Did George Bush basically say he'd let Americans die....
 

if he didn't get his way on the Geneva thing? I wasn't paying 100% attention but that seemed to be what he said.. although he was trying to spin it so it would be the other sides fault.

For the Geneva Convention to apply you have to be wearing a unifom !

ummm.. yeah... but the part I heard seemed to be Bush saying that if congress or the senate didn't let his changes/clarifications get implemented he'd put the interrogation of terrorists on hold and thus americans would die...

I didn't hear the speech.. but what are you driving at?

I don't agree with the situation, but what he's saying [I assume] is that:

The terrorists will win! etc if the CIA and other alphabets aren't allowed to treat these "enemy combatants" in ways that the Geneva Convention disagrees with.

Ah... nice spin by Young George - ie. because he's having problems trying to write his own version of the Geneva Convention, he comes out with how "Americans could die". Sheesh.. he's struggling.

The Geneva Convention was ratified by many countries as a "standard" to cover troops in action and the humane treatment of all individuals in custody. Previous US presidents ratified the Convention and helped sustain it thru several decades. It's sad that this current ass has the arrogance to consider he is entitled to change the laws of war to suit his bullshit. This not only affects others, but also places US forces at risk - pathetic.

Here's a current news article on this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5347564.stm

and some previous claims in 2004...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm

then denials in 2006...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4974852.stm

Eventually, ya have to ask who are the terrorists in this "war on terror"? Adopting base (no) standards of a minority of extremists and permitting torture/inhumane treatment is hardly a scenario expected of a country that claims higher moral values.

Nasty interrogations have been happening forever and it's never been publicly OK...

So, how in the fuck did this whole drama come to light? Why didn't they do this shit in darker corners of the world in closed closets like the good old days?

jebus christos already

Webby, do you think what the US classifies as "enemy combatants" are covered by the Convention?

Not my problem - fortunately. The base bottom line probably is...

Is the US going to be a state which permits torture and inhumane treatment - of anyone?

Is the Geneva Convention going to be another treaty which the US has ratified and cannot comply with?

If so, other nations can play that game as the occasion arises and, in the end, there is a payback time. There is a choice in this - and little room for complaint or cooperation from other nations if there is an adoption of the "ways of a terrorist".

You didn't hear it.. So you can't really comment on it... I half heard it and he seemed to be saying what I outlined.. That he'd stop interrogations if he didn't get his way and that Americans would die because of it. In other words, he'd let Americans die if he didn't get his way... But I was hoping someone could clarify what he truly said.

I have a feeling there's more to come out about mistreatment and he might be trying to get the rules changed before it happens.

I'm not sure if this has come out in the US, but I was watching our news and they had an ex US solidier on there saying how they would tie up and blindfold the prisoners.. Then somehow or other they'd get them cold and wet and close to hypothermia (they'd constantly take their temperature so they could keep them right on the edge).. Then they'd ask questions.. If they didn't like the answer they'd sick these attack dogs on them.. They had the dogs muzzled. He was saying how he knew he was screwed because while they were doing that, Rumsfield was on TV saying that dogs weren't allowed to be used in interrogations.

Islamic terrorists are anti-human, so you can do what you like to them.

Which means then that any citizen or soldier caught by the enemy will have free reigns to 'retaliate' and torture in anyway they see fit. Hell and as long as they only stick to citizens it's ok since "they don't wear a uniform". Thanks George! :thumbsup

Agree Tempest - don't think we have seen even the tip of the iceberg yet.

Not sure the main problem may lie with troops on the field or in internment camps. There will always be problems with troops, tho, in the current scenario, it does smell like "guidance" from higher up.

Who knows... but think we may see some fairly spectacular accounts of incidents from individuals who ended up being flown to some weird locations and being tortured (and some possibly murdered). For a few years now there have been international agencies recording "incidents" and taking primary and supporting statements from eye-witnesses. Hell knows - could be something yet unpublished by any one of these agencies and where they gave the admin a preview for comment prior to publication.

George certainly has a great desire... and an urgent one, to "apparently" introduce some legal protection for members of the CIA at the moment. Makes you wonder why the CIA need protection if they are behaving in a legitimate manner. It can't be that the President is trying to protect torturers? :)

Another sideline issue ... is it not about "protecting members of the CIA" and more related to George the "order issuer", where there is a need to cover his own ass and other admin members for "whatever". Immunity from prosecution ceases when his term of office ends - if there is serious shit - there's a chance international orgs may be seeking his ass if all hell broke loose, who knows? :pimp

The lid seems tightly shut on the can at the moment and appears as tho the pressure is building inside - the "urgency" is showing - time will tell.

Some common sense concepts.

1. If your enemy conducts itself according to decent laws and customs of war, then they should be afforded decent treatment when captured.

2. If your enemy doesn't conduct itself according to decent laws and customs of war, then when they are captured you may execute them or if there is reason to believe they have information which would be valuable to your war effort, you may do whatever is needed to get that information out of them.

So, since it is known that the current enemies (Islamists) do not conduct themselves in a decent and proper way on the battlefield, it is perfectly ok to shoot them on sight.

We're not going to win this war by putting all the poor misunderstood jihadis in a cosy prison with access to Qur'ans (ie, the source of the reason they fight in the first place) and halal food.

A war against Islamists is won by killing the enemy and giving them a reason not to fight you, not by affording them phony human rights. If they don't behave like humans, they don't get human rights. It's a simple concept to understand.

Man, if only most of the forum could comprehend this.. and actually comprehend that you don't give nuclear arms because of hugs. Hugs are nice. Beheadings are not.

The problem is that stopped with your point one. The whole concept, eg.. in Iraq, fell apart when a decison was made to invade. That has cost a few thousand US lives plus 30,000-40,000 more in Iraq and is totally unjustifiable.

From that time, there has been no "decent treatment" of anyone - this has been recorded time and again and depicts a scenario ranging from murder, thru to torture and inhumane treatment. Even Gitmo is a problem with orgs monitoring that facility.

Either you elect to conduct action on a level of.. whatever.. "morals" or become a rogue state which condones torture and is in violation of the Geneva Convention.

An extreme comparison would be for allies in WW2 to adopt the tactics of the Waffen SS and set up death camps for German citizens.

If that is the path being followed - there is a payback time on several levels and little support will be forthcoming from other nations who wish to retain the standards of the Geneva Convention and not George Bush's version of it. This kinda stuff just alienates the US from other countries - not a wonderful idea.

Upping the "anti" is never going to win any "war on terrorism" - no war on terrorism is "winable" to start with - and simply opens up the doors to further attacks on the US and opens up the prospect of similar action against US troops - plus loads of mileage in others despising the US.

what if the terrorist organization you happen to be fighting for is holding a casual clothes day?

:winkwink: Can't remember exactly BDS - think there is coverage that extends to more than just troops under the Geneva Convention - then there are aspects of war crimes which extend to "anyone".

There's no such things as "behaving" as humans.. They are humans no matter how they "act"... We may not like their actions, but we're striving to be civilized and not get dragged down to their level. If we do that, then we might as well go back to the clubs and caves.

You haven't answered my 'point number one at all'. Since when has the behaviour of an army (in this case Islamic terrorists) had anything to do with the reason, either justified or not, for the Allies to invade?

The point is, if the Iraqi 'resistance' :1orglaugh behaves like terrorists, they should get treated like terrorists.

Most of us know that Bush is going his own ways now. There's no logic about his policy about human rights, pollution, ww economy, diseases et cetera. He use cheap propaganda to justify it.... well, how many people haven't fought and died in the past, to get those values he excempt himself from. In the end it will cost the world more than the shortprofit.
He's a shame for the future and the past. Only stupidity (and Secret Service) is the reason he's still in charge.

Well, yes there is a default human behaviour, and that is to conduct yourself in a peaceful manner, raise a family if you wish, and not to threaten your neighbour with death if he refuses to pray to Allah 5 times a day.

If you behave like a human then you may live in freedom. If not, then you go to prison or on the battlefield, you die.

Since Islamic terrorists do not behave like humans, they should not be treated as such. There is nothing human about the ideology they follow. If they wish to live as primitive savages then they may do so in their own private lives. Once they try to make everyone else live as they wish to, they lose their human right of liberty and possibly, life.

In terms of how we conduct ourselves, we must remember that Western civilisation must be protected at all costs. It has cost way too much to get to the relatively enlightened point we live in today, so if we have to torture a few jihadis then so be it. It we have to slaughter 100 million jihadis so be it. What must be done is to wipe out the jihad ideology and those who hold it, because the cost of not doing so is a life of misery, rape, death and slavery for our children and their children. We must fight the battle now so that they don't have to.

Obviously the Iraqi "resistance" are winning well at the moment - "terrorists" or not. If you want them to up the "anti", I'm sure they will feel OK with this if that is what is on the table. Expect more bombs and body bags arriving home for burial. Is that is what is called "winning the war on terror"? Sounds a really progressive and constructive move :uhoh

Kinda sums up the whole scenario DD - sad shit. It's hard to find *anything* which is of any benefit to those who elected (or never elected) him. The desperation is setting in - and he could be a dangerous asshole and put plenty others into jeopardy.

Dream on... the problem is it's clear there is nada clue about wiping out anything. Naivety in "wars against terrorism", as though this were something new, is an obstacle course. Other nations have been "managing" terrorism for years without declaring an unwinnable "war" on it.

Time to quit talking shit and try and learn something from other nations - otherwise the spiral heads downwards.

I hear he's comming to the city later.
I hope I wake up alive.

Few years more and then no more fooking Bush.

Yes.
I'm not against fighting terrorism, but it has to be done more clever, instead of trying to put out the fire with gazoline. Its the ideology that is dangerous. When people think fighting terrorism is the same as fighting terrorists, thats when things go wrong.

Maybe if Bush, and his allies, tried to show what they are fighting for, then things would look better. Torture...no trials...no diplomacy... is that what we fight for?

Your logic is flawed.

Since we are humans, we have the moral obligation to behave like human beings.

I fully agree that we are better than those who do not respect basic human rights, such as (some) Islamic fundamentalists, but only for as long as we do respect human rights. Otherwise, we are no different from them.

Best post in the thread :thumbsup

Hear hear! :thumbsup

ask his dad the real man pulling the strings on his son the hand puppet

if you claim to behave in a civilized fashion but let the people you claim are barbaric terrorists dictate your behaviour toward them or anyone else, you are allowing those barbaric terrorists determine how you treat others.

personally i hope my scruples are more solid than to allow people i am in conflict with, and whose behaviours i claim to abhor, to change my own behaviour to theirs.

Fuck Bush! :)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

The comment was made to David Gregory (NBC) when he asked the president if he was OK with other countries making their own interpretations of the Geneva Conventions.

The reason why there was no 'resistance'* :1orglaugh under Saddam was because the moment anyone tried to kill him or cause some trouble, he put their family and/ or village through a plastic shredder/ raped them to death/ had them eaten by dogs/ tortured to death/ thrown off of tall buildings/ shot/ blown up. So, there was a great incentive NOT to oppose him.

Since the things which Saddam did to his people are unacceptable and mustn't be repeated, a new reason needs to be given to the jihadis not to fight. So, total war must be waged against the jihadis. No more 'locking them up for being a naughty boy'. Every single jihadi and every single jihad supporter must be killed. And if they happen to know some information which could hasten the winning of the war by the Allies, then they can be tortured until they give that information up. We experiment on animals to save human lives, so we can torture jihadis to save human lives.

*'Resistance' :1orglaugh in the Islamic sense means a bunch of people who want to make an Islamic state in which to oppress absolutely everyone and from which to wage jihad against the unbelievers.

at the heart of the Geneva convention is the idea that democracy in any form is lost when it sinks to the level of (for lack of a better term) terrorism. Using their techniques on them, even though they will behead and use the same if not worst techniques on American soldiers (or anyone for that matter) does not give us the immediate right to use the same tactics on them.

In short the heart of Geneva is - to beat Hitler you didn't have to become Hitler to do so

History is just repeating itself, in a more vicious manner...

http://www.foitimes.com/

Canada is not innocent of this atrocity either...

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/internment1.html

I am very well aware of this as well - and greatly appreciate you bringing this to light Anthony. Few Canadians even know how much harm and atrocity our government created and allowed within its own borders at that time... and still to this date - those who suffered are still not compensated and basically our government is waiting them out hoping they will die off so as not to pay any money.

Since they are out of uniform, dressed like the surrounding civilian population, they should be immediatly executed. That is covered by the Geneva Convention.

Xenophobia is a wonderful thing.

Not.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Get your head our of your ass! Clinton was in office the FIRST time they tried to attack the US trade towers. So it is NOT Bushes fault. They were emboldened when there was no military reply to the first attack or the second or the third. What about Spain - No Bush, What about The USS Cole - No Bush - What about that stupid ass Danish cartoon - No Bush, What about Theo Van Gogh - No Bush, The London Bombing, the French riots, the dead nun a few days ago, the freaking POPE is a target now. Are you fucking blind. Seems to me that when you add it all up BUSH is not the problem. The United States cannot falter when it is protecting it's citizens. I could almost feel the pain you felt when I read how we made them COLD or let a muzzled dog bark at them to extract information when we interrogated them. You pussy! The tree hugging pussy left is calling it torture, you have no idea what torture is. I am not saying that we start cutting off fingers till they talk but making some scum bag uncomfortable to extract information that will save lives is an easy choice for me. You do not win a war by dying for your cause, you win a war by making the other guy die for his. We did bad things in the past with the Japan/German internment camps. As nation we learned and evolved. We are so against hurting someones feeling now that we are failing to protect ourselves. As long as we act like a wounded animal the sharks will circle and feed off of us when they can. What won WWII? Two bombs. We called Japan and said were going to blow you off that planet unless you surrender. They laughed and we dropped "Fat Boy" on Hiroshima. We called then back and said we will keep dropping these bombs until you surrender. They laughed again until we dropped "Little Man" on Nagasaki. Then they called us. They are now one of our greatest allies. The US and UK do not have the stomachs to do what it takes to win this war. Muslims are cool in my book just like the Jews or Buddhism or any other religion as long as they are not strapping bombs to themselves. Radical Muslims praise the bombers for killing and that is dangerous in any religion. Radicals need to be wiped off the planet. Roses and hugs will not stop them from wanting to kill us and you, everything that is not like them. Our military is our LAST option after talking has run out. We need a military made of killers that is truly the last option for them to stop or die. We can not face an enemy that is trying to kill us and tell our military not to hurt anyones feelings. If I write anymore I'm going to throw up....