Torturing of the captives - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2002, 06:23 PM   #31
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Speedracer, read the post again. I did not say anything about your accusing the Afghani civilians of "complicity". I said "we say the Taliban were their government so it's OK", as in we base our justification that Afghani civilian deaths are "acceptable" upon a presumed association of these poor people with the Taliban.

And to directly refute your point, this was posted by someone on December 13 in this forum: "I will agree, however, that the Afghanistani people did not provoke the attack, however, you have to remember that the large majority of the Afghan population is Pashtun, and the Pashtuns were the ones who put the Taliban into power. I am not saying that the Afghan people supported Al-Qaeda, but I do think that they supported and, after a view years of knowing what they meant, were either indifferent or starting to realise that such a cruel government was not working; the point is, the Taliban didn't just appear and magically put themselves into power, they represented what at the time was a majority and what the majority wanted."

So apparently at least one person (and there were more - I just don't have time to search for them) do base at least part of their justification for killing Afghani civilians upon their "association" with the Taliban.

If I told you that 1000 more American civilians would have to die in order to remove the Taliban, would that be "acceptable"? If not, then why the difference between Afghanis and Americans? The main difference (for the 99% of us here who can get beyond race and religion) is presumably many people's impression that the Afghani civilians are "associated" with the guilty parties.

And quite frankly, I think the term "inevitable side effect" is bogus beyond belief. A side effect is when someone else's family is blown up. A disease is when it's one's own family, right?

I have no need to and never have misrepresented your views.
__________________

__________________
sv is offline  
Old 01-25-2002, 08:03 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:
Speedracer, read the post again. I did not say anything about your accusing the Afghani civilians of "complicity". I said "we say the Taliban were their government so it's OK", as in we base our justification that Afghani civilian deaths are "acceptable" upon a presumed association of these poor people with the Taliban.
What is the difference?

Quote:

And to directly refute your point, this was posted by someone on December 13 in this forum:

<snip>
So apparently at least one person (and there were more - I just don't have time to search for them) do base at least part of their justification for killing Afghani civilians upon their "association" with the Taliban.
Okay, that's one post from five weeks ago.

You write: "when we want to justify the bombing of Afghani civilians, we say that the Taliban are their government so it's OK." (emphasis added) Obviously the term "we" is used for rhetorical effect, but it has the effect of pointing to either the entire forum or the entire nation, as if to say that the entire forum or nation holds the view described above, which is not the case.

Quote:

If I told you that 1000 more American civilians would have to die in order to remove the Taliban, would that be "acceptable"?
Let me put it this way: if you replace the Afghanistani civilian victims with Americans, it doesn't change anything for me. I would still support the military campaign.

It's unfortunate that anybody had to die, American or Afghanistani, soldiers or civilians, because they all have their own lives and families and children. But the Taliban and al-Qaeda were sufficiently dangerous that something had to be done, and I don't think it could have been done in an orderly, peaceful, bloodless way.

Quote:

And quite frankly, I think the term "inevitable side effect" is bogus beyond belief. A side effect is when someone else's family is blown up. A disease is when it's one's own family, right?
Perhaps I should have said "consequence" instead of "side effect." In any event, it was not intended to be a diminutive term.

Is there anything else that I should clarify? Let me know.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-25-2002).]
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-25-2002, 09:02 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:
Interesting: when we want to justify the bombing of Afghani civilians, we say that the Taliban were their government so it's OK. But when we want to deny Taliban members Geneva convention POW/human rights, it was an illegitimate government and so the detainees have no legal status. Neato.
You what else is neato?

THE UNITED NATIONS didn't recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government, either.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 01-25-2002, 11:03 PM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Montserrat W.I
Posts: 41
Local Time: 07:20 AM
I'm sure that the U.S considers Musharaff, a man who used military force to overthrow a democratically elected Government legitimate. Maybe its because he has started wearing suits instead of a Military uniform.

Illegitimate Governments are a non issue with the U.S.
__________________
nintendan is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 03:14 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 01:20 AM
I'm not sure if anyone will agree with me here but I do not believe that as soon as someone sets foot on American soil that he or she has all the rights of an American citizen. There is a good reason why the INS exists. Citizenship is not all that easily obtained. There is a difference between natural rights and the "Rights" of an American citizen.
Note: this does not have to with OJ(who is guilty as sin) but with a post a couple up.
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 10:51 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:

innocence until guilt is proven, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, entitlement to a fair trial (so we should have just shot O.J. without a trial, U2Bama?)
Quote:
Later posted by sv:

U2Bama-

If you calm down long enough to read what I wrote, you will see that I actually asked you a question (hence the question mark). I didn't attribute any statement to you.
What???

I find your attempt to deny putting words in U2Bama's mouth rather disingenuous.

The "question" you put to U2Bama was clearly a rhetorical question intended to attribute an opinion (that OJ should have been subjected to vigilante justice) to him.

In general, if you get Bama pissed off at you on a personal level, you've done something wrong.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-28-2002, 08:59 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer:
In general, if you get Bama pissed off at you on a personal level, you've done something wrong.
Yes, speedracer, I usually strive to keep my cool on here. I have found that to be increasingly difficult lately. What I posted was quite mild compared to the emotions that were going through my mind.

I'll stoop to sv's level for a spell:

sv, you won't be happy until we unequivocally free the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees and either (1) release them to the streets of the U.S. so they can orchestrate terrorist attacks and kill more dirty Americans or (2)send them back to Afghanistan so they can overthrow the new government and start oppressing women, harassing Hindus, and stoning adulterers again?

I've had too much of this place!

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 01-28-2002, 09:27 PM   #38
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
Yes, speedracer, I usually strive to keep my cool on here. I have found that to be increasingly difficult lately. What I posted was quite mild compared to the emotions that were going through my mind.

I'll stoop to sv's level for a spell:

sv, you won't be happy until we unequivocally free the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees and either (1) release them to the streets of the U.S. so they can orchestrate terrorist attacks and kill more dirty Americans or (2)send them back to Afghanistan so they can overthrow the new government and start oppressing women, harassing Hindus, and stoning adulterers again?

I've had too much of this place!

~U2Alabama
Yes, I would add to the list.. a possible #3... Each Al Queda unlawful combatant taking their index finger and giving us all wet willies while dancing to their cultural version of Tunak tunak.

L. Unplugged

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-30-2002, 05:45 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:20 AM
I'd like to remind everyone here that the Geneva Convention makes does make a distinction between Lawfull Combatants and Unlawfull Combatants. Lawful Combatants are soldiers who where a uniform and serve in a specific countries military. Unlawful combatant is anyone that is a combatant but does not fit the description of a lawful Combatant. Only lawful Combatants can be considered POWs and are entitled to the rights of POWs. Unlawful combatants are not POWs and do not have the same rights as POWs. Unlawful Combatants do not where a uniform and attempt to look like and hide behind innocent civilians in order to accomlish the simple objective of murdering civilians and getting away with it.
Al-quada detained in Cuba are Unlawful Combatants and there for not POWs. They are also not American citizens and there for the Bill of Rights does not apply to them. The only law they can be under is US military law with the exclusion of laws that apply to POWs since none of them are.
Their human rights have been respected up to the point of security and safety of the guards that have to move them and confine them. While the guards have not attempted to mishandled any of those detained, Al-quada have attempted to kill guards that are moving them and would at any time given the opportunity. In order to ensure the safety of those transporting and guarding Al-Quada, they have been chained and drugged. This ensure's the safety of the guards and the Al-Quada detained as well. So there does not seem to be any problem and its great that so many of these terrorist have been caught so far.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-30-2002, 07:01 PM   #40
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 07:20 AM
I quite understand that the detainees are accused of being in the "unlawful combatant" category, and that LEGALLY they're not entitled to U.S. Bill of Rights protections. I quite understand that they're currently under U.S. military law.

My contention is that this is morally wrong and an affront to human rights.

1. Many of the detainees may not be Al-Queda members at all. The U.S. military could be wrong about their identification. The U.S. military could be lying. The detainees could be Afghani citizens who defended themselves against U.S. attack by firing upon U.S. military personnel. The detainees could be non-violent political enemies of U.S. policy or people who witnessed human rights abuses committed by U.S. soldiers. THE ONLY INFO WE HAVE IS PROVIDED BY U.S. SOURCES (i.e. the prosecution). There might be evidence that would prove the innocence of some of these detainees, but since these people have been "disappeared" by the U.S. government and are not permitted legal representation, this evidence might never surface. The problem with just accepting these detainees' non-status is that THEY MIGHT BE INNOCENT. And assertions that they have threatened guards are again only from U.S. government sources. A judgement of guilt (and if you're going to detain someone indefinitely and deny them legal status they'd better be guilty) needs to be based on proof, not upon the assertions of the prosecution.

2. STING2, how do you know that the human rights of these detainees have been respected? U.S. government assertions are hardly a good way to figure this out - they are the jailkeepers! In fact, the opinion of nearly every human rights organization that has weighed in on the matter so far is that something is very wrong. While they probably have little hard proof of wrongdoing, these organizations are quite experienced in gauging whether a prisoner's human rights have likely been violated based upon the behavior patterns of the jailkeepers, the appearance of the prisoner, and whatever limited access to the prisoner they are allowed.
__________________
sv is offline  
Old 01-30-2002, 07:14 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
I'd like to remind everyone here that the Geneva Convention makes does make a distinction between Lawfull Combatants and Unlawfull Combatants.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Geneva Convention makes no such distinction.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 01-30-2002, 10:27 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:
U2Bama:

Actually "sv's level" is quite simple: compassion and justice for all human beings, especially for innocent civilians; basic human rights for EVERYONE; and application of the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights to everyone. If you keep stooping for a while longer, then "I hope some day you'll join us . . . and the world will live as one". I officially attribute that one to Lennon.

2. IN THE EXACT SAME FASHION, my comment "so we should have just shot O.J. without a trial, U2Bama?" expressed my fears of what consequences might result when (as I believe he was suggesting based on many of his posts) we abolish the right to fair trials for selected defendants (O.J. or for the detainees). In no way did I attribute any quote to him, or put any words in his mouth.

Yes, I too, believe in compassion, human rights, and JUSTICE. Justice includes "responsibility," and that may mean incarceration or other penalties; just because they claim to do it in the name of their religion or racial/ehnic group doesn't mean they shouldn't have to answer for it here on earth. Long before 9/11 occurred, I was hoping that the Taliban would be brought down for the way the treat women, religious disidents, homosexuals and even adulterers. I'm sorry, but they shouldn't just be told "That's a no-no!" and then released.

And NOWHERE have I made "many posts" or ANY for that matter suggesting that O.J. Simpson "should (have been shot) without a trial." Nowhere.

~U2Alabama

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 01-30-2002, 10:35 PM   #43
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
[BAnd NOWHERE have I made "many posts" or ANY for that matter suggesting that O.J. Simpson "should (have been shot) without a trial." Nowhere.

~U2Alabama

[/B]
Actually if you must know, The latest RUmor I've heard swirling about regarding you and your OJ Statements was that he was to Be Beaten with His Fabled Four Wood ........

Callaway of course.........
oh and.................

without a trial.....

L.Unplugged

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-30-2002, 10:59 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:20 AM
FizzingWizzbies,
I think your confused because the Geneva Convention clearly does. Even Sv knows this as well although he does not agree with it.

SV,
you make a lot of assumptions about the USA military being abusive to human rights and being dishonest in what it does. Certainly some things are kept secret for security reasons, but all USA military personal have a code of conduct that they follow which forbids human rights abuses and requirs honesty at all times unless required to keep certain info secret for national security reasons.
I grew up in a military family and my father was in the USA military for 30 years. I was born on a military base and have known so many people that my father worked with and their families. You will not find another group of people that are more honest and kind, and commited to doing what is right for the country and world at large.
There are and have certainly been bad apple's in this or any organization, but that is the rare exception and far from the rule. In nearly every opinion poll, the USA military has been the most trusted and respected organization in this country for the past twenty years.
Today I have many friends that serve in the US military all around the world including one that is younger than me that was in charge of one units in operation in Afghanistan that captured some of the people that are detained currently in Cuba.
I can tell you that your paranoia about the US military is baseless and false, and your claims of lying crazy and a offensive considering my background and friends. I know people who are actually there on the ground who did careful work to seize those that were guilty of being apart of or supporting Al-Quada. I do not know where you get this crazy notion that the US military must be lying and detaining anyone including civilian that have no role in the Taliban or Al-Quada. The men and women of the US military are the most professional in the world.
Oh and the deaths of Afgan civilians in bombing were accidents just like incidents where US soldiers were killed by other US soldiers were friendly fire, although I know of know friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan. The US military does everything in its power to prevent civilian losses and incidents of friendly fire. Combat aircraft often would come back to base with their bomb loads still on the plane because the target they were after had been moved into an area that may have caused massive civilian causualties.
Civilian causualties are very unfortunate when they happen just as friendly fire is, but the increase in technology and communication targeting and hitting with precision, military targets, has helped to massivly decrease civilian losses in war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-31-2002, 03:05 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
FizzingWizzbies,
I think your confused because the Geneva Convention clearly does. Even Sv knows this as well although he does not agree with it.
Actually no I'm not confused. I had a copy of the Geneva Convention in front of me when I posted my previous comment. I've read the entire document and there is no mention of lawful or unlawful combatants.

Maybe you'd like to find a copy of the Geneva Convention (it's available at numerous sites online) and post the article referring to lawful or unlawful combatants.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com