This is going to hit the news in the morning.....

[stephanie]

Kucinich to Receive Appeal for Redress from Active Duty Service Members
For Immediate Release:
Friday, January 12, 2007

Contact: Natalie Laber (202) 225-5871 (O)
(202) 365-1040 (C)

WASHINGTON, DC -- Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) will receive an Appeal for Redress from active duty service members and veterans on Tuesday, January 16, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. on the steps of the Cannon House Office Building.

An appeal for redress is a way for individual service members to appeal to Members of Congress to urge an end to the U.S. military occupation.

More than 1,000 service members have signed the appeal for redress. It is sponsored by active duty service members based in the Norfolk area and by a sponsoring committee of veterans and military family members. The sponsoring committee consists of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans For Peace and Military Families Speak Out.

Kucinich has been an adamant opponent of the war. He led the effort to challenge the Administration's war in Iraq. In advance of the Iraq war resolution in Congress, he organized 126 Democrats, two-thirds of the House Democratic Caucus, to vote against the resolution.

This week, Kucinich introduced a Sense of Congress resolution in the House of Representatives, urging the President not to order an escalation in the total number of troops serving in Iraq. The resolution has 26 cosponsors.

"There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that recognizes the plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal basis of the United States' war against Iraq, the realities on the ground which make a military resolution of the conflict unrealistic, and the urgent responsibility of the United States to use the process of diplomacy and international law to achieve stability in Iraq."
http://www.appealforredress.org/php/pressroom.php

It's already been on FR and DU......Get ready folks....

[retiredman]

I can't wait for the chickenhawk pompom waving members of the fighting keyboardist brigade to label those servicemen who are seeking redress as cowards and traitors...

get ready folks.

[KarlMarx]

I can't wait for the chickenhawk pompom waving members of the fighting keyboardist brigade to label those servicemen who are seeking redress as cowards and traitors...

get ready folks.
Let's not forget the left wing I-am-a-patriot-because-I-oppose-war, lose-o-phile, peace-through-appeasement-types to sit in judgement of them.

Remember folks, the only ones that have a right to say anything about the war are those who fought, those who have family fighting and those opposed to the war... those of us who support the war are supposed to remain silent....

That's the Left's idea of free speech --- you're entitled to their opinions.

[retiredman]

Let's not forget the left wing I-am-a-patriot-because-I-oppose-war, lose-o-phile, peace-through-appeasement-types to sit in judgement of them.

Remember folks, the only ones that have a right to say anything about the war are those who fought, those who have family fighting and those opposed to the war... those of us who support the war are supposed to remain silent....

That's the Left's idea of free speech --- you're entitled to their opinions.


not true.... I am a patriot, not because I oppose the war, but because I served my country for a quarter of a century in uniform. Like it or not, that does give me some degree of "standing".

YOu are certainly entitled to your opinion.... and I was only commenting that your opinion would probably be that those service members who are seeking redress are cowards and traitors.

I was right, wasn't I?

[KarlMarx]

not true.... I am a patriot, not because I oppose the war, but because I served my country for a quarter of a century in uniform. Like it or not, that does give me some degree of "standing".

YOu are certainly entitled to your opinion.... and I was only commenting that your opinion would probably be that those service members who are seeking redress are cowards and traitors.

I was right, wasn't I?
Since you fancy yourself a mind reader, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1,000,000,000 ... when you can tell me which number that is, you've earned the right to make presumptions about those who don't agree with you in this regard.

I also like to ask, since you served, how you felt when you were standing in harm's way (if you ever did) while others here in the States were doing things to embolden those that were taking shots at you. For instance, when Jane Fonda visited the North Vietnamese. I don't imagine that you would appreciate it.

Also, I wonder, why Kucinich does something like that so publicly, could it be for political gain? Not all who oppose the war do so for altruistic reasons.

[retiredman]

I thought that Jane Fonda crossed the line...but I NEVER begrudged Americans from protesting the Vietnam war.... and I never begrudged Americans from protesting our military involvement anywhere on the globe. Those people who say that dissent in America emboldens our enemies are playing to the worst in us.... we, as a country, pride ourselves in our freedom of speech and the rapidfire raucous exchange of ideas.... if America were a country where no one felt safe to criticize stupid decisions on the part of our government just because those decisions involved folks in uniform.... this wouldn't BE the America I served.

And if you will note my previous post, I asked a question, and did not make a statement. If I wasn't right, all you have to do is say so. I certainly do not fancy myself a mindreader....I merely asked a question.

[Dilloduck]

I can't wait for the chickenhawk pompom waving members of the fighting keyboardist brigade to label those servicemen who are seeking redress as cowards and traitors...

get ready folks.

Actually less than 1% of the troops protesting means that 99% still support us being there. A sure sign that morale is great ! Hopefully they don't expect anyone to be impressed by these numbers.

[KarlMarx]

I thought that Jane Fonda crossed the line...but I NEVER begrudged Americans from protesting the Vietnam war.... and I never begrudged Americans from protesting our military involvement anywhere on the globe. Those people who say that dissent in America emboldens our enemies are playing to the worst in us.... we, as a country, pride ourselves in our freedom of speech and the rapidfire raucous exchange of ideas.... if America were a country where no one felt safe to criticize stupid decisions on the part of our government just because those decisions involved folks in uniform.... this wouldn't BE the America I served.

And if you will note my previous post, I asked a question, and did not make a statement. If I wasn't right, all you have to do is say so. I certainly do not fancy myself a mindreader....I merely asked a question.
There was a concept in the past that went like this "politics end at our shores". Those who opposed FDR's policies in the war did not say much after we declared war on Germany (although it was Japan who attacked us). That isn't true today. I don't think, for instance, that Americans demanding for the impeachment of a president who did nothing illegal serves no constructive purpose. Then there are those who want to see Rumsfeld and Cheney tried for, war crimes, of all things! Then, we have the New York Times blowing the lid off of classified domestic surveillance programs. Of course, let's not forget Cindy Sheehan's very public statements in Venezuela and the Dixie Chicks' statements. And what about Michael Moore and his comments that "Americans are the stupidest people on the planet"? It seems that there is nothing that is out of bounds for some.

Certainly, they have the right to say those things, but certainly, they deserve the consequences of what their actions.

[retiredman]

and what do you think the "consequences" should be for speaking one's mind in a country that prides itself on the freedom of speech?

If you don't like living in a country where people are free to speak their minds, even if their ideas offend you and anger you and fill you with dismay.... I suggest moving.

[retiredman]

oh..and by the way...Germany declared war on us first.

[Dilloduck]

and what do you think the "consequences" should be for speaking one's mind in a country that prides itself on the freedom of speech?

If you don't like living in a country where people are free to speak their minds, even if their ideas offend you and anger you and fill you with dismay.... I suggest moving.

I imagine the consequences of speaking your mind is that people who disagree with you will also speak there minds in opposition.

[KarlMarx]

and what do you think the "consequences" should be for speaking one's mind in a country that prides itself on the freedom of speech?

If you don't like living in a country where people are free to speak their minds, even if their ideas offend you and anger you and fill you with dismay.... I suggest moving.
Gee... my feelings exactly.... I remember that a lot of Hollywood gliteratti threatening to leave the country if Bush were re-elected, they're still here.

And oh by the way, I didn't say that I don't believe people don't have a right to differing opinions. However, I also am entitled to my opinion and have the right to express it.

I'd also like to offer your suggestion to leave the country to those "anti-war" activists who bad mouth America. It's one thing to say that you don't agree with the war or the way it is being run. It's quite another to call this country names and claiming that you hate it.

[retiredman]

you were the one who said that people who speak out against American involvement in Iraq deserve consequences. I ask again, what those consequences ought to be, in your opinion?

and who gives a damn whether people threatened to move or not? They decided to stay and they decided to speak. I say again...if YOU have a problem with them speaking their minds, you should either move, or go shoot one of them so that you can be incarcerated and we wouldn't have to put up with your whining about people exercising their rights as citizens.

[KarlMarx]

oh..and by the way...Germany declared war on us first.
True... they did. Oh and by the way, Al Queda declared war on us back in the 1990s but the Clinton administration did NOTHING about it. Now,we find Iranians, Syrians, Egytians, members of Al Queda fighting us in Iraq so... it seems logical to fight them instead of withdrawing.

[Dilloduck]

True... they did. Oh and by the way, Al Queda declared war on us back in the 1990s but the Clinton administration did NOTHING about it. Now,we find Iranians, Syrians, Egytians, members of Al Queda fighting us in Iraq so... it seems logical to fight them instead of withdrawing.

It does seem to make sense to pay attention when someone declares war on you.

[retiredman]

True... they did. Oh and by the way, Al Queda declared war on us back in the 1990s but the Clinton administration did NOTHING about it. Now,we find Iranians, Syrians, Egytians, members of Al Queda fighting us in Iraq so... it seems logical to fight them instead of withdrawing.

Clinton certainly did do something...and when he did try to take out OBL, the republicans ALL criticized his actions.... your selective memory is humorous.

If I stormed into YOUR house and occupied it against your will because I believed that a gang of motorcycle thugs had set up shop in your basement and were making molotov cocktails which I believed they would use against me.... and after getting into your house and occupying it with a gang of my own armed men, I determined that the motorcycle gang had never been in your basement and that my intelligence concerning their bomb-making activities had been bogus...but nonetheless...I stuck around with my gang of armed men... and my presence there got your in-laws who lived with you fighting with one another.... and then, a group of motorcycle thugs appeared in the backyard and started lobbing molotov cocktails at YOUR house in order to cause havoc with MY band of armed men, would you think that it would be appropriate for me to continue to occupy your house and continue to stir up hate and discontent in YOUR family simply because the bikers had arrived on the scene?

[Dilloduck]

and my presence there got your in-laws who lived with you fighting with one another..

Is this an argument to kick all muslims out of the US ?

[CockySOB]

I can't wait for the chickenhawk pompom waving members of the fighting keyboardist brigade to label those servicemen who are seeking redress as cowards and traitors...

get ready folks.

Actually, this method of airing their dissension is legal as far as I an tell. As such, more power to them. The ones I label as cowards and traitors are those who choose to use illegal means.

That said, I do think Kucinich is doing a bit of political grandstanding here. Nothing new about a politician grandstanding though.

[retiredman]

Actually, this method of airing their dissension is legal as far as I an tell. As such, more power to them. The ones I label as cowards and traitors are those who choose to use illegal means.

That said, I do think Kucinich is doing a bit of political grandstanding here. Nothing new about a politician grandstanding though.

oh I agree.... their methods are legal as can be....I just question the ethics of people who are too afraid to fight themselves calling into question the courage of those who do and who have.

More power to them? Well...I think that the voters took a bit of that power away, actually, by reducing them to the minority in both houses of congress. ;)

[Dilloduck]

oh I agree.... their methods are legal as can be....I just question the ethics of people who are too afraid to fight themselves calling into question the courage of those who do and who have.

More power to them? Well...I think that the voters took a bit of that power away, actually, by reducing them to the minority in both houses of congress. ;)

Please----this "logic" of " If you aren't _______ you can't say any thing about ______, is bullshit.

[retiredman]

I have never said that they could not speak...of course they can speak....I just question their ethics.... am I not allowed to do that?

[Dilloduck]

I have never said that they could not speak...of course they can speak....I just question their ethics.... am I not allowed to do that?

Of course you are---and I am free to respond-----Now that that's been settled, the Logic that claims if you are not ___________ then you cannot speak of ________, is restrictive of free speech is it not?

[retiredman]

there is a difference between "cannot" and "ought not" don't you think?

I certainly am not forbidden by law from walking outside in the dead of winter wearing only a pair of swimming trunks.... but I really ought not do so.

[CockySOB]

More power to them? Well...I think that the voters took a bit of that power away, actually, by reducing them to the minority in both houses of congress. ;)

OK, ya lost me. When I said "More power to them" I was referring to the military personnel past and present who have enjoined this Appeal for Redress. How do you figure that reduces these military personnel to minority status in Congress (representation is the only think I could surmise)?

[retiredman]

OK, ya lost me. When I said "More power to them" I was referring to the military personnel past and present who have enjoined this Appeal for Redress. How do you figure that reduces these military personnel to minority status in Congress (representation is the only think I could surmise)?

my statement referred to chickenhawks and not to military personnel seeking redress.....

[Dilloduck]

there is a difference between "cannot" and "ought not" don't you think?

I certainly am not forbidden by law from walking outside in the dead of winter wearing only a pair of swimming trunks.... but I really ought not do so.

That's like saying if you have never been an illegal immigrant, you shouldn't call for secure borders. If you question the ethics of people who express themselves without 'having been there" you've just declared our entire country immoral.

[retiredman]

I disagree with your comparison. I am entitled to question the ethics of someone who refuses to fight in a war and then turns around and calls folks who have cowards. That is in now way calling our entire country immoral.

[Dilloduck]

I disagree with your comparison. I am entitled to question the ethics of someone who refuses to fight in a war and then turns around and calls folks who have cowards. That is in now way calling our entire country immoral.

What don't you get here about free speech? I an entitled to question the ethics of someone who makes silly judgements about who should speak and who shouldn't. Using your logic men should never express thier feelings about abortion?

[darin]

I can't wait for the chickenhawk pompom waving members of the fighting keyboardist brigade to label those servicemen who are seeking redress as cowards and traitors...

get ready folks.

They aren't cowards - they are idiots. Nobody with a modicum of rational thought would consider the war 'illegal'. Seriously. EVERYONE who thinks the war is 'illegal' MUST NOT have proper, normal cognitive skills. I'd wager a large portion of those folk would have some degree of mental illness.

[Gaffer]

kucinich is a whiney little socialist asshole and always has been. He's grandstanding for sure cause that's what he does. There's not a moral bone in his body.

I question the authenticity of the military people that are doing this redress. Just as I question anything kucinich does.

I AM a so called chicken hawk. I am also a combat veteran. People can say what they like, but they do have consequences which can be anything from boycots to just getting ragged on by those around them.

To say that speaking out against the war doesn't hurt anything is BULLSHIT and you know it as well as I do maine. The enemy watches our tv and news reports and reads our papers and they are using the same tactics used in vietnam. Divide the American people and draw things out until the people say that's enough. And the media is playing right along with them. Why? because like every other leftie they hate Bush. For the media and the left this is not a war for iraq. Its a war against Bush. Its a partisan effort to get control of the government. And it will be done at whatever the cost, including the lives of our military.

Had the media been showing positive reports and truthful reports for the past few years, and had the dems stood behind Bush publically, things would be going different in iraq right now. We might even be in the middle of a draw down instead of a surge. But all the backstabbing and infighting has just served to embolden our enemies who know that the longer it goes on the better there chances of success. This is another vietnam in the sense that the media are once again supporting the enemy and fighting the war at home for them.

[retiredman]

"To say that speaking out against the war doesn't hurt anything is BULLSHIT and you know it as well as I do maine."

Here is what I know: I know that an America where people feel somehow compelled to hold their tongues and not speak out against tyranny or folly is an America that has lost its soul and become a fascist police state.

If our enemies use our words against us, that is far less damaging than if we compel that silence amongst ourselves out of fear.

[darin]

"To say that speaking out against the war doesn't hurt anything is BULLSHIT and you know it as well as I do maine."

Here is what I know: I know that an America where people feel somehow compelled to hold their tongues and not speak out against tyranny or folly is an America that has lost its soul and become a fascist police state.

If our enemies use our words against us, that is far less damaging than if we compel that silence amongst ourselves out of fear.



Why all the drama? What you refuse to see is the War in Iraq is the USA speaking-out/acting-out against Tyranny. That War is SAVING potentially MILLIONS Of lives. Hundreds of Thousands of people will NO LONGER be afflicted by torture, death, and dismemberment by their own government. It's among the most noble of causes.

[retiredman]

Why all the drama? What you refuse to see is the War in Iraq is the USA speaking-out/acting-out against Tyranny. That War is SAVING potentially MILLIONS Of lives. Hundreds of Thousands of people will NO LONGER be afflicted by torture, death, and dismemberment by their own government. It's among the most noble of causes.

could you type that with a straight face?

You ask the man on the street in Baghdad if things are better now than they were four years ago.... then come back and talk to me.

[darin]

could you type that with a straight face?

You ask the man on the street in Baghdad if things are better now than they were four years ago.... then come back and talk to me.

I have it from a guy who does asks people on the streets of baghdad. So I know my info is good. By FAR the average Habbib on the street WELCOMES the chance for Freedom brought by America and other compassionate countries with the backbone to stand and fight.

Why are you so short-sighted? I suppose asking ANYONE in ANY country who is involved in War "Do you have it better NOW, or before the war?" people would say 'Before the war'. So what?

Ask people 10 years from now the same question, and The USA will be praised as the Great Western ANGELS who freed them from Satan. :) More or Less.

[Gaffer]

"To say that speaking out against the war doesn't hurt anything is BULLSHIT and you know it as well as I do maine."

Here is what I know: I know that an America where people feel somehow compelled to hold their tongues and not speak out against tyranny or folly is an America that has lost its soul and become a fascist police state.

If our enemies use our words against us, that is far less damaging than if we compel that silence amongst ourselves out of fear.

It's not a matter of people holding their tongue. It's a matter of selective publishing and reporting of news and falsification of news. And using the media to make it seem like everyone hates Bush and the government in order to get political power. It empowers the enemy to keep up their efforts as it appears we are too divided to continue the war effort. This war has dragged out far longer than it needed too because of the anti-war propaganda fed by the media. Its all partician politics played by the the dems and the media and I blame them for every death that has occurred among our service people since 2004.

we have to quell the problems in iraq because we have a serious confrontation coming with iran real soon.

[retiredman]

to blame the failures we have experienced in this war on the media is disingenuous and irresponsible. The failures we have experienced were because we DID try to do it on the cheap and we DID not plan for the post invasion insurgency and recovery operation and we DID torture Iraq citizens in the exact same prison where the man we overthrew because he was a torturer tortured Iraqi citizens..... it was not because the media reported those things. The insurgency does not get its energy and commitment from watching CNN or reading the NYT... it comes from centuries of enmity - to rival sects in Islam and to crusading christian invaders.

[dirt mcgirt]

It's not a matter of people holding their tongue. It's a matter of selective publishing and reporting of news and falsification of news. And using the media to make it seem like everyone hates Bush and the government in order to get political power. It empowers the enemy to keep up their efforts as it appears we are too divided to continue the war effort. This war has dragged out far longer than it needed too because of the anti-war propaganda fed by the media. Its all partician politics played by the the dems and the media and I blame them for every death that has occurred among our service people since 2004.

we have to quell the problems in iraq because we have a serious confrontation coming with iran real soon.
I don't deny the media is biased and slanted on the coverage of Iraq. Bush does take a lot of unfair criticism. But how do you explain Republican critics of the war? Chuck Hagel and Arlen Specter have been critical from the start. There are boatloads of other Repubs that have been just as vocal. How can it be all partisan politics if some of the Repubs have been saying the same things from the get go?

[darin]

The failures we have experienced were because we DID try to do it on the cheap and we DID not plan for the post invasion insurgency and recovery operation

To say the military leadership did not PLAN is disingenuous and irresponsible. To say their plans were not adequate, however, in hindsight, of course is accurate. God Bless hindsight, eh?



and we DID torture Iraq citizens in the exact same prison where the man we overthrew because he was a torturer tortured Iraqi citizens

That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Do you know what Torture is?


The insurgency does not get its energy and commitment from watching CNN or reading the NYT... it comes from centuries of enmity - to rival sects in Islam and to crusading christian invaders.

You've never studied the Crusades - How can you honestly cite them? The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE war / Recovery War. AFTER Muslims attacked and invaded, Europeans and others went to the region to REPEL the invading Muslim armies. It's SORT OF like when Iraq Invaded Kuwait, and we stepped up and repelled the invading Iraqi forces.

[darin]

There are boatloads of other Repubs that have been just as vocal. How can it be all partisan politics if some of the Repubs have been saying the same things from the get go?


....Blatant Political Opportunism, IMO...largely, anyway.

[retiredman]

To say the military leadership did not PLAN is disingenuous and irresponsible. To say their plans were not adequate, however, in hindsight, of course is accurate. God Bless hindsight, eh?
I believe that the military leadership's plans were ignored in favor of civilian leadership's plans. Testimony of CJSC at the time bears this out



That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Do you know what Torture is?
I DO know what torture is.... I have read the UN treaty on torture... I have read the reports of courts martials on military personnel who have been convicted of torturing Iraqis to death.Do you deny that has happened?

You've never studied the Crusades - How can you honestly cite them? The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE war / Recovery War. AFTER Muslims attacked and invaded, Europeans and others went to the region to REPEL the invading Muslim armies. It's SORT OF like when Iraq Invaded Kuwait, and we stepped up and repelled the invading Iraqi forces.

I have, in fact, studied the crusades, and there are indeed two sides to every story. The atrocities committed at the hands of the crusaders are every bit as heinous as those committed by the muslims

[Gaffer]

....Blatant Political Opportunism, IMO...largely, anyway.

That and RINO's

[Gaffer]

To say the military leadership did not PLAN is disingenuous and irresponsible. To say their plans were not adequate, however, in hindsight, of course is accurate. God Bless hindsight, eh?
I believe that the military leadership's plans were ignored in favor of civilian leadership's plans. Testimony of CJSC at the time bears this out

Yes I believe there was too much civilian interferrence...again.


That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Do you know what Torture is?
I DO know what torture is.... I have read the UN treaty on torture... I have read the reports of courts martials on military personnel who have been convicted of torturing Iraqis to death.Do you deny that has happened?

How did you come by these reports? Why weren't these all over the news as more propaganda against Bush. I have heard alot about mistreatment, but never anything about torture. How many torture cases were there?

You've never studied the Crusades - How can you honestly cite them? The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE war / Recovery War. AFTER Muslims attacked and invaded, Europeans and others went to the region to REPEL the invading Muslim armies. It's SORT OF like when Iraq Invaded Kuwait, and we stepped up and repelled the invading Iraqi forces.

I have, in fact, studied the crusades, and there are indeed two sides to every story. The atrocities committed at the hands of the crusaders are every bit as heinous as those committed by the muslims

There are two sides to every story. In the case of the crusades it was a self defense move on the part of the christian nations. Barbarous acts took place on both sides. That went with the times, mideval and all. They basically fought to a stalemate. The muslim caliphate was stopped. The goal of islam then and now is the conquest of the world.

[darin]

I believe that the military leadership's plans were ignored in favor of civilian leadership's plans. Testimony of CJSC at the time bears this out

You're free to believe what you wish, aren't you. You believe fantasy. The people who made the call are civilians - (SECDEF, etc). Not everyone in the military thinks the same way. People present various courses of action to senior leadership who in the end, makes the call.




I DO know what torture is.... I have read the UN treaty on torture... I have read the reports of courts martials on military personnel who have been convicted of torturing Iraqis to death.Do you deny that has happened?


Yeah - I don't know of ANY Servicemember charged with 'torturing'.



I have, in fact, studied the crusades, and there are indeed two sides to every story. The atrocities committed at the hands of the crusaders are every bit as heinous as those committed by the muslims

They why villify JUST the crusaders?

[Gunny]

I can't wait for the chickenhawk pompom waving members of the fighting keyboardist brigade to label those servicemen who are seeking redress as cowards and traitors...

get ready folks.

Servicemembers are as entitled to oppose the war as anyone else. It is also within their rights to present their grievances to their Congressperson.

The questions I have are:

Is Kucinich the representative of each and every servicemember?

Are these servicemembers going to make political statements in uniform in public?

It seems obvious this is a publicity ploy on the part of Kucinich. If teh servicemembers make political statements in public in uniform they can be nailed for it.

I'm just wondering if Kucinich and each and every servicemember is aware of this.

[retiredman]

You're free to believe what you wish, aren't you. You believe fantasy. The people who made the call are civilians - (SECDEF, etc). Not everyone in the military thinks the same way. People present various courses of action to senior leadership who in the end, makes the call.

I said that the plans that we used going in were terrible and that they were determined by civilians... and that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs publicly disagreed with RUmmy on the number of troops that would be needed to accomplish the reconstruction. He was right...Rummy was wrong. Now if you think that is fantasy, there is little left to discuss on that point.

Yeah - I don't know of ANY Servicemember charged with 'torturing'.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/16/national/w113007S95.DTL

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ex=1274241600&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ei=5088

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=3531

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B1EF83F580C718DDDAA0894DD4044 82

I could go on...but you get the point.

They why villify JUST the crusaders?

I didn't... read my words in context...I was explaining the source of the enmity felt by muslims. Now clearly, muslims aren't going to feel enmity about the treatment of the crusaders at the hands of muslims, are they?

Do you feel compelled to argue just for the sake of arguing??

[darin]

Learning how to use the 'quote' codes would really help me follow along.


I said that the plans that we used going in were terrible and that they were determined by civilians... and that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs publicly disagreed with RUmmy on the number of troops that would be needed to accomplish the reconstruction. He was right...Rummy was wrong. Now if you think that is fantasy, there is little left to discuss on that point.

No - you wrote "plans were ignored" - I'm saying that's simply NOT true. Chosing an 'alternative' plan is not 'ignoring plans'. Btw - have you READ or have access to all the contingency plans? We may have chosen the 'wrong' or an 'inadequate' plan - but that's different. What I find striking is you blame the violence in Iraq with our Failure to plan - and NOT 'radical muslims (a large portion are Iranian) who want to KILL all those who aren't of their faith.'




http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/16/national/w113007S95.DTL

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ex=1274241600&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ei=5088

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=3531

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B1EF83F580C718DDDAA0894DD4044 82

I could go on...but you get the point.

They why villify JUST the crusaders?

I didn't... read my words in context...I was explaining the source of the enmity felt by muslims. Now clearly, muslims aren't going to feel enmity about the treatment of the crusaders at the hands of muslims, are they?

Do you feel compelled to argue just for the sake of arguing??



None of those links prove torture. Some show servicemen having killed Terrorists. That's not 'torture'. IF those cases are legit, they are cases of assult/murder. Different than your "(The US Military) has Tortured Iraqi Citizens" - Also, some aren't even stories about Iraq.

I agure when I see people lying or preaching half-truths. "Invading Christian Crusaders" was what you said gave the Terrorists their will to fight. Now, I took that as you meaning 'the crusades' - but re-reading, you could be calling CURRENT forces "Invading Christian Crusaders". Your context wasnt clear to me. Either way, it's dishonest for you to label the crusaders from history as 'invading' - when they were in fact, "defending'. And it's MORE dishonest to label CURRENT forces as "Invading Christian Crusaders" (if that's what you meant) for several reason; two I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) Not all Coalition forces are christians. A Large number are muslim. Some are Jewish. Some Atheist. Some "whatever".
2) It's a 'defensive war'

[retiredman]

If a prisoner is in custody, and his captors beat him until he dies...that is, by definition, "torture".

wow.

[Gaffer]

You're free to believe what you wish, aren't you. You believe fantasy. The people who made the call are civilians - (SECDEF, etc). Not everyone in the military thinks the same way. People present various courses of action to senior leadership who in the end, makes the call.

I said that the plans that we used going in were terrible and that they were determined by civilians... and that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs publicly disagreed with RUmmy on the number of troops that would be needed to accomplish the reconstruction. He was right...Rummy was wrong. Now if you think that is fantasy, there is little left to discuss on that point.

Yeah - I don't know of ANY Servicemember charged with 'torturing'.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/16/national/w113007S95.DTL

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ex=1274241600&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ei=5088

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=3531

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B1EF83F580C718DDDAA0894DD4044 82

I could go on...but you get the point.

They why villify JUST the crusaders?

I didn't... read my words in context...I was explaining the source of the enmity felt by muslims. Now clearly, muslims aren't going to feel enmity about the treatment of the crusaders at the hands of muslims, are they?

Do you feel compelled to argue just for the sake of arguing??

A bunch of leftie news papers whose credibility is in the trash and a muslim propaganda rag are your sources? Real balance in reporting there.

Your the one that brought up the "crusading christian invaders". And that is not the source of the enmity. The source is the koran and the hadath which orders all its followers kill or convert by the sword all infidels. And that land once possessed by islam always belongs to islam and must be retaken.

islam uses the guise of religion but its actually a theocracy, In non-mulsim countries its a theocracy within a soveriegn state.

[darin]

If a prisoner is in custody, and his captors beat him until he dies...that is, by definition, "torture".

wow.


In your world? Because it makes the USA look bad? Sure. Whatever you say.

Torture has a 'point'. Assult/murder does not. Torture is a means to an end.

[Gaffer]

If a prisoner is in custody, and his captors beat him until he dies...that is, by definition, "torture".

wow.

that is by definition....murder

[TheSage]

there is a difference between "cannot" and "ought not" don't you think?

I certainly am not forbidden by law from walking outside in the dead of winter wearing only a pair of swimming trunks.... but I really ought not do so.

But saying they "ought not" is a pathetic adhominem attack to shut them down. Logic is logic, right is right, regardless of a person's past history.

[CockySOB]

could you type that with a straight face?

You ask the man on the street in Baghdad if things are better now than they were four years ago.... then come back and talk to me.

To borrow your own "style"... have you asked someone on the streets of Baghdad if things are better now than they were four years ago? By your own reasoning, if not, then your opinion isn't worth much, is it?

For the record, my boss is an Iraqi ex-pat who still has family in Iraq. While he worries about his family a lot, he has said that under Saddam there was no hope, whereas now at least, there is a glimmer of hope. Second-hand and unverifiable, but I take that as my source on what's going on over in Iraq. (My opinion is worth what you paid for it, so don't bitch, moan or complain because I really don't give a shit.)

[retiredman]

that is by definition....murder
no ...murder requires an element of premeditation. If the captor beats his captive in a vigorous interrogation, the beating is, by definition, torture.... but if the captive dies as a result of the beating, it is not "murder" per se unless it can be proven that the captor went into the interrogation with the predetermined plan to beat his captive to death. And even so.... he, by definition, would torture him to death.

There are plenty of cases - and I listed links to a very few - where American military personnel have beaten Iraqi and Afghani prisoners to death. I hope those links provided you with the knowledge you were missing Gaffer about American military personnel being court martialled for torturing prisoners.... I bet you're glad you aren't over there on active duty, or those links would be about YOU, wouldn't they? Hell.... you'd incarcerate all muslims in America for no reason other than your own fear and bigotry.

[CockySOB]

If a prisoner is in custody, and his captors beat him until he dies...that is, by definition, "torture".

wow.

Really? Care to cite a dictionary which supports your assertion? Or are you asserting your own opinion as truth without providing supporting evidence?

[retiredman]

To borrow your own "style"... have you asked someone on the streets of Baghdad if things are better now than they were four years ago? By your own reasoning, if not, then your opinion isn't worth much, is it?

For the record, my boss is an Iraqi ex-pat who still has family in Iraq. While he worries about his family a lot, he has said that under Saddam there was no hope, whereas now at least, there is a glimmer of hope. Second-hand and unverifiable, but I take that as my source on what's going on over in Iraq. (My opinion is worth what you paid for it, so don't bitch, moan or complain because I really don't give a shit.)

no bitching or moaning or complaining. I am happy to hear that there still is some glimmer of hope...and I hope that your boss's family makes it out safely.

[retiredman]

Really? Care to cite a dictionary which supports your assertion? Or are you asserting your own opinion as truth without providing supporting evidence?

tor·ture /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

One can assume that being beaten to deat IS excruciatingly painful n'est ce pas?

[retiredman]

But saying they "ought not" is a pathetic adhominem attack to shut them down. Logic is logic, right is right, regardless of a person's past history.

if it shuts them down, it is only because the truth hurts. I am not saying anything to shut anyone down...

and by MY way of examining this issue, there is no logic to invading Iraq. It was extraordinarily counterproductive. It has increased the size and commitment of our enemies...it has made us more despised and distrusted, not to mention it has made us fewer and poorer.

[TheSage]

no ...murder requires an element of premeditation. If the captor beats his captive in a vigorous interrogation, the beating is, by definition, torture.... but if the captive dies as a result of the beating, it is not "murder" per se unless it can be proven that the captor went into the interrogation with the predetermined plan to beat his captive to death. And even so.... he, by definition, would torture him to death.

There are plenty of cases - and I listed links to a very few - where American military personnel have beaten Iraqi and Afghani prisoners to death. I hope those links provided you with the knowledge you were missing Gaffer about American military personnel being court martialled for torturing prisoners.... I bet you're glad you aren't over there on active duty, or those links would be about YOU, wouldn't they? Hell.... you'd incarcerate all muslims in America for no reason other than your own fear and bigotry.

The fear is warranted. they would love to incinerate you. Only an idiot allows his known assailants to live.

[CockySOB]

no bitching or moaning or complaining. I am happy to hear that there still is some glimmer of hope...and I hope that your boss's family makes it out safely.

Actually, they're not leaving Iraq. In fact, he might be taking his wife and three daughters back to Iraq to visit his family relatively soon. Under Saddam & Sons, he was unwilling to put his wife and daughters at risk of rape (or worse).

BTW, he's already made one trip back in the past year and will probably make a few more trips in the next year or so. Iraq is rebuilding in ways that the MSM just refuses to highlight. At least according to my boss.

[retiredman]

Actually, they're not leaving Iraq. In fact, he might be taking his wife and three daughters back to Iraq to visit his family relatively soon. Under Saddam & Sons, he was unwilling to put his wife and daughters at risk of rape (or worse).

BTW, he's already made one trip back in the past year and will probably make a few more trips in the next year or so. Iraq is rebuilding in ways that the MSM just refuses to highlight. At least according to my boss.

I really hope your boss is right. According to a report released by the UN this week, nearly 40 THOUSAND Iraqi civilians have died in sectarian violence this past year and an even greater number wounded....in a country whose total population is 27M. Those death rates in America in a conflict here between democrats and republicans or southerners versus northerners or whites versus non-caucasians would be 400 THOUSAND dead and an even greater number wounded. How hopeful would you be in the face of such carnage here?

[retiredman]

The fear is warranted. they would love to incinerate you. Only an idiot allows his known assailants to live.

funny...I haven't heard you bragging about going down to your local mosque and slaughtering the worshippers as they came out from afternoon prayers....is that because YOU are an idiot?

[Missileman]

funny...I haven't heard you bragging about going down to your local mosque and slaughtering the worshippers as they came out from afternoon prayers....is that because YOU are an idiot?

No, it's because he's no longer strong enough to move the refrigerator away from his mother's basement door. Even if he was, he couldn't afford a portable tin foil helmet, had to settle for the basic AC model, and doesn't have an extension cord long enough to reach all the way to the mosque. :D

[retiredman]

you should move back missileman... the north always needs more smart guys like you...

unless, by transplanted yankee you are referring to New York Yankees, in which case, stay the hell where you are! ;)

[Gunny]

no ...murder requires an element of premeditation. If the captor beats his captive in a vigorous interrogation, the beating is, by definition, torture.... but if the captive dies as a result of the beating, it is not "murder" per se unless it can be proven that the captor went into the interrogation with the predetermined plan to beat his captive to death. And even so.... he, by definition, would torture him to death.

There are plenty of cases - and I listed links to a very few - where American military personnel have beaten Iraqi and Afghani prisoners to death. I hope those links provided you with the knowledge you were missing Gaffer about American military personnel being court martialled for torturing prisoners.... I bet you're glad you aren't over there on active duty, or those links would be about YOU, wouldn't they? Hell.... you'd incarcerate all muslims in America for no reason other than your own fear and bigotry.

Murder does not require premeditation.

Your links are more allegations than actual proven cases. The SFGate link is a joke. The CBS link and a NYT link are duplicates of the same event. The Al Jazeera link is regurgitating Abu Ghraib.

In each case of abuse or alleged abuse, the actions of individuals acting outside the rules are being represented as condoned by the US military when clearly, mistreating prisoners is a violation of the UCMJ.

The fact is, the actions of a few criminals do not represent the actions of the US military as a whole, and in each in your links, the accused have been charged with crimes BY the US military.

I find it odd you would attempt to tarnish the reputation of the military, being a 25 year vet and all.

[retiredman]

I never said that the military as a whole had done ANYTHING wrong. I am not attempting to "tarnish the reputation of the military". The fact remains: we have beaten prisoners to death. That is torture.

And yes....murder DOES require premeditation.

[Gunny]

I never said that the military as a whole had done ANYTHING wrong. I am not attempting to "tarnish the reputation of the military". The fact remains: we have beaten prisoners to death. That is torture.

And yes....murder DOES require premeditation.

Murder does not require premeditation.

In your first sentence you state you never said the military as a whole had done anything wrong. In your second you state you are not attempting to tarnish the reputation of the military.

In your third, you use the all-encompassing "we." Rather contradictory.

By your definition of torture, twisting someone's thumb is "torture." That of course is an intellectually dishonest definition.

If I have a KaBar to the throat of an enemy combatant and I think I can save the life of even the lousiest Marine in my unit by making him talk, he's talking. You can call it whatever want.

[Gaffer]

I never said that the military as a whole had done ANYTHING wrong. I am not attempting to "tarnish the reputation of the military". The fact remains: we have beaten prisoners to death. That is torture.

And yes....murder DOES require premeditation.

Second degree murder is murder without premeditation. If you try to rob someone and kill them, even though you didn't intend too, it's still murder.

Does the WE in your above sentence indicate you took part in a torture?

Physical torture is not productive and not used. People in pain will say anything. Pschcological torture is another story.

[retiredman]

Murder does not require premeditation.

In your first sentence you state you never said the military as a whole had done anything wrong. In your second you state you are not attempting to tarnish the reputation of the military.

In your third, you use the all-encompassing "we." Rather contradictory.

By your definition of torture, twisting someone's thumb is "torture." That of course is an intellectually dishonest definition.

If I have a KaBar to the throat of an enemy combatant and I think I can save the life of even the lousiest Marine in my unit by making him talk, he's talking. You can call it whatever want.

YOu see a contradiction. I see none. I find it hard to believe that you are willing to disenfranchise American servicement who did beat prisoners to death during interrogations and not consider them Americans anymore. I think that, as bad as they are, they are still part of OUR country. Odd that you wouldn't.

There is a definition of torture. A legal definition. By any reasonable interpretation of that definition, beating and bludgeoning a prisoner in captivity during an interrogation to the point where the prisoner does indeed die from the beating falls within it.

And if you put the knife to the man's throat and threatened him with death...I think that, itself, probably fits with the UN definition of torture which is contained in a treaty signed by Ron Reagan so that makes it the law of OUR land as well..... and if you slit his throat and he died, then you most certainly would go to jail.... as other fellow marines have gone for similar offenses against Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were being held prisoner by US.

[retiredman]

and gunny...I strongly recommend you go online and read a copy of theConvention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed on behalf of the United States by Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead on April 18, 1988, at the United Nations. You would find it most illuminating, I am sure.... see what they say about psychological torture in there.

[Gunny]

YOu see a contradiction. I see none. I find it hard to believe that you are willing to disenfranchise American servicement who did beat prisoners to death during interrogations and not consider them Americans anymore. I think that, as bad as they are, they are still part of OUR country. Odd that you wouldn't.

Dishonest interpretation. I said they are criminals committing crimes in defiance of military law. Didn't say a word about dienfranchising them as Americans. I disenfranchise them from the military because they obviously are not following the rules and regulations of the military.

There is a definition of torture. A legal definition. By any reasonable interpretation of that definition, beating and bludgeoning a prisoner in captivity during an interrogation to the point where the prisoner does indeed die from the beating falls within it.

Really. Show me where this definition is in the UCMJ. After all, I saw not one legal allegation of "torture" in any of your links.

And if you put the knife to the man's throat and threatened him with death...I think that, itself, probably fits with the UN definition of torture which is contained in a treaty signed by Ron Reagan so that makes it the law of OUR land as well..... and if you slit his throat and he died, then you most certainly would go to jail.... as other fellow marines have gone for similar offenses against Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were being held prisoner by US.

I love how politicians who've never had a shot fired at them nor seen a fellow Marine die make arbitrary, holier-than-thou rules for an action that in and of itself is the ultimate in barbarity.

I'd like to take them, and people like YOU who have never had your boots on the ground and let Y'ALL fight the wars and we'll see just how overly-moralistic you are when it's YOUR ass on the line.

[Gunny]

and gunny...I strongly recommend you go online and read a copy of theConvention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed on behalf of the United States by Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead on April 18, 1988, at the United Nations. You would find it most illuminating, I am sure.... see what they say about psychological torture in there.

Got me confused with Gaffer again, do you?

[retiredman]

I suggested you read the UN treaty on torture...that suggestion still stands....do I have to hold your hand and feed you the text or do you know how to use a search engine.

and I have had my boots on the ground and I have been fired upon....by arabs.

please don't make assumptions about me gunny.....

[retiredman]

Got me confused with Gaffer again, do you?

that may be.... you two are kinda like frick and frack

[Gunny]

I suggested you read the UN treaty on torture...that suggestion still stands....do I have to hold your hand and feed you the text or do you know how to use a search engine.

and I have had my boots on the ground and I have been fired upon....by arabs.

please don't make assumptions about me gunny.....

I know the rules.

Wow. So WHAT Navy ground combat unit were you in?:lmao:

[Gunny]

that may be.... you two are kinda like frick and frack

Why? Becasue we don't believe in just giving our country away?

[Gaffer]

YOu see a contradiction. I see none. I find it hard to believe that you are willing to disenfranchise American servicement who did beat prisoners to death during interrogations and not consider them Americans anymore. I think that, as bad as they are, they are still part of OUR country. Odd that you wouldn't.

There is a definition of torture. A legal definition. By any reasonable interpretation of that definition, beating and bludgeoning a prisoner in captivity during an interrogation to the point where the prisoner does indeed die from the beating falls within it.

And if you put the knife to the man's throat and threatened him with death...I think that, itself, probably fits with the UN definition of torture which is contained in a treaty signed by Ron Reagan so that makes it the law of OUR land as well..... and if you slit his throat and he died, then you most certainly would go to jail.... as other fellow marines have gone for similar offenses against Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were being held prisoner by US.

The un does not over ride the UCMJ. Much as you would like it too. The un is an irrelavent organization.

Threatening to cut someones throat is not torture. If they believe you will do it and they talk then you have accomplished what you wanted to do. Cutting their throat gets you no information.

Those that were charged in beatings were charged with abuse of prisoners, not torture. Your too anxious to make them look like something their not. And trashing the military.

[retiredman]

you need to read the constitution. you need to understand the force of law that treaties hold. I suggest you do that and I suggest you read the text of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which, once signed, became the LAW of THIS land...and then get back to me ....

[Gaffer]

you need to read the constitution. you need to understand the force of law that treaties hold. I suggest you do that and I suggest you read the text of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which, once signed, became the LAW of THIS land...and then get back to me ....

A convention or treaty still does not apply if its not in the UCMJ. Such things are covered in the UCMJ but not under the guise of the un. The un is irrelavent. Nothing from the un is the law of the land here.

All the stuff covered in that convention is already applied here without the un. It was mostly sponsored by the US anyway and is ignored by 90% of the countries signatured. We don't ever go to war with countries that follow those codes.

[retiredman]

A convention or treaty still does not apply if its not in the UCMJ. Such things are covered in the UCMJ but not under the guise of the un. The un is irrelavent. Nothing from the un is the law of the land here.

All the stuff covered in that convention is already applied here without the un. It was mostly sponsored by the US anyway and is ignored by 90% of the countries signatured. We don't ever go to war with countries that follow those codes.


1. the UN convention in question does not apply to simply wartime scenarios.
2. the wording of that UN convention is, per the constitution, the law of the United States as well because it is a signed treaty. Let me refer you to the wording of Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" Any more stupid remarks about "nothing from the UN is the law of the land here"? I certainly hope not.
3. beating a prisoner during an interrogation is a form of torture. beating him until he dies from it is a form of torture. Because that is against the terms of a treaty that was made under the authority of the United States, that means - as per the constitution - that is is against the supreme law of the land here. Got it?

[Gunny]

1. the UN convention in question does not apply to simply wartime scenarios.
2. the wording of that UN convention is, per the constitution, the law of the United States as well because it is a signed treaty. Let me refer you to the wording of Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" Any more stupid remarks about "nothing from the UN is the law of the land here"? I certainly hope not.
3. beating a prisoner during an interrogation is a form of torture. beating him until he dies from it is a form of torture. Because that is against the terms of a treaty that was made under the authority of the United States, that means - as per the constitution - that is is against the supreme law of the land here. Got it?

Ummm..... you are misinterpreting the Constitution. The US has not ceded soverignty to the UN. US military personnel charged with crimes during wartime are tried by the US military under the UCMJ. They are charged with violations of the UCMJ, not any international agreements.

[retiredman]

Ummm..... you are misinterpreting the Constitution. The US has not ceded soverignty to the UN. US military personnel charged with crimes during wartime are tried by the US military under the UCMJ. They are charged with violations of the UCMJ, not any international agreements.

I am not saying that America cedes sovereignty...only that that treaty - and every treaty signed by this government - is the law of the land. torture is an illegal activity that the US will not engage in as per that law. Americans who do, violate the law of the land.

[Gunny]

I am not saying that America cedes sovereignty...only that that treaty - and every treaty signed by this government - is the law of the land. torture is an illegal activity that the US will not engage in as per that law. Americans who do, violate the law of the land.

In true perspective, the US ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, in 1955. We agreed to a standard set of rules, and incorporated them into US law and the UCMJ. US law makes it the "law of the land," not the Geneva Convention.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

And again, regardless your personal interpretation of "torture," no military persons in Iraq or Afghanistan has been charged and convicted of torture under international law. Persons who have mistreated prisoners have been charged and convicted under violation of Article 93, UCMJ, Cruelty and Maltreatment.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20X.%20PUNITIVE%20ARTICLES

[retiredman]

In true perspective, the US ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, in 1955. We agreed to a standard set of rules, and incorporated them into US law and the UCMJ. US law makes it the "law of the land," not the Geneva Convention.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

And again, regardless your personal interpretation of "torture," no military persons in Iraq or Afghanistan has been charged and convicted of torture under international law. Persons who have mistreated prisoners have been charged and convicted under violation of Article 93, UCMJ, Cruelty and Maltreatment.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20X.%20PUNITIVE%20ARTICLES

it is not my personal interpretation..it is the law of the land....and I agree that cruelyt and maltreatment is an appropriate charge to bring under the UCMJ for captors who torture their captives. And... regardless of how impalatable it is for you, treaties signed by our government are the law of the land./ We may chose to prosecute some offender under an equivalent US statute, but that does not remove the constitutional validity of, for example, the UN treaty on torture.

[Gunny]

it is not my personal interpretation..it is the law of the land....and I agree that cruelyt and maltreatment is an appropriate charge to bring under the UCMJ for captors who torture their captives. And... regardless of how impalatable it is for you, treaties signed by our government are the law of the land./ We may chose to prosecute some offender under an equivalent US statute, but that does not remove the constitutional validity of, for example, the UN treaty on torture.

While you may think the UN is something special, I do not recognize its authority. I'm for kicking their asses out of the US and removing our name from the rolls. Let France foot the majority of the bill and do its dirtywork.

And as I stated initially, we need to take all the politicians, bureaucrats, and people like you who like to sit around and dream up arbitrary rules on how to fight to the death, put an M-16A2 in your hands and drop all of y'all in the bush and sit back with some popcorn and watch. It'd be known as the greatest clusterfuck EVER.

[retiredman]

So you get to pick and chose which laws of the land you get to observe and which ones you get to ignore?

that seems decidedly unAmerican to me.

I thought you swore an oath to support and defend the constitution...or were your fingers crossed behind your back when you took the enlistment oath?

[Gunny]

So you get to pick and chose which laws of the land you get to observe and which ones you get to ignore?

that seems decidedly unAmerican to me.

I thought you swore an oath to support and defend the constitution...or were your fingers crossed behind your back when you took the enlistment oath?

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the UN Charter, nor anything else that degrades the sovereignty of the United States.

That isn't unAmerican. You have it backward. Selling out the sovereignty of our Nation to the NWO is unAmerican.

[retiredman]

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the UN Charter, nor anything else that degrades the sovereignty of the United States.

That isn't unAmerican. You have it backward. Selling out the sovereignty of our Nation to the NWO is unAmerican.


so...you ARE saying that you get to pick and chose which laws of the land you will obey and which ones you will ignore.

I never said anything about the UN charter. I DID, however, say something about a treaty. ANd the constitution is crystal clear as to the status of treaties signed by our government. Whether you agree with them or not...whether you support the organization that drafted them or not, those treaties ARE the law of the land. It IS very unAmerican of you to spit on the constitution so blithely.

[Gunny]

so...you ARE saying that you get to pick and chose which laws of the land you will obey and which ones you will ignore.

I'm saying it is my right to agree or disagree with anything the government of the US agrees to. If I consider a law contrary to the spirit and intent of the US Constitution, I do not feel compelled to either obey nor disobey it.

I personally have no problem with a law against torture.

I DO have a problem with the govenment of the United States in any way degrading the sovereignty of this Nation.

I never said anything about the UN charter. I DID, however, say something about a treaty. ANd the constitution is crystal clear as to the status of treaties signed by our government. Whether you agree with them or not...whether you support the organization that drafted them or not, those treaties ARE the law of the land. It IS very unAmerican of you to spit on the constitution so blithely.

I am not spitting on the Constitution. I'm spitting on elected officials who have amended the Constitution in ways that degrade the sovereignty of this Nation, and/or are not beneficial to this Nation.

You're wasting your time with your dishonest attempts to label me "unAmerican." I'm not the one promoting selling this nation's sovereignty to international organizations.

[retiredman]

neither am I... that's a silly red herring. I support and defend the constitution..and when the constitution says that treaties signed by our government become the law of the land, I take that seriously. You don't, obviously... you do, in fact, think that you can pick and chose which laws of the land - which provisions of our constitution you need to obey and which ones you are free to ignore.

so tap dance all you want. If you suggest that treaties signed by our government do not need to be obeyed, you are spitting on the constitution which is a very unAmerican thing to do.

[Gunny]

neither am I... that's a silly red herring. I support and defend the constitution..and when the constitution says that treaties signed by our government become the law of the land, I take that seriously. You don't, obviously... you do, in fact, think that you can pick and chose which laws of the land - which provisions of our constitution you need to obey and which ones you are free to ignore.

so tap dance all you want. If you suggest that treaties signed by our government do not need to be obeyed, you are spitting on the constitution which is a very unAmerican thing to do.

No, I pick and choose which laws I wish to support. That would be my right as an American.

I did not suggest that treaties signed by our government do not need to be obeyed. I expressed my right to disagree with whichever ones I want.

Trying to twist my disagreement with law into my stating I do not have to obey it in order to stifle my opinion because it disagrees with yours -- a right I am guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States -- is about as unAmerican as it gets.

Out-maneuvering you is hardly tapdancing. But it really isn't anything worthy of bragging about either.

[retiredman]

I know the rules.

Wow. So WHAT Navy ground combat unit were you in?:lmao:

I missed this one earlier. I served for two years in Lebanon as a crisis mediator with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization.... you know...the organization that Colonel Higgins was the officer in charge of?

[Gunny]

I missed this one earlier. I served for two years in Lebanon as a crisis mediator with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization.... you know...the organization that Colonel Higgins was the officer in charge of?

Nope. Wasn't there. I was with III MAF (now MEF) in Okinawa at the time.

[retiredman]

http://www.ojc.org/higgins/