Clusterheadaches.com Message Board


    
      
        Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2006 General Board Posts >> The "Other" NY Times Article
        
(Message started by: paulc on Sep 8^th, 2006, 7:37am)

Title: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by paulc on Sep 8^th, 2006, 7:37am

Shortcut to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/08legal.html?th&emc=th

This one scares me too! It woud allow torure, though a euphanism is used and combined with the other article I see a dangerous theme emerging from the GOP and when our survival was really in doubt during WWII, such proposals were not made by the government. When the enemies rights are taken away, so are those of the citizens. I don't think that it is a fantasy that, should laws like this get passed, criticizing those in power will become a crime. If we didn't need such laws during WWII, when we were fighting the Axis (which, at times, had the power to really win the war). America certainly does not need such laws to fight a relatively small number of terrorists who's major weapon is an Ak-47.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by maffumatt on Sep 8^th, 2006, 7:57am

PaulC is CHTom. anyone remember him?

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Bob P on Sep 8^th, 2006, 8:28am

Quote:

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.
For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

The AlQueda/insurgent bunch are not protected by the Geneva Conventions!

Nor are they afforded the right to a trial by their peers. That is a Constitutional right afforded US citizens.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Goblin on Sep 8^th, 2006, 8:57am

on 09/08/06 at 07:37:14, paulc wrote:

America certainly does not need such laws to fight a relatively small number of terrorists who's major weapon is an Ak-47.

So you are saying IED's and Suicide vests are just a minor inconvience? Also the Airliners hijacked and flown into buildings just a Minor weapon?
The AK is the minor weapon not repeat NOT the major weapon! If given the chance they would use Drity Bombs, Chemicals, Bio weapons also I am guessing also a minor deal? Does anyone else here understand the constitution applies to U.S. citizens, and Legal guests of the country, not Illegals or Terrorists!!!!! As far as I am concerned those terrorists (not following the Geneva Convention) when they Torture and behead prisoners and blow up civilians Can rot in HE11 !!!! Why should we give them rights of a U.S. citizen? Even the Geneva Convention doesnt grant them rights but we are supposed to? Now before you got off half cocked I am talking about the terrorists and so called enemy combatants not the entire Nation of Islam the extremests that uses women and children as shields, and straps bombs onto kids, and attack people even of there own faith in the name of there view of their religion. oh and also applies to us born christian terrorists such as Terry Nichols and such I know how some like to go to the not all terrorists are Muslim thing. If they hide within the population and committ acts of terror they deserve what they get. No pity here sorry!

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by brewcrew on Sep 8^th, 2006, 9:46am

on 09/08/06 at 07:57:23, maffumatt wrote:

PaulC is CHTom. anyone remember him?

Say, I didn't know that. I do, however, know that he doesn't respond to thoughtful, kindly worded PM's.

That kinda pisses me off.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by roy21302 on Sep 8^th, 2006, 12:45pm

Paul,
It is very easy to sit in your home or office and read articles, or watch News clips on TV of events going on in various parts of the world. The People carrying out these act do not behave within the l rules of engagement and don't seem to have done so since the end of WW11. Since that time the world has seen a growth in the Terrorist, probably starting in Malaya then Veitnam and so forth, their methods of operation have appalled the world for decades and having personnally witnessed their handy work on British Soldiers, US Soldiers, numerous innocent civilian adult Men Women and Children. Having Carried Bloodied bodies of small girls to hospital two at a time, leaving Mum and Dad disemboweled on the floor of their home. I find that I can not agree with your point of veiw on this subject, perhaps some closer contact for you might change your mind--My colleagues I lost would not agree with you either, not even the poor bloody horses I had to shoot when the IRA cowards blew their legs off in Hyde Park. Cheers Roy

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by paulc on Sep 8^th, 2006, 2:36pm

When you have American generals speaking out against the proposed laws, then something is rotten in the Kingdom of Bushmark. Anyone who violates American laws receive the same rights whether or not they be citizens, the same as anyone who violates British law Frendh law etc. We can always bring up examples of atrocities-Vietnamese, Cambodian, Arab, English and American-non of them should go unpunished if possible, but we have enough laws to deal with these things without creating draconian measures that do away with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". I kind of like that idea and don't want to see is done away with-do you? If you do, maybe you should sing a chorus of the old version of "Deutschland Ueber Alles" and remember what kind of justice system that the Nazis had.

Odd, but I haven't seen one post written by an American praising the wonderful system of justice that they have had for over 200 years-what's going on [smiley=huh.gif] [smiley=huh.gif]

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Jonny on Sep 8^th, 2006, 3:03pm

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by brewcrew on Sep 8^th, 2006, 3:12pm

Refusing to participate.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Goblin on Sep 8^th, 2006, 3:31pm

Yep done TROLL jousting too 8)

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Charlie on Sep 8^th, 2006, 4:28pm

Actually they don't have our rights so detain them like POWS........without torture. That's the problem. We have to live with ourselves. We don't do torture.

Meanwhile.... http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/terrorists.gif

Charlie

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Bob P on Sep 8^th, 2006, 5:17pm

I say torture the shit out of 'em before you hang 'em!

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Charlie on Sep 8^th, 2006, 5:17pm

Sad

Charlie

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Bob P on Sep 8^th, 2006, 7:15pm

Weak

Bob P

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Jonny on Sep 8^th, 2006, 7:41pm

Both sad and weak even giving the time of day to someone born and raised in the Netherlands that has a problem with American policy ::)

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Sep 8^th, 2006, 8:36pm

on 09/08/06 at 19:41:13, Jonny wrote:

Both sad and weak even giving the time of day to someone born and raised in the Netherlands that has a problem with American policy ::)

Funny, Iraqis say something like that every day.

Maybe the Netherlands should invade the USA.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Jonny on Sep 8^th, 2006, 8:51pm

;;D

http://tinyurl.com/fvspo

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by maffumatt on Sep 8^th, 2006, 9:07pm

his plan is working.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by ivanov on Sep 9^th, 2006, 1:37am

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/isle.html

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by paulc on Sep 9^th, 2006, 2:02am

[quote author=paulc
Odd, but I haven't seen one post written by an American praising the wonderful system of justice that they have had for over 200 years-what's going on [smiley=huh.gif] [smiley=huh.gif]
[/quote]

My comment about not hearing anything from Americans praising their justice system (above) was not meant to be sarcastic. I sincerely admire the American justice system and remain suprised that no Americans have written any positive comments about it. All that has been written is, essentially, "Shoot 'em all and let god sort them out." It appears to me that those members who have posted about American justice are more than willing to do away with the current system and replace it with one in which people are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent and that punishment should be carried out before the trial. Fortunately, I think that I can say, with conviction, that most Americans do not feel that way and that it is the same bunch of folks on this board that keep on writing that America should do away with "innocent until proven guilty" and replace it with "guilty until proven innocent" and that torture should be allowed and that those who are not American citizens are not entitled to the proctections afforded by the Constitution. I am thankful that most Americans do not feel that way and that we only have a Facist few on this board who do. There also appears to be an undercurrent of racism amongst those who wish to deny fundamental judicial rights to "terrorists" who, after all, are, for the most part not white. Maybe before commenting you should actually READ the articles and what the Generals have to say in objection to the Bush proposals-or are the Generals soft-on-terror dirty liberals as well? I'll bet that a lot off you who have written would really like to have a "Night of the Long Knives" and a "Kri-stal Nacht"if you know what they were-you'd actually have to READ some history books to find out, but please, don't tax your minds too much.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by paulc on Sep 9^th, 2006, 2:15am

By the way, to the delight of some, this will be my last posting on this subject. I have gotten the information that I need about the feelings of the "core" members of the board and it is what I expected and quite boring. My only regret is that more members did not step up to defend the American system of justice (pre-Georgie Boy Bush). Pity.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Kirk on Sep 9^th, 2006, 8:21am

As soon as you start making some sort of sense. I might be inclined to defend the US judicial system. I think it defends itself quite well.
As for profiling the poor middle eastern folk who happen to come our way. Well it appears there is good reason for that.
I have heard a lot of accusations of torture and brutality on the part of Americans. But for the most part, that seems to be the province of the Arabs and the Persians. Its an aberation amongst Americans. I've seen damned little proof of it, when it comes to the Americans. The Arabs and Persians delight in putting it on TV.

Go away, you are not in full possesion of the facts or choose to ignore them. And at this point are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of my country.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by paulc on Sep 9^th, 2006, 10:46am

Had you read the article and listened to Bush's speech the other day, it was reluctently confirmed, couched in double-speak by Bush, that torture was being used, albeit in other countries to which the US secretly flew the prisoners (there was a big stink about that in Europe when it became known, about a month ago, that certain US "diplomatic flights" were being refueled in Europe to continue onwards to these countries with the prisoners on board-this has since stopped). He now claims that such practices have been stopped. When you have US generals speaking out against a Presidential requested bill, you know that this is something big as they are putting their careers on the line. I happen to know General Eric K. Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, who spoke out against the nonsensical plans for the Iraq War-that not enough troops were being committed, that inadequate plans were made for the post Saddam era, that there would be a guerilla war following our invasion and that the cost in lives and money would make this war unwinnable. He quickly fell out of favor with Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney and company and was placed on the sidelines until his retirement. He was/is a courageious soldier, lost the lower half of his right leg in Vietnam and yet made 4 star general-he is a real patriot and for speaking the truth he was, essentially, kicked out of the Army. Everything that he said would happen has happened in spades. He exposed the incompetence of the Bush administration and especially Rummy, who claimed that we would be "welcome with open arms" and would only be in Iraq for a short time-remember Bush on the aircraft carrier 3 years ago stating that the war was over? You will be hard pressed to find a single general or admiral who believes that this war is can be won (not to mention the seriously deteriorating situation in Afganistan, where the Taliban is staging a very strong comeback-it was relegated as a side show to Iran and now it is coming back to bite the US in the ass). The American military, particularly the Army, is having a very difficult time in Iraq; manpower is so short that soldiers are now serving their 3 tour of duty there in the past 4 years. Should a major conflict break out somewhere else in the world, America does not have the troops to handle it. I do not dislike America or American soldiers, sailors or airmen, but what they are being forced to do by their incompetent civilian leaders is a shame. Even Rummy knows that America can't win this war, but America will not pull out for political reasons, i.e., the upcoming Congressional elections and then the 2008 Presidential Elections-Bush will leave it to THAT president to pull out so that, in his mind, no one can say that "he" lost Iraq (and probably Afganistan). I feel sorry for the American people-their ecomomy continues to be ruined and they continue to lose their sons and daughters in a war that was waged and that continues to be waged to assuage Bush's ego; his own father warned him not to go in there, but he essentially told him to shut up. Why do you think that, after the first Gulf War, America did not march into Bagdhad and take over? It was because Bush Sr., the Europeans and the other Arab nations knew that it would be the mess that it is now. Sadam was contained and couldn't cause any mischief in the region, but now you have a hundred little Sadams, no doubt under several major commanders, causing big problems for the US and the Iraqui people. I am not anti-American, but I am against the useless slaughter of America troops and Iraqui civilians. God bless America and God save the soldiers of America who are being killed and horribly wounded for no reason other than the egos of a group of old men who never served and a President who avoided his responsibilities to serve during the Vietnam War. America has no goal in Iraq except to get out without huritng the Republican Party too much-is that worth the deaths of so many young men and women? I think not.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by chewy on Sep 9^th, 2006, 10:55am

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by paulc on Sep 9^th, 2006, 11:10am

For the benefit of new people, chewy cannot write more than two or three sentences in a language that is something like English. His current post was written by someone else and he tends to use if frequently when he disagrees with someone but cannot find the words to express himself. He favors writing posts that lack substance and are not backed up by facts; he likes dogs, which is a positive thing.

Please contribute money to Head Start and other like programs to prevent the continued deterioration of the English language. A wasted mind is a terrible thing.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 9^th, 2006, 12:02pm

While the Ministry of Defense of the Netherlands (http://www.mindef.nl/en/) also has men in the line of fire, it's operation is very small in comparison. Whereas a company the size of Exxon may have practices noticable to the world which can be criticized, a very tiny company would not be a noticable concern.
Should each of our civilized country's military size be reversed with each other's, I'm sure there would be sizable criticism from the rest of the world for most actions taken then by the Netherlands and their military decisions made, as is done with the U. S. However, I'm certainly sure your country was glad for our military size, imperfections and all, during WWI and WWII.

The military of the Netherlands

Defense employs 68,000 persons, this figure includes both civilian and military personnel

Military expenditures

Amount US $9.408 billion (2004)

Percent of GDP 1.6% (2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Netherlands

(latest Wiki update)

The military of the United States

Approximately 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 860,000 personnel in the seven reserve components (456,000 of which are in the Army and Air National Guard)

Military expenditures

Dollar figure $441.6 billion (FY2006 est.)

Percent of GDP 3.7% (FY2006 est.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by paulc on Sep 9^th, 2006, 3:09pm

I am not sure what your point is with your post. The US, under the current administration, has run up the highest deficit, adjusted for inflation, in history. The vast majority of loans that the US owes are to foreign countires, Red China being one of the US's largest creditors and the total amount of money owed by the US to foreign governments has nothing to do with the GDP of the US, which are private earnings, not government. Our government is being run on essentially wothless paper money and should several large, foreign creditors demand payment for the money that the US owes them, the US would be up a creek without a paddle. The US has become a debtor nation and each year Bush and Company have raised the amount of money that the US government may borrow in order to function. The war in Iraq is bankrupting the US and each year the cost goes up. Many so-called American companies are actually owned by foreign companies and much of the US GDP comes from money earned abroad by US companies who have moved their businesses there. The US is no longer a manufactoring country but rather a service country. It now takes both partners in a marriage to work to have roughly the same standard of living that, after WWII, a household with one earner had. In spite of what some may think of him, Clinton left office with the US not owing any country anything and left the US with a sizeable amount of money in the bank, money that George promptly spent to line the pockets of his industrial friends. In 6 short years we have gone from being a nation with a surplus of funds to being the largest debtor the world has ever known. The "War on Terror" is a joke-we have created more terrorists by invading Iraq than had existed before and defense contractors, such as Cheney's former company, Halliburton, have been making money hand over fist...contracts to "rebuild" Iraq were given out without competative bidding and aside from their executives getting wonderful bonuses each year, what have we accomplished in Iraq to help the Iraqees, the supposed benefactors of our largesse? Very little if anything. Be real; if we haven't been able to capture or kill good old Osama after 4 years of war, it says something very negative about our leaders. We have spent billions, indeed hundreds of billions of dollars on "spy" equipment and increased military funding and have achieved nothing. I believe that the US has begun its slide into insignificance and if it weren't for the fact that the US has all of those impressive nuclear missles and bombs, we'd be ignored by the rest of the world-they'd go their way and we''d go ours and maybe every once in awhile they'd let us play with them (or maybe we'd start a war with Mexico about illegal immigration, but then lettuce and tomatoes would only be food for the rich if we had to pay a fair wage to those who pick them). This is my last post on this topic-you all can have fun with it and all agree wirth each other from now on...but a word of warning: watch out for those Canadians. They are just a bit too friendly, too helpful and too polite-something is up!

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by maffumatt on Sep 9^th, 2006, 3:18pm

Don't feed the parasite please.
http://pathy.fujita-hu.ac.jp/~tsutsumi/image/200/7.jpg

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 9^th, 2006, 3:18pm

on 09/09/06 at 15:09:22, paulc wrote:

I am not sure what your point is with your post.

You seemed critical of American military decisions and actions.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by chewy on Sep 9^th, 2006, 3:22pm

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Katherinecm on Sep 9^th, 2006, 3:37pm

PaulC,

A lot of us disagree with many things the president does. I personally think he may be the worst president we've ever had. On the other hand, that may be personal bias because I'm pretty spiritual and the one thing I hate is religious hypocrisy.

Bush has a constitutional responsibility to protect the American people. The constitution is quite clear that in times of war even Americans do not have every constitutional right that would otherwise be in effect. Many Americans are not pleased with the way he has interpreted that responsiblity. But at the same time it is his job to protect us, not to win a popularity contest in Europe or elsewhere.

Our president has twisted and bent every rule he could. In the short term that's awful. In the long term, it is exactly the way our constitution was designed. Read up on Thomas Jefferson for how we came to the conclustion that the government must change, but it must change very slowly, by way of such challenges. Unless there is some huge turnover in congress in the next election (when we would have the numbers to impeach him for his questionably legal behavior) there is pretty much nothing we can do about Bush except b*tch. And that gets old fast, especially when it's not coming from an American!

Perhaps you should lobby for changes in international law regarding the definition of torture. Because other than that, not much is likely to change, no matter how much we dislike it.

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Jonny on Sep 9^th, 2006, 3:53pm

For the benefit of new people paulc is our resident troll. He serves no purpose except to confuse, obfuscate and distress posters while providing a wealth of misinformation of his own.

The best response to him is no response. All we do is inform people as best we can that his posts are unsound.

And his last name was CHTom....he was banned from here, but now hes back!

And if I have my way.....soon to be leaving again....I always get my way ;)

Title: Re: The "Other" NY Times Article
Post by Charlie on Sep 10^th, 2006, 1:52am

Quote:

Weak

I'm not reading the goof that started this thing. This is for Bob P.

No. Weak is the B & B response.

The most patriotic thing Americans can do is to keep their eyes on mindless rantings by an Administration with no heart or brain.

These terrorists are indeed out to kill us. We are the good guys but only if we live up to what we profess to stand for. If not, the terrorism within our own country wouid kill us too.

Charlie