Treatment of prisoners (yep, those ones...) - Page 8

Ronn_Bman · 01-25-2002, 04:32 PM

On POWs from the Geneva Convention:

Article IV

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

ARTICLE XVII

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.

Admittedly the terrorists aren't uniformed soldiers, so they have to qualify differently, but I don't think they even meet the definition under Article IV-2-a,b,c or d. Especially not d!

Under Article XVII, if they were POWs, they could lose their status by refusing to answer the listed questions.

And, by the way, where are their required Taliban/Al-Queta ID cards?

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Sir Taliesin · 01-25-2002, 04:50 PM

While these vermin may be interrogated, I can pretty much assure you that they won't be tortured. All will either
be let go or tried either by Military Courts Martial or Military Tribunial (doesn't matter to me which) and punished. The fact that the news media is now all over this will pretty much guarantee that.

As for sending the Brits back, I'm sure that if the British Government were to ask for them, we'd turn them over. The British Government could do the interrogations then (it would be the same as if we had done it).

I have a question for the British here (please don't take it as a flame or anything. PLEASE, PLEASE!). Why won't the British Government send the Mullah of the Finsbury Park Mosque back to Yeman to face trail for alleged terrorist acts in that country. I believe he has been charged with at least 16 counts of Terrorism, to include bombings? Again, this is NOT a flame. Just asking a question.

P.S. If you haven't heard about the Mullah thing, here is a report on it that aired a couple of nights back on MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.com/news/693638.asp?0dm=C19SN

Sir Taliesin · 01-25-2002, 04:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
On POWs from the Geneva Convention:

Article IV

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

ARTICLE XVII

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.

Admittedly the terrorists aren't uniformed soldiers, so they have to qualify differently, but I don't think they even meet the definition under Article IV-2-a,b,c or d. Especially not d!

Under Article XVII, if they were POWs, they could lose their status by refusing to answer the listed questions.

And, by the way, where are their required Taliban/Al-Queta ID cards?

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

I don't see anywhere in here that they can't be interrogated. All it says is that they don't have to answer any other questions than those above, if they don't won't too, and that they can't be forced to answer. That doesn't mean we can't ask other questions(as some one, earlier alluded too). Just means that they don't have to answer them. No one is pulling their fingernails out or giving them the Chinese Water Torture. We don't operate that way.

Ryanamur · 01-25-2002, 06:29 PM

Thanks Ronn,

I guess having not read the GC for about 7 years some misconseptions set in. I'm sorry for misleading you on the interrogation issue (Sir Taliesin, when you target me, don't feel obligated to camouflage it, I'm old enough to take responsibility for my actions and for what I say [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

Now, back to the Charter. Al-Quedans would be considered POW under provision (1) as a volunteer corps fighting alongside the army.

Another note on Ronn's quote: The card. I was surprised to read about it. So, I took my old Military ID card and guess what, it doesn't have all the information required and it's not of the appropriate dimensions. That would mean that no Canadians could ever be taken POW (also, I wonder if every US soldier had a card of that dimension and containing all that info during the Vietnam and the Gulf war!)

John D Harris · 01-25-2002, 06:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Lanesra:

Also can anyone tell me why the American Taliban guy was sent to the US while the British ones were sent to cuba?

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Lanesra ]

Good question, but first he is an American Al-queda (spelling of your choice inserted here) not a Taliban. He should of had his citizenship revoked then shipped off to Cuba. Under US law taking arms up against the USA is one of the reasons your citizenship can be revoked.

Sir Taliesin · 01-25-2002, 07:12 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Ryanamur:
Thanks Ronn,

I guess having not read the GC for about 7 years some misconseptions set in. I'm sorry for misleading you on the interrogation issue (Sir Taliesin, when you target me, don't feel obligated to camouflage it, I'm old enough to take responsibility for my actions and for what I say [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

I know you can.

That wasn't the reason I didn't identify you. I was at work and didn't have time to go back and see.

who had said it. That was all.

Garnet FalconDance · 01-25-2002, 07:14 PM

After I read this thread this morn and got all caught up, I finished reading the newspaper. Of course, there was an article on the Taliban/Al Quaida prisoners, their treatment, etc. It was quite clear that there are more permanent (relatively speaking) facilities for their internment are being built--and they even get air conditioning!

But the thing that really stuck in my mind is the fact that, while these individuals were part of a group who actively sought the harm and/or annihilation of any American possible, they have better medical care than my own children who are many generation native born Americans! Doctors and nurses on compound 24/7, free of charge. I don't give a rat's ass at this point about the Geneva Convention, rather we officially declared war against the country or against the governing body or even if their beard were shaved! These individuals are *NOT* being mistreated!!! Their freedom has been curtailed, yes. However, they now have their very own US Muslim chaplain to lead them in prayer and better living conditions they may have ever known in some cases---***all at the expense of ME and YOU and the survivors of the New York and Pennsylvania tragedies.***

While I am not a warmonger and I do uphold the laws if at all possible, I find that in this particular circumstance I cannot be objective.

IMO (never humble), let them rot in a ditch somewhere rather than keep them in fine style.

The media needs to back off and shut up.

And the world community--if you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Put up or shut up would be my advice to you.

John D Harris · 01-25-2002, 07:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by fable:
Huh? When Reagan took the White House, the Republicans recaptured the Congress for the first time in more than fifty years. Don't take my word for it: look it up. They held it through both terms, and had a landslide majority in both cases. They voted in all the spending bills.

Edit: And for the record, I didn't vote for Carter.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ][/QB]

Double HUH? check your history the Republicans won the Senate Only not Congress! The Republicans did not win Congress until 1994. The same time the deficit started coming down.
Check the constitution any bills pertaining to monies MUST originate in the House of Reps. Until 1994 the Dems controled Congress and we had growing deficits coincidence?.....Mmmmmmm you decide.
And for the record Carter was the only Dem I'd ever even concider voting for, for president! He is an honest Man!

Sazerac · 01-25-2002, 07:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:
After I read this thread this morn and got all caught up, I finished reading the newspaper. Of course, there was an article on the Taliban/Al Quaida prisoners, their treatment, etc. It was quite clear that there are more permanent (relatively speaking) facilities for their internment are being built--and they even get air conditioning!

But the thing that really stuck in my mind is the fact that, while these individuals were part of a group who actively sought the harm and/or annihilation of any American possible, they have better medical care than my own children who are many generation native born Americans! Doctors and nurses on compound 24/7, free of charge. I don't give a rat's ass at this point about the Geneva Convention, rather we officially declared war against the country or against the governing body or even if their beard were shaved! These individuals are *NOT* being mistreated!!! Their freedom has been curtailed, yes. However, they now have their very own US Muslim chaplain to lead them in prayer and better living conditions they may have ever known in some cases---***all at the expense of ME and YOU and the survivors of the New York and Pennsylvania tragedies.***

While I am not a warmonger and I do uphold the laws if at all possible, I find that in this particular circumstance I cannot be objective.

IMO (never humble), let them rot in a ditch somewhere rather than keep them in fine style.

The media needs to back off and shut up.

And the world community--if you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Put up or shut up would be my advice to you.

AMEN! I'm so glad someone said this! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

-Sazerac

/)eathKiller · 01-25-2002, 07:58 PM

What you have wrong here ALL OF YOU is that NO WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED. Only Congress has the power and congress has not deemed it necessary for war to be declared. THe president of the united states. as the commander in cheif has been granded 90 day (it is extendable) acess to kick whatever countries ass he deems fit. The word WAR is actually an IDIOM which is being used to represent "OUR KICKING THE ASS OF"
And no Im not being indescreit. I'm sorry but there are American Prisoners in LOUSISIANA who are being treated more lowly than those of X-ray

Listen to Red-Blue Flare and Me, we both live down the street from the damn place! Hes practically right next to it! If you dont want to listen to the truth THEN FINE but know that these men are being treated better than they ever have in their lives! and They are not prisoners of war, if they are soldiers for a quazi terrorist group then THEY are catagorized as EXTREMIST GOONS. Which labels them as pretty much monkeys. WE'RE EVEN INSTALLING AIR-CONDITIONERS for the love of GOD! and we let the RED CROSS in even through we didnt have to! and now everyone is saying WAR WAR WAR...

what part of there was NO WAR dont you people understand. Just alot of fighting involving us and another country. Im sure that if the Al Queda captured Americans... OH IM SORRY ... THEY DID... they locked them in a downstairs CELLAR with no food or oxygen and they barley escaped with their lives! At least WE were so good enough as to put them on the best damn peice of America on earth! GTMO! well not techincally a peice of america, but if its gotta MIckey Ds and some guys in uniform thats close enough!

and CAGES! who came up with that word? The BBC is always trying to dig up DIRT on things you'd LEAST expect to be BAD...

We're not even CLOSE TO HALF BAD!

DAMNIT we're Over-humane!!

01-25-2002, 04:32 PM	#71
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	On POWs from the Geneva Convention: Article IV A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. ARTICLE XVII 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. Admittedly the terrorists aren't uniformed soldiers, so they have to qualify differently, but I don't think they even meet the definition under Article IV-2-a,b,c or d. Especially not d! Under Article XVII, if they were POWs, they could lose their status by refusing to answer the listed questions. And, by the way, where are their required Taliban/Al-Queta ID cards? Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War [ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

01-25-2002, 04:50 PM	#72
Sir Taliesin Silver Dragon Join Date: March 4, 2001 Location: Knoxville, TN USA Age: 60 Posts: 1,641	While these vermin may be interrogated, I can pretty much assure you that they won't be tortured. All will either be let go or tried either by Military Courts Martial or Military Tribunial (doesn't matter to me which) and punished. The fact that the news media is now all over this will pretty much guarantee that. As for sending the Brits back, I'm sure that if the British Government were to ask for them, we'd turn them over. The British Government could do the interrogations then (it would be the same as if we had done it). I have a question for the British here (please don't take it as a flame or anything. PLEASE, PLEASE!). Why won't the British Government send the Mullah of the Finsbury Park Mosque back to Yeman to face trail for alleged terrorist acts in that country. I believe he has been charged with at least 16 counts of Terrorism, to include bombings? Again, this is NOT a flame. Just asking a question. P.S. If you haven't heard about the Mullah thing, here is a report on it that aired a couple of nights back on MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.com/news/693638.asp?0dm=C19SN __________________ Sir Taliesin<br /><br />Hello... Good bye.

01-25-2002, 04:56 PM	#73
Sir Taliesin Silver Dragon Join Date: March 4, 2001 Location: Knoxville, TN USA Age: 60 Posts: 1,641	quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: On POWs from the Geneva Convention: Article IV A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. ARTICLE XVII 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. Admittedly the terrorists aren't uniformed soldiers, so they have to qualify differently, but I don't think they even meet the definition under Article IV-2-a,b,c or d. Especially not d! Under Article XVII, if they were POWs, they could lose their status by refusing to answer the listed questions. And, by the way, where are their required Taliban/Al-Queta ID cards? Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War [ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] I don't see anywhere in here that they can't be interrogated. All it says is that they don't have to answer any other questions than those above, if they don't won't too, and that they can't be forced to answer. That doesn't mean we can't ask other questions(as some one, earlier alluded too). Just means that they don't have to answer them. No one is pulling their fingernails out or giving them the Chinese Water Torture. We don't operate that way. __________________ Sir Taliesin<br /><br />Hello... Good bye.

01-25-2002, 06:29 PM	#74
Ryanamur Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: March 29, 2001 Location: Montréal, Canada Age: 49 Posts: 1,763	Thanks Ronn, I guess having not read the GC for about 7 years some misconseptions set in. I'm sorry for misleading you on the interrogation issue (Sir Taliesin, when you target me, don't feel obligated to camouflage it, I'm old enough to take responsibility for my actions and for what I say [img]smile.gif[/img] ). Now, back to the Charter. Al-Quedans would be considered POW under provision (1) as a volunteer corps fighting alongside the army. Another note on Ronn's quote: The card. I was surprised to read about it. So, I took my old Military ID card and guess what, it doesn't have all the information required and it's not of the appropriate dimensions. That would mean that no Canadians could ever be taken POW (also, I wonder if every US soldier had a card of that dimension and containing all that info during the Vietnam and the Gulf war!) __________________ An idiot will only play Russian roulette with an automatic pistol! Thank God they only do it once! <img border=\"0\" title=\"\" alt=\"[Smile]\" src=\"smile.gif\" />

01-25-2002, 06:53 PM	#75
John D Harris Ninja Storm Shadow Join Date: March 27, 2001 Location: Northport,Alabama, USA Age: 62 Posts: 3,577	quote: Originally posted by Lanesra: Also can anyone tell me why the American Taliban guy was sent to the US while the British ones were sent to cuba? [ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Lanesra ] Good question, but first he is an American Al-queda (spelling of your choice inserted here) not a Taliban. He should of had his citizenship revoked then shipped off to Cuba. Under US law taking arms up against the USA is one of the reasons your citizenship can be revoked. __________________ Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts

01-25-2002, 07:12 PM	#76
Sir Taliesin Silver Dragon Join Date: March 4, 2001 Location: Knoxville, TN USA Age: 60 Posts: 1,641	quote: Originally posted by Ryanamur: Thanks Ronn, I guess having not read the GC for about 7 years some misconseptions set in. I'm sorry for misleading you on the interrogation issue (Sir Taliesin, when you target me, don't feel obligated to camouflage it, I'm old enough to take responsibility for my actions and for what I say [img]smile.gif[/img] ). I know you can. That wasn't the reason I didn't identify you. I was at work and didn't have time to go back and see. who had said it. That was all. __________________ Sir Taliesin<br /><br />Hello... Good bye.

01-25-2002, 07:14 PM	#77
Garnet FalconDance Mephistopheles Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: deep within the sylvan splendor.... Age: 60 Posts: 1,443	After I read this thread this morn and got all caught up, I finished reading the newspaper. Of course, there was an article on the Taliban/Al Quaida prisoners, their treatment, etc. It was quite clear that there are more permanent (relatively speaking) facilities for their internment are being built--and they even get air conditioning! But the thing that really stuck in my mind is the fact that, while these individuals were part of a group who actively sought the harm and/or annihilation of any American possible, they have better medical care than my own children who are many generation native born Americans! Doctors and nurses on compound 24/7, free of charge. I don't give a rat's ass at this point about the Geneva Convention, rather we officially declared war against the country or against the governing body or even if their beard were shaved! These individuals are NOT being mistreated!!! Their freedom has been curtailed, yes. However, they now have their very own US Muslim chaplain to lead them in prayer and better living conditions they may have ever known in some cases---*all at the expense of ME and YOU and the survivors of the New York and Pennsylvania tragedies.* While I am not a warmonger and I do uphold the laws if at all possible, I find that in this particular circumstance I cannot be objective. IMO (never humble), let them rot in a ditch somewhere rather than keep them in fine style. The media needs to back off and shut up. And the world community--if you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Put up or shut up would be my advice to you. __________________ "Nature tells every secret once." Ralph Waldo Emerson

01-25-2002, 07:35 PM	#78
John D Harris Ninja Storm Shadow Join Date: March 27, 2001 Location: Northport,Alabama, USA Age: 62 Posts: 3,577	quote: Originally posted by fable: Huh? When Reagan took the White House, the Republicans recaptured the Congress for the first time in more than fifty years. Don't take my word for it: look it up. They held it through both terms, and had a landslide majority in both cases. They voted in all the spending bills. Edit: And for the record, I didn't vote for Carter. [ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ][/QB] Double HUH? check your history the Republicans won the Senate Only not Congress! The Republicans did not win Congress until 1994. The same time the deficit started coming down. Check the constitution any bills pertaining to monies MUST originate in the House of Reps. Until 1994 the Dems controled Congress and we had growing deficits coincidence?.....Mmmmmmm you decide. And for the record Carter was the only Dem I'd ever even concider voting for, for president! He is an honest Man! __________________ Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts

01-25-2002, 07:42 PM	#79
Sazerac Ironworks Moderator Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Monroe, LA Age: 60 Posts: 7,387	quote: Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance: After I read this thread this morn and got all caught up, I finished reading the newspaper. Of course, there was an article on the Taliban/Al Quaida prisoners, their treatment, etc. It was quite clear that there are more permanent (relatively speaking) facilities for their internment are being built--and they even get air conditioning! But the thing that really stuck in my mind is the fact that, while these individuals were part of a group who actively sought the harm and/or annihilation of any American possible, they have better medical care than my own children who are many generation native born Americans! Doctors and nurses on compound 24/7, free of charge. I don't give a rat's ass at this point about the Geneva Convention, rather we officially declared war against the country or against the governing body or even if their beard were shaved! These individuals are NOT being mistreated!!! Their freedom has been curtailed, yes. However, they now have their very own US Muslim chaplain to lead them in prayer and better living conditions they may have ever known in some cases---*all at the expense of ME and YOU and the survivors of the New York and Pennsylvania tragedies.* While I am not a warmonger and I do uphold the laws if at all possible, I find that in this particular circumstance I cannot be objective. IMO (never humble), let them rot in a ditch somewhere rather than keep them in fine style. The media needs to back off and shut up. And the world community--if you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Put up or shut up would be my advice to you. AMEN! I'm so glad someone said this! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] -Sazerac __________________ "And all my days are trances, and all my nightly dreams, Are where thy grey eye glances, and where thy footstep gleams, In what ethereal dances, by what eternal streams..."

01-25-2002, 07:58 PM	#80
/)eathKiller Dracolisk Join Date: January 5, 2002 Location: Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Age: 38 Posts: 6,043	What you have wrong here ALL OF YOU is that NO WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED. Only Congress has the power and congress has not deemed it necessary for war to be declared. THe president of the united states. as the commander in cheif has been granded 90 day (it is extendable) acess to kick whatever countries ass he deems fit. The word WAR is actually an IDIOM which is being used to represent "OUR KICKING THE ASS OF" And no Im not being indescreit. I'm sorry but there are American Prisoners in LOUSISIANA who are being treated more lowly than those of X-ray Listen to Red-Blue Flare and Me, we both live down the street from the damn place! Hes practically right next to it! If you dont want to listen to the truth THEN FINE but know that these men are being treated better than they ever have in their lives! and They are not prisoners of war, if they are soldiers for a quazi terrorist group then THEY are catagorized as EXTREMIST GOONS. Which labels them as pretty much monkeys. WE'RE EVEN INSTALLING AIR-CONDITIONERS for the love of GOD! and we let the RED CROSS in even through we didnt have to! and now everyone is saying WAR WAR WAR... what part of there was NO WAR dont you people understand. Just alot of fighting involving us and another country. Im sure that if the Al Queda captured Americans... OH IM SORRY ... THEY DID... they locked them in a downstairs CELLAR with no food or oxygen and they barley escaped with their lives! At least WE were so good enough as to put them on the best damn peice of America on earth! GTMO! well not techincally a peice of america, but if its gotta MIckey Ds and some guys in uniform thats close enough! and CAGES! who came up with that word? The BBC is always trying to dig up DIRT on things you'd LEAST expect to be BAD... We're not even CLOSE TO HALF BAD! DAMNIT we're Over-humane!! __________________ [img]\"http://membres.lycos.fr/th8or/ZeroSigForIronworks.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> o.o;

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Okaaaay... Bible, Shakespeare get Japanese manga treatment	Dreamer128	General Discussion	2	03-28-2007 08:24 AM
Ethical treatment, what's your opinion?	PurpleXVI	General Discussion	16	02-01-2007 07:47 PM
US treatment of prisoners (actual video footage)	shamrock_uk	General Discussion	118	05-23-2004 11:47 AM
Cancer treatment	Donut	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	43	12-03-2002 07:30 PM
anthrax treatment, your thots, anyone care, tell me	J.J.	General Discussion	8	10-18-2001 01:25 PM