselves in acts of terrorism.
The last time Austria was involved in a war they treated their prisoners far less humanely.
.[/quote]
That is not entirely true.
Western POW were held according to the Geneva Convention, more or less, you might want to look up though what the Rheinwiesenlager were and how many Germans and Austrians died there.
You could go from there and examine what the percentage of American POWs dying on German care and the numbers on the American sides were.
You won`t however, because the results would be less Hollywood/Dineyland and more real world…
[quote]
Too many people want to pretend that this is not a war and rules of civilian life should apply.
.[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is hard to take anyone seriously that whines about Gitmo. That place is an island paradise.
It’s hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this.
Are you purposely focusing on the political presentation of how great Gitmo is or are you just trying to ignore the various issues related to Gitmo?
I have already aked the pertinent questions with what to do with the prisoners.
The living conditions of the prison itself are excellent and the prisoners are treated well. Much better than many US prisons and most prisons around the world.
People try to pretend it is a house of horrors and expect their political opponents to recoil at the mention of the place because it has been so demonized.
[/quote]
One thing I am sure about gitmo, the people in it aren’t in it because they had western style haircuts or there burquas didn’t quite cover down to the big toe. I think they should close gitmo and put the prisoners in a less known location.
Somewhere colder, perhaps with no media access. That’s what the Russians do, anybody ever heard from the two terrorists that seized the school in Chechnya that weren’t killed in the assault? I thought not. Nobody is pittying their rights.
Poor terrorists, they are so put upon.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Do you think armed combatants captured on a foreign battlefield are entitled to the same rights as POW’s or true civilians?[/quote]
This has been mentioned in previous trials concerning war crimes and the Geneva Conventions.
It is apparent that the conventions apply to everyone, no matter their role, though the classification of individuals depends on the circumstances. The government can work to decide which classification to apply, but they should not be attempting to exempt themselves from them all.
Once captured, whether civilian or not, signatory governments have responsibilities. Also, government leaders have the responsibility to ensure that all of this known by those responsible for handling the prisoners. This is probably part of why Bush recently made a statement concerning adherence to the conventions as directed by the supreme court.
The issue of proactive responsibility is one that has been ignored. Not only should torture and other illegal behaviors not be condoned or allowed, systems should be in place to protect against it and ensure the conventions are adhered to. Based on past abuses we have seen that this ball has been dropped… whether accidentally as the administration would claim it was just individuals getting carried away, or whether with a wink and a nod it was policy at a high level.
These are incredibly important issues and the fact that it is swept under the rug for political reasons is offensive to many people worldwide.
Sure, any prison if run well, and if prisoners are treated humanely, could be a tropical paradise, but that is hardly the issue at all. Neither is the issue how ones opponents treats prisoners… that just makes it even harder to stick to your principles and more admirable if you actually do.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I have already aked the pertinent questions with what to do with the prisoners.
And as soon as you address torture, invasions and capital punishment, we’ll be set.
Yes, a dog barking at someone is torture. Or is playing loud music? I forget.
WTF is wrong with an invasion if it is the right cause?
And who is getting the capital punishment? Saddam? Boo hoo. Cry me a river.
If you think these things flip flop our moral position when compared to Iran and the rest I don’t know what to say.
[/quote]
Your moral position compared to Iran is this:
You are the bully, they are the victim.
Mossadegh, the Sha, Hussein…
edit:
If Iran Were America (And We Were Iran): A Timeline
This is for anyone interested in understanding what American foreign policy has done to people in Iran. (For simplicity’s sake, I have combined the roles of the USA and the UK, as the USA was assuming control of the former British Empire at this time.)
1953: Coup in America
Dwight D. Eisenhower is elected President of the United States, a country that receives most of its income from oilfields in Pennsylvania and Texas. The oil is pumped and distributed by the Persian-American Oil Company, owned by Iran.
Fulfilling a major campaign promise, Eisenhower reviews the oil production-sharing agreements between Iran and the USA. As Iran is taking more than 90% of American oil revenues, Eisenhower attempts to renegotiate this arrangement on more even terms for his country.
Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran is outraged at this show of “American greed.” Instead of negotiating, Iran sends its intelligence agents to carry out a policy of regime change. They hire an assortment of American street gangs to do the grunt work.
Bombs destroy churches and community centers across the United States. Fliers and pamphlets appear everywhere, claiming that Eisenhower is a member of Communist Party USA. The Communists, according to the fliers, are destroying churches for Eisenhower to help liberate Americans from the “opiate of the masses.” Local newspapers, covertly funded by Iran, echo these ideas. American public opinion is inflamed against President Eisenhower.
The Iranians bribe unpatriotic generals like L.L. Limnitzer to lead the coup against Eisenhower. The Iranians want an authoritarian, fiercely anti-Communist dictator who will never attempt anything resembling nationalization of the American oilfields. After carefully weighing the options, Iran installs Senator Joseph McCarthy as their puppet king to rule the USA.
1953�??1979: The McCarthy Era
King Joe McCarthy rules with an iron fist for 26 years. Though initially reluctant to obey a foreign government, King Joe soon embraces his sweeping new powers, as well as the constant flow of Iranian aid and weapons that makes it all possible. Iranian intelligence agents create, for McCarthy’s regime, the Department to Surveil and Vet Americans for the King (SAVAK).
Hundreds of thousands of “suspected Communists” disappear from American society, in a general purge of teachers, newspaper reporters, and numerous government officials. It is rumored they are vanishing into a gulag of secret prisons in northern Alaska built by Brown & Root.
1978�??1979: The Christianist Revolution
Under SAVAK rules, large groups of Americans can only congregate in two places: pre-arranged, pro-McCarthy rallies, and houses of worship. As a result, revolutionary tendencies sprout and grow in churches, led by radical clerics Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jim Bakker. With other evangelical leaders, they form the Supreme Council for the Christian Revolution in America (SCCRA), or the “Christian Coalition.”
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Do you think armed combatants captured on a foreign battlefield are entitled to the same rights as POW’s or true civilians?
This has been mentioned in previous trials concerning war crimes and the Geneva Conventions.
It is apparent that the conventions apply to everyone, no matter their role, though the classification of individuals depends on the circumstances. The government can work to decide which classification to apply, but they should not be attempting to exempt themselves from them all.
…[/quote]
I think abiding by the treating when the other party doesn’t invalidates much of the purpose.
When the other side is beheading and drilling holes in skulls I get infuriated when people try to put the bad guys and the US on the same moral ground.
I do not want the US held prisoners treated sadistically but at the same time I don’t want the enemy to get any advantage. Sleep deprivation and intimidation has caused some of these guys to talk. The Geneva Convention does not allow for any interrogation and does not apply to the situation we find ourselves in.
I think generally we have been doing it correctly except for some missteps.
One thing I am sure about gitmo, the people in it aren’t in it because they had western style haircuts or there burquas didn’t quite cover down to the big toe. I think they should close gitmo and put the prisoners in a less known location.
[/quote]
They were in it for all kinds of reasons.
Reason number one so far seems to be being at the wrong place at the wrong time or having enemies that would gladly sell you for 5000$.
One thing I am sure about gitmo, the people in it aren’t in it because they had western style haircuts or there burquas didn’t quite cover down to the big toe. I think they should close gitmo and put the prisoners in a less known location.
They were in it for all kinds of reasons.
Reason number one so far seems to be being at the wrong place at the wrong time or having enemies that would gladly sell you for 5000$.
[/quote]
That is bullshit. We released all the “innocent” ones and many went back to their terrorist ways.
One thing I am sure about gitmo, the people in it aren’t in it because they had western style haircuts or there burquas didn’t quite cover down to the big toe. I think they should close gitmo and put the prisoners in a less known location.
They were in it for all kinds of reasons.
Reason number one so far seems to be being at the wrong place at the wrong time or having enemies that would gladly sell you for 5000$.
[/quote]
And you have proof of this I am sure. Please, at least display some links that demostrate this very “fact”.
You know I think the collective I.Q. of this forum is starting to hit rock bottom. The goal seems rather than discuss and argue, has become to berate and insult. Beat the guy next to you down.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think abiding by the treating when the other party doesn’t invalidates much of the purpose.
When the other side is beheading and drilling holes in skulls I get infuriated when people try to put the bad guys and the US on the same moral ground.
I do not want the US held prisoners treated sadistically but at the same time I don’t want the enemy to get any advantage. Sleep deprivation and intimidation has caused some of these guys to talk. The Geneva Convention does not allow for any interrogation and does not apply to the situation we find ourselves in.
I think generally we have been doing it correctly except for some missteps.[/quote]
Zap, thanks for a real answer.
Personally, I think the issue is that the Geneva Conventions apply to armed conflicts, whether anyone likes that fact or not. I suspect that is why the supreme court issued a rebuke in this matter.
Anyway, on another note, I think it is difficult to claim the moral high ground if you stray off of that high ground from time to time. Moral high ground isn’t something that is supposed to be there for convenience.
Now, to agree with you, I do think that the terrorists and so forth are sinking way lower when it comes to vacating the moral high ground, but unless you want to brand yourself a relativist, what they do should have no bearing on our morals… whether we are furious or not.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think abiding by the treating when the other party doesn’t invalidates much of the purpose. [/quote]
It’s not a “treating”, it’s a set of principles civilized people you should abide by even when the other side won’t return the favor. To say that Gitmo is non-issue is like saying that stealing from thieves or raping rapers is OK.
