What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
101 Comments
- n3r0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14that's always bothered me. the world would crucify us if there was a blatant violation of the geneva conventions, but listen to an American POW and apparently nobody we go up against signed the conventions.
- Ironcitizen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The Geneva Convention does not apply to Americans.
Translation; No captured American has ever been treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions. - TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ElFredo and others
"The Geneva Conventions are supposed to be applied to ALL prisoners, regardless of whether they are "legitimate" soldiers or not. Discriminating prisoners into distinct categories explicitly violates the Conventions."
You just making this up? Why don't you actually READ the conventions yourself rather than spouting what you hear your parents and the news tells you, or just rambling on what you believe rather than the actual truth.
Go ahead, read the Geneva Convention, 3rd Convention, Article 4, Parts 1 and 2. Here's how the GC defines a prisoner of war:
----------------
(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.
----------------
Terrorists who wear plain clothes to hide in civilian groups, are not part of any organized militia, kill their own innocent civilians, kill army medics and mechanics, take civilian prisoners and behead them on video, and follow NONE of the Geneva Conventions do NOT deserve to be held under the laws of the Geneva Convention.
They should get what they deserve. - n3r0, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13war has rules, as ironic as that sounds. there are ROE (rules of engagement): you can't shoot people that aren't armed, you can't shoot medical personnel. the rules clearly define how to treat POWs and POWs are captured soldiers.
there's no place for democracy in war. war happens when politics fail. the military runs the war (er...should) because that's their job. there's no democracy in the military, there can't be.
this "war" is different though, it's the first one in history, with no official bad guy. our enemy wears no uniform, he follows no rules. i think we have to change our definition of war if we are to continue to defend ourselves.
i'm no saying i agree 100% with the way we haved handled this mess (cough..why the hell are we in iraq...cough), i'm no fan boy. we can't ignore the threat of terrorist attacks, i think we'll be dealing with people who don't fit into geneva convention categories for a long time. - datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I was being facetious and you proved my point. It is ridiculous to think that a non-state actor such as Al-Qaeda can have Geneva convention rules applied to them. They are neither civilians nor uniformed military personnel.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Does the Geneva convention outlaw beheadings?
- Skafloc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Al-qaeda isn't a country you know...
Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran have all signed theGeneva conventions though.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P - nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14America must persuade the world it actually stands for something worth supporting, not just bombing, torture and indefinite detention.
- chase001, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Either it is a "war" and they are prisoners of war or it is not. The Bush administration cannot call this debacle a war when it is politically convenient and then not a war when it means the they can't torture and kill.
- nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16in one sense this is welcome, in another it's not.
Geneva is for captured soldiers, whose actions against you are part of a legitimate enemy strategy, so long as they are within international rules of war. If they are alleged to have committed war crimes, let them be tried as war criminals under the relevant international law.
Guantanamo was set up for alleged terrorists, aka criminals, in other words, civilians who should either be tried according to civilian law, or released. - unclejemima, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They certainly aren't soldiers. What is an example of a lawful combatant? As defined by the Hague and Geneva Conventions long ago, a soldier of a nation-state who is subject to a chain of command, who wears a uniform or distinct insignia recognizable at a distance, who carries arms openly, and who conducts his actions in combat in accordance with the law of war, is a lawful or “privileged” combatant.
They aren't civilian criminals either. Members of Al Qaeda fail to meet the lawful combatant criteria on all counts. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state. The prerogative of war belongs to nation-states. Private organizations cannot undertake war, and certainly not in the way that AI Qa-eda has done it. Without wearing uniforms, Al Qaeda members have surreptitiously entered national territories and targeted civilians on a regular basis. In all respects, Al Qaeda members are unlawful combatants, and special circumstances like Guantanamo are required for this new threat. - ElFredo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12@nocountries,
The Geneva Conventions are supposed to be applied to ALL prisoners, regardless of whether they are "legitimate" soldiers or not. Discriminating prisoners into distinct categories explicitly violates the Conventions.
I am glad to see the USA finally accept the GCs without trying to circumvent them using meaningless semantics ("illegal enemy combatant", whatever that may mean). If the USA really want to promote democracy, the first step should be to display an exemplary behavior, regardless of their enemies. After all, the first duty of law enforcers is to respect it. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14I think the issue here is not under what kind of law to judge the criminals the issue here is to treat prisoners in a acceptable manner, Geneva Rules is the way to go, especially that many of the "terrorists" were captured in their country fighting for their army. I doubt clear criminals are held at Guantanamo since US would not have any problems to officially charge them, however US would have problems to file charges against people that fought in Taliban or Iraqi Armies doing nothing else then obeying commands and following the law of the country.
Again many people ask this basic question: if they are clear criminals why aren't they charged, if they are not criminals why are they kept in prison and tortured? - frostedflakes, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11The question is, will they actually enforce these laws?
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Thats better than what they're treating us as...
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Torture, by means of applying or threatening physical violence, is not an accepted means to gather intelligence by most western intelligence agencies. The reason has little to do with ethics. In fact, torture often coerces a subject to admit fault when he/she has none or to offer information that is baseless just to appease the torturer.
I highly doubt that prisoners in Guantanamo are being physically tortured for this reason alone. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8that's not what the Geneva convention is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
and lets be honest here, there not trying to promote democracy like the US is (sort of) - TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, the funny part is how it happened twice. I obviously have a copy of the GC open, why would someone then state that Article 3 says that all prisoners must be treated as POWs?
If he means read the rest of Article 4, it still doesn't state that. - wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Or rape a 14 year old girl in front of her family, shoot her family dead, then shoot her in the head.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6From the article....
"They expressed concern that even if the techniques were humane and lawful, some advocacy groups and other countries would assume the worst and insist that by maintaining a secret list, the United States must be allowing torture."
So even if we are doing legal interogations in secret...the world might look down on us....and we know we certainly don't want to do that at all costs!!!! /sarcasm - Patriot01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8OK, I have a suggestion to put an end to all the bickering. The US pulls ALL it's troops home, stops ALL financial assistance all over the globe (including the UN - let's see the UN survive and maintain the life style to which it is accustom), stop ALL physical assistance all over the globe, close our borders - and I mean slam the doors shut tight. And then let's see how things go. And 'CartoonAl' maybe you need to read more that one history book, or better yet talk to some of the weening numbers of veterans who were there. The bottom line is we could have spent all our energy defeating Japan and done it quicker but we kept the faith with our European "brothers" - more than they have EVER done for us.
So for all you faithless French, weird Canadians, whinny Brits and clueless Germans imagine the world as above. Either put up or shut up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Now if only Al Qaeda would stop shooting unarmed civilians. Blowing up unarmed civilians. And stop hiding behind their Mommy's skirt... Then we can get this ***** finished.
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I really hate to do this, I truly do but I have no choice. Anytime someone hauls out the old wordplay card I can't help but see this piece of videotape in my mind.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14Oh, so they are considering them as human beings now. That's a step forward.
- Arancaytar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I've rarely seen the argument for torture put so eloquently. Awesome work, kudos.
Now, as a challenge, can you do the same for slavery and genocide, please? Just trying to see if you can lull me. - WilliamTanksley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not precisely true, but I get your point -- the Germans usually treated our captured soldiers humanely. When they didn't, there was usually an unofficial outbreak of high prisoner mortality in German prisoners captured by the US. It's not pretty, but this is what the US assented to when it originally signed the Geneva Conventions, and apparently what was originally meant by the Conventions: it was intended to act as a framework for a semi-treaty which would hold between two warring powers until one side broke it. Later the Conventions were reworked to apply unilaterally, so that if any nation treated ANY prisoner in the manner forbidden for legitimate military prisoners of war, that nation would be considered in violation. Significantly, the US refused to sign onto that, because such a treaty would have no teeth -- it removed the only means of enforcing itself short of total war.
- weeFred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think it's funny when people make stuff up and try and pass it off as fact (Elfredo, powercow). It's even funnier when they get caught out. I think as a new rule for digg people who want to make stuff up should use the "/*****" tag.
- TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@silenceHR
"i don't blame US for doing what is good for US, i am just ***** tired of stupid rednecks thinking they are doing us some sort of favor"
You assume everyone in the US is a stupid redneck? That's a bit short-sighted. You think everyone in your country (which you still haven't mentioned the name of) would be better off without the US? What about those who are able to feed their families by working for a US company because your countries economy can't support them?
"being on other side of the stick gives people from other countries different point of view and when we hear how we should be acctually grateful cause you are messing with our countries, sorry that we don't throw roses...."
I can understand that you would have a different point of view. But I seriously doubt you speak for everyone in your country. I don't think anyone reading this is expecting you to throw roses at the US, but you could at least be a little less belligerent.
"i would welcome VERY much that your govermant does what original poster suggested, but it won't, cause unlike him, your govermant very well knows how much is US dependant on the rest of the world."
Most countries are dependent on other countries to survive, not just the US, and that includes whatever country you live in.
"go set some crosses on fire in your backyard and leave the rest of world to deal with it's own problems."
Try having a meaningful conversation with someone without tossing around insults. Trust me, if every country was left to deal with it's own problems, this would be a miserable world. - TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@PowerCow
Where in the hell does it say that all prisoners must be treated as POW's? I think article 3 hinders your argument rather than helping it.
Article 3:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. - WilliamTanksley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not true. The Field Manual is *extremely* authoritative. This may be a publicity gesture, but it's not a *mere* gesture; it's highly significant. I don't think it's intended as a publicity gesture, either; it appears to me to be an honest attempt to comply completely with the Supreme Court ruling, probably done in an attempt to limit further damage to military capabilities. (A publicity gesture would have involved talking about how *good* and *useful* the old rules were.)
If this is the effect of the Supreme Court ruling, it's an almost ideal result -- of course, ideally there would have been no conflict, but failing that it's good that we have clear rules. We must be able to interrogate, we must have clear limits on our interrogators. - TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@silenceHR
How old are you, 10? You do realize that many "OTHER COUNTRIES" also rely on the US and their economies would implode without the US dollar. And you say the US uses child labor? What the hell are you talking about? Settle down, take another pill. - RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9"And in WWII who decided that enough was enough and came to England and France's aid?"
Typical arrogant US reaction, yes, you did help out, but it wasn't the almighty US that was alone in it, the whole mainland invasion was spearheaded by Canadians (still a part of the dominion back then), brits and parts of resistance groups in europe (french, poles, dutch etc etc.) and assisted by resistance groups in the various countries, without their support no one, and i mean, no one would have made it that far into europe, they provided intelligence, did some pre cleaning up to divert germans etc.
So read up on your history before you start spouting things you have no clue about, and i mean read up on the real history, not the one dished out to you in american schools. - gothicx00, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Okay.... here is my view on the situation.
If a "person of interest," meaning someone who very well may have pertinant information to the intelligence community is in custody of our Armed Forces, my personal opinion says *most* bets are off. Now before you digg me down at least read the rest of what I have to say.
There are forms of psychological persuasion that have been deemed appropriate for intelligence gathering. But the personell adminstering said methods need to use critical thinking. If you've run through the usual gamut of methods and don't have clues to what they might know, you've probably got the wrong person. If in the usualy methods you start getting bits and pieces or clues to futher information, then you've probably got the right person. At that point you need to evaulate what you believe they know, and the best way to obtain that intelligence.
That being said, if the people in charge of the situation at hand have good reason to believe that a person in their custody has information that could probably not be attained in any other fashion, and said information could "fill in the blanks" as it were in intelligence gathering, then take the measures necessary to obtain said information. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to obtain information, as well as assure a certain level of mental health in a "person of interest." When applied appropriately, causing severe levels of stress, and then turning around and giving said person a good meal and a certain level of TLC can go a long way to extract information. It's a documented method and it has worked on many occasions. Others may only respond to extreme stress levels. And if in this, invaluable intelligence data is gathered then at least sombody in our Armed Forces is doing their job right. There is a fine line between intelligence gathering and outright torture. Refer back to the third paragraph for good guideline for that line.
Simply said, we wouldn't have the information we have on who is where and what their next step might be if it weren't for the interrogation of "persons of interest." And if that intelligence leads to an operation that in turn makes our country safer then far be it from me to question the methods at hand. England, France and Russia et al; it was not you that had 4 planes hijacked inside of an early morning, three of which hit their intended targets. If this mindset isn't taken care of in a rigorous manner, then we are almost certainly inviting further attacks. Presidential administrations prior to the current one pretty much completly overlooked everything going on outside of our own country, with such denial and disbelief that anything drastic might occur. That is what led to attacks on american soil. From that point on, all we are trying to do is keep that from happening again. Have our leaders made some mistakes along the way? Sure. But sometimes one must step back, think ahead a bit and look at the future. Are all these little mistakes going to make any bit of difference if the overall affect is we achived what we set out to do? Fifty years from now, are we going to focus on the finite mistakes? Or if we are sucessful in quelling terrorism, 50 years from now people may say that we did the world a whole lot of good by simply standing up and saying we are not going to take this ***** anymore. You have no right whatsoever to come into our country, hijack our planes, our trains, or any other such extreme attention getting behavior and get away with it. If it takes us our last life blood we will hunt you down and neutralize you as a threat to our freedom and well-being.
Digg me down if you will, but if you've gotten this far read this: If you truely value your freedom and the rights you have as an american citizen then have a little faith in what our country is doing to try and protect that for us, and future generations. - datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@obikenobi
After reading the ridiculous and non-factual stories you have submitted on this site, and after reading comments such as the one you made above, I think it is you that has proven to be the ignorant one. - omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5How much do ya wanna bet it's just lip service., like everything else?
- dibbler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The US pulls ALL it's troops home, stops ALL financial assistance all over the globe (including the UN - let's see the UN survive and maintain the life style to which it is accustom), stop ALL physical assistance all over the globe, close our borders - and I mean slam the doors shut tight. And then let's see how things go"
Yes please. The UN has enough trouble getting the money from the US anyway, so I can't see that being a problem. As for the rest - the world prays for the day that the US stops its "one war a decade" approach to international diplomacy. The US doesn't do peacekeeping if you hadn't noticed.
If you think the unwarranted, illegal attack on Iraq was sensible policy you are as deluded as Chimpy. - arduenn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6They don't need to. All they need to do is be put away in prisons.
- ElFredo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@gothicx00,
As if the USA had been the sole nation to suffer from terrorism. France had several planes hijacked and/or crashed in its recent history, just not at the same time and place. Please check your facts.
FYI former PM Edouard Balladur made the revelation, shortly after 9/11, that the Eiffel tower was the target of the Air France Alger-Paris hijackers in 1994. So France avoided a WTC-style attack 7 years before 9/11. I highly doubt that such an attack would have had the same "success" (e.g the number of death), but the psychological impact would have reached the same level. - TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@silenceHR
"you are also #1 weapon dealer in the world"
Don't forget the Russians my friend. They sell a ton of weapons around the world. They may not be #1 but they're running a close #2, but no one seems to care about that.
"you enjoy cheap imported products cause your companies use cheap labour outside US"
That's the fault of US companies? Try asking the people employed by those companies who are now able to feed their families how they like their jobs. Sure, it may suck, they may not get paid well, but they chose to take the job, no one forced them to.
"you are making tons of money by selling your goods to other countries and so on...."
Every country makes money from selling their goods to other countries. That's how the global economy works.
"well, for example, US ambassador to our country went public to criticize our parlament (for which we voted in democratic elections) when they decided _WE_ want GMO products marked as one, cause _WE_ want to know what we eat. US blocked us from WTO, but when we gave big fat contract to Enron to build powerplant and sell power for 4 times the market value for 20 years... geee... we could join."
Why not mention the country you're from? Maybe there is a reason why the ambassador criticized your country? Maybe there is a reason why you were blocked from the WTO? There are 149 countries in the WTO. The director-general of the WTO is from Thailand. I don't see how the US is blocking anything.
"and so on and on.... and i am sick of it. US is doing things out of self interest (and i am NOT blaming US for that, that's normal) and is making tons of money by armtwisting other countries in interest of american companies and american laws (Russia and WTO... Sweden and Pirate Bay) ... and we should be grateful for that?"
If it puts food into the mouths of your citizens instead of them starving on the street because your own government can't provide them with stable jobs and a stable economy, yes.
"so i think we can live just fine without US using it's muscles to exploit our country thank you very much..."
Fine. You and your fellow citizens can start by getting rid of EVERY product/service you have or use that was created and/or run by an American company (so leave digg). That'll teach us. - chase001, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Don't take all the excitement out of it for Rummie.
- TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@overlordmead
As long as someone makes the decision who cares. - weeFred, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4To be considered a human being you must first act like a human being, this does not include beheading, deliberately targetting civilians/ women + children. These people are sub human and so deserved to be treated accordingly.
- AfghanVet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Except another country didn't INVADE the US to help us free ourselves from the King's tyranny. Wow, what a stretch. Now, if Iraqis rose up and started a fight and then ASKED us to come help...you know, like they did right after Gulf War I and we abandoned them...then THAT would be a different story. Oops.
I'm thinking more parallels with Vietnam then any other war we have ever fought. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The real story here is the admission that secret CIA prisons did exist, after the Bush administration denied them originally. I bet you can still find up some of the discussions about them that took place here on Digg. I distinctly remember some of our Bush-apologist regulars claiming that secret CIA prisons were just another "conspiracy theory."
- JES63, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A President who would say the following does not sound like one trying to do something evil. It sounds like an administration trying to make the best of a complex and vexing issue and trying to find a balance between safety and liberty.
"So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs."
I think you also need to realize that more often than not, in previous conflicts when a combatant was found fighting and not wearing the uniform of a nation-state, he was simply executed on the spot. - AfghanVet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Again, this is a question of expedience and one of intentional use of bureaucratic fuzziness to work around laws this administration finds inconvenient.
The first problem we have is that we have ill-defined the conflict we are currently in and have further muddled the conflict by pre-emptively invading Iraq on what amounts to lies, politicized and cherry-picked intelligence and political gamesmanship. The ACTUAL war on "terror", as it is called and that has NOTHING to do with Iraq, is a Global Counter Insurgency action.
We are engaged on two fronts. One, Iraq, started as more of a "set piece" battle that clearly defined how we were to conduct the war from a legal standpoint. The other front is global in scope, does not have a defined nation-state or states as the enemy and is focused on a non-nation state-aligned force that does not conduct war in what we believe is the "traditional" way.
So the question becomes one of conducting war or conducting legal prosecution. The PROBLEM is where to draw the line. The reality is that our legal system, domestic and global, is not set up to deal with this type of criminal/terrorist. Furthermore, our laws of land warfare are equally not prepared to deal with an enemy that is not aligned with a nation and conducts asymmetric warfare to include deliberate targeting of civilians.
So, IF you want to solve the PROBLEM, and I submit that this administration WANTS the problem to remain because the fuzziness provides cover for their actions that could easily be construed as illegal and immoral, then one must define the new paradigm and develop applicable and reasonable law, both criminal and for warfare. But, again, we have traded our souls for expedience and ignorance of our situation AND our enemy. - gothicx00, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@CartoonAl
And in WWII who decided that enough was enough and came to England and France's aid?
Us.
Granted it took a bombing of one of our military harbors to lay that final straw the broke the camel's back, we were attempting to give aid in the best way we knew how with out prevoking the enemy long before Pearl Harbor.
It was on that day our president (at the time) got the balls to say enough is enough. We effectivly bailed your asses out. And all the major military engagements that we've been involved in since have pretty much been on some other countries behalf. Korea, Vietnam, etc. There is a point where we have to start defending ourselves with as much energy as we have attempted to defend others. This is the first point in time in a long time where the major threat was upon us and we took action as quick as we could and still stay effective.
Yes it's sad that England was bombed day in and day out. France? France doesn't have enough willpower to get out of it's own way. That might have been a little harsh but still, if you want to protect your country, diplomacy is not the only way. You need to have a force behind you that can settle up on threats. It's like playing poker. Don't make a bet you can't pay out on. If another country or entity makes a threat upon your personal turf, you better damn well be ready and able to come back, with a vengence and the message that it cannot, will not and will never be tolerated. Other wise you end up getting trampled just like France did. They tried. But they didn't have the balls or the manpower to back up defending their country.
That is what it comes down to. If you continually let others trample on you, you invite others to make a strike, however they may justify it. If you strike back, and strike back with a vengence that they've never seen before, then you send the message to them and the rest of the world that this will not be tolerated. That is how you keep your citizens free and allow them to enjoy the liberties that we have fought hard and fast for since the beginning. You cannot let another country or entity believe that they can bully you into submission. There is a breaking point, and we have hit it. The time has come to make good on our threats and, within reason, let those who practice terrorism and the rest of the world know that we will not stand by and let you smack us around. We will not stand by and let you attack us on our own soil with no repercussions. If we were to just stand back and say "OK, please don't do that again, or we will wage war on you" then we are only inviting more attacks.
Granted England, France and others have witnessed atrocities that sicken me to this day. But let the things that have happened in recent years happen to you, and let's see how you would react. If you react with seeking out and neutralizing those which struck at you, then you are telling the world that you will not stand for such nonsense and will defend your country to the tee. If you stand back and attempt deplomacy at the enemy, then all you are doing is simply inviting them to strike once again. Let that go on too long? And you will be with out a country entirely. - nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2you're referring to Vietnam? Iraq? or WW2?
- gothicx00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well... I have just one last thing to say on the topic.
Inquisitors and Nazis and secret police down through the ages, and especially in the twentieth century, would laugh at you if you suggested that the stuff a bunch of rogue juveniles did after hours at Abu Graib constitutes torture.
The bottom line is that we don’t use torture to interrogate people, no matter what the left-wing, DailyKos crowd thinks, because torture is almost always counterproductive. People will generally say what they think you want them to say, if you cause them enough pain, and you have no way of knowing whether it is true.
If you consider using psychological operations torture, then you need to hit the history books to understand what torture really is. - dibbler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@weeFred:
got any proof for those assertions? Because from where I am standing, we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about them. Oh wait, GWB said it, so it MUST be true. -
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is