Syrian businessman Tony Rezko has been raising money for Obama's political campaigns since 1995, when Obama was first running for the IL Senate. Their friendship is golden.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/766605,CST-NWS-obama30.article

Feds have been watching him for some time. He's dirty. :(

Obama would be wise to stay away from dirty/dangerous people. His new shadow Ted Kennedy won't help him much either. :eek:

Well, he has the Gitmo lawyers endorsement so he's ok:

80+ pro bono Gitmo terrorist's attorneys issued a statement supporting Obama. :eek:

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/397317.html

:eek: :eek:

#1, It's about time.
#2, good for him, these lawyers support the American way, truth and justice for all.

These "lawyers' are giving free legal advice to terrorists/terror suspects. I have no use for them. :(

So far Obama has the support of Teddy Kennedy the drunk/murderer, Queen Oprah, terrorist's lawyers, Iran, terrorists, Rezko the muslim fundraiser, John Kerry, and a whole list of undesirables. I do not admire/respect even one of his supporters. :(

These "lawyers' are giving free legal advice to terrorists/terror suspects. I have no use for them. :(

So far Obama has the support of Teddy Kennedy the drunk/murderer, Queen Oprah, terrorist's lawyers, Iran, terrorists, Rezko the muslim fundraiser, John Kerry, and a whole list of undesirables. I do not admire/respect even one of his supporters. :(

so you don't respect the american legal system?

so you don't respect the american legal system?

For the most part, no. Especially "lawyers" who defend terrorists. :mad:

For the most part, no. Especially "lawyers" who defend terrorists. :mad:

So you don't think a person should have the right to counsel or a right to their day in court?

What? You'd prefer if they just took them out the back and shoot them in the head because they are suspected of being involved in terrorism? Guilty until proven innocent eh Sandy? Shame as far as you are concerned, a person shouldn't even be given the chance to prove their innocence.

Those lawyers who are working in Gitmo are seen to be human rights activists. They work there under constant threats, insults and abuse from the staff working at Gitmo and having the Defense Force use every single dirty trick in the book. Be thankful your country has those lawyers Sandy. Because if you are ever wrongfully arrested, they could be the one's who get your butt out of jail. But since you have no respect for the legal system, maybe you should be left to flounder and rot in it.

I do not admire/respect even one of his supporters.
I'm sure they are devastated by that Sandy. Really.:rolleyes:

So you don't think a person should have the right to counsel or a right to their day in court?..

Of course AMERICANS/humans charged with a crime have the right to a lawyer and their day in court. Terrorists do not. Those "lawyers" trying to free terrorists are the scum of the earth. Human rights my @ss. Those brave workers at Gitmo get the terrorists' urine/feces thrown at them, threats of beheading, vile personal insults/harassment/threats, and all the rest of the typical terrorist bs all while the POS hide behind their Korans and plot their jihad. :mad:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/clubgitmo.guest.html

Of course AMERICANS/humans charged with a crime have the right to a lawyer and their day in court. Terrorists do not. Those "lawyers" trying to free terrorists are the scum of the earth. Human rights my @ss. Those brave workers at Gitmo get the terrorists' urine/feces thrown at them, threats of beheading, vile personal insults/harassment/threats, and all the rest of the typical terrorist bs all while the POS hide behind their Korans and plot their jihad. :mad:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/clubgitmo.guest.html

Yes Sandy. Human rights. I understand it is hard for you to wrap your head around the fact that human rights organisations around the world view Gitmo to be a pit of human rights abuses. Well done Sandy! You support breaches of human rights. The interim Government in Rwanda in 1994 would have loved you.

Gitmo is a disgrace and is one of the reasons why the world views the Bush administration as being a perpetrator of human rights abuses. Gitmo has lowered the standing of the US in international eyes and has trashed your reputation and has made you look like hypocritical turds. Those lawyers working in Gitmo are viewed by many in human rights circles as being heros. They face constant threats and abuse from the staff working at Gitmo and from the Government. Do you know why? Because they are daring to show the hypocrisy of your bloody Government and how your Government conveniently ignores your Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, and a plethora of other international laws.

Those lawyers Sandy, are working their arses off to ensure the people held in Gitmo are treated fairly and are given a trial. Hell, they're working their arses off so that those held in Gitmo are even charged... since you know, they're held there without charge. Yes, that's right Sandy. Your Government is holding people for years and years without even bothering to charge them with any crime. That in itself is considered criminal.

Those brave workers at Gitmo get the terrorists' urine/feces thrown at them, threats of beheading, vile personal insults/harassment/threats,
Funny you should say that Sandy. Because the staff at Gitmo have been accused of doing that to the detainees. Remember Abu Grahib and the way in which your soldiers treated the prisoners there (very similarly to how Saddam treated them by the way which makes your government no better than him)? Gitmo is even worse. Those "brave workers" are cowards who hide behind their guns while they torture and abuse the detainees who are being held there without charge. Those "brave workers" are one of the reasons why the US's reputation has been trashed in the international community.

It's a shame you are so abusive of Iran's regime. Because you'd have fit right in there with your belief system!

These "lawyers' are giving free legal advice to terrorists/terror suspects. I have no use for them. :(

So far Obama has the support of Teddy Kennedy the drunk/murderer, Queen Oprah, terrorist's lawyers, Iran, terrorists, Rezko the muslim fundraiser, John Kerry, and a whole list of undesirables. I do not admire/respect even one of his supporters. :(

That figures

Of course AMERICANS/humans charged with a crime have the right to a lawyer and their day in court. Terrorists do not. Those "lawyers" trying to free terrorists are the scum of the earth. Human rights my @ss. Those brave workers at Gitmo get the terrorists' urine/feces thrown at them, threats of beheading, vile personal insults/harassment/threats, and all the rest of the typical terrorist bs all while the POS hide behind their Korans and plot their jihad. :mad:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/clubgitmo.guest.html

What happened to the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty, or does that only apply to Americans. A terrorist is a terrorist until proven innocent.

Have you read any of the accounts by former detainees in Gitmo. Would you sooner have vile personal insults hurled at you or be "rendered" to use the euphemism ?

What happened to the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty, or does that only apply to Americans. A terrorist is a terrorist until proven innocent.

Have you read any of the accounts by former detainees in Gitmo. Would you sooner have vile personal insults hurled at you or be "rendered" to use the euphemism ?

What she does not realise is that a lot of the lawyers working for the detainees are actually employed by the US Government and when they realised the state in which they were being detained and the breaches of international and US laws occurring in Gitmo, many of them decided to speak out. Those lawyers are now struggling against their own Government to attempt to bring some form of legality to Gitmo and to ensure charges are laid and the trials can begin. In short, those lawyers are working to save the reputation of their own Government in righting the wrong that is Gitmo.

For the most part, no. Especially "lawyers" who defend terrorists. :mad:

Any who gets to say who is a terrorist? Did you know many of the prisoners in Gitmo were sold to the US by people who were their personal enemies, for cash? No one observed any terrorism on their part. I can't think of any other word to describe your attitude except UNAMERICAN.

Any who gets to say who is a terrorist? Did you know many of the prisoners in Gitmo were sold to the US by people who were their personal enemies, for cash? No one observed any terrorism on their part. I can't think of any other word to describe your attitude except UNAMERICAN.

Those terrorists are not in there because we had nothing better to do than arrest them. They were watched and caught. Their behavior proves they are vile animals.:(

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={7D9DAB63-088D-45D7-97B9-C4B89C1D73AE}

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/happy_anniversa.html

Those terrorists are not in there because we had nothing better to do than arrest them. They were watched and caught. Their behavior proves they are vile animals.:(

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/happy_anniversa.html

Then why do a majority of the prisoners there continue to be held captive even though they have never had any formal charges filed against them?

So sandy, you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty?

Those terrorists are not in there because we had nothing better to do than arrest them. They were watched and caught. Their behavior proves they are vile animals.

Many of them were not observed by us at all, but sold to us for cash. That's a fact.

So sandy, you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty?

They are not innocent. They are vile terrorists caught in action. Did you even read the article? When some POS "lawyer" gets them out, they end up killing again. :mad:

Many were innocent, and the proof is that the Bush administration let many of them go free.

They are not innocent. They are vile terrorists caught in action. Did you even read the article? When some POS "lawyer" gets them out, they end up killing again. :mad:

If they're not innocent, charges would have been pressed and convictions would have been made by now. Like spidergoat said, many have already been let free.

Also, the article says the released are killing again, but it didn't provide a source for the accusation. And while it could be true, I've never read anything from a trustworthy source that suggests it is. Not to mention it needs to be asked just how many of the released are actually doing the deed. Can you could provide something that states the what percentage of the released are killing again?

Have you ever herd of David Hicks?

Apart from being one of the issues that got the Howard goverment sacked he is also another wedge that the US is driving between its self and Australia

Of course Australian's (well most anyway) dont see him as a person indipendent of the system, we see ALL of the detentions as wrong.

The whole principle is wrong. How many POW's are in there? The war is over acording to bush so they should have been releced and the rest should have been charged and brought before a MAGISTRATE with-in at the very least 2 years but no. Why did bush have to make up his own legal system for them? could it be because he couldnt satisfy the burden of proof sandy?

Those terrorists are not in there because we had nothing better to do than arrest them. They were watched and caught. Their behavior proves they are vile animals.:(

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={7D9DAB63-088D-45D7-97B9-C4B89C1D73AE}

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/happy_anniversa.html

Since Debbie (from the link you posted) believes they are being so well treated, there would have been no reason to deny the Red Cross access to the detainees to ensure they were being fairly treated, wouldn't there?

A confidential 2003 manual for operating the Guantánamo detention center shows that military officials had a policy of denying detainees access to independent monitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The manual said one goal was to “exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee,” by denying access to the Koran and by preventing visits with Red Cross representatives, who have a long history of monitoring the conditions under which prisoners in international conflicts are held. The document said that even after their initial weeks at Guantánamo, some detainees would not be permitted to see representatives of the International Red Cross, known as the I.C.R.C.

It was permissible, the document said, for some long-term detainees to have “No access. No contact of any kind with the I.C.R.C.”

Some legal experts and advocates for detainees said yesterday that the policy might have violated international law, which provides for such monitoring to assure humanitarian treatment and to limit the ability of governments to hold detainees secretly.

---------------------------------------------------

The Red Cross has been critical of Guantánamo, saying publicly in 2003 that keeping detainees indefinitely without allowing them to know their fate was unacceptable and, in confidential reports, that the physical and psychological treatment of detainees amounted to torture.

The manual is a detailed directive of standard operating procedures at Guantánamo intended for use by the hundreds of people involved in running the detention camp. It provides one of the most complete portraits of the rules of the camp in its early days, when it was a largely closed place where detainees were not publicly identified.

In some instances, the manual echoed the arguments then being advanced by Washington officials as they fended off criticism of Guantánamo. The manual described point-by-point instructions for many camp procedures, including feeding and restraining detainees, and forced extraction of inmates from their cells by military troops. It said a major goal was to foster detainees’ dependence on their interrogators, in part by isolating them. In a section labeled “psychological deterrence,” the manual said military working dogs should be walked in the camp “to demonstrate physical presence to detainees.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16gitmo.html?ei=5090&en=76e443e8322c06f9&ex=1352869200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print


Oh wait.. the ICRC is probably a liberal propaganda machine to you as well, eh Sandy?:rolleyes:

No will know if those prisoners are guilty or not simply because no formal charges have ever been laid. No trial detailing the evidence to their crimes and no guilty verdict means they are being detained contrary to international conventions and laws. Gitmo is a human rights violation in itself where torture and abuse is the norm. Detainees do not have free and private access to legal counsel. They are at times denied the right to their own religion.

You might view the lawyers who donate their time to getting those detainees the right to justice as being terrorist sympathisers Sandy. But those lawyers are probably the only thing saving you face in the international community. Gitmo and the US administration has only resulted in the US, previously the bastion of democracy and freedom and human rights (Ha!), into being a laughing stock and being comparable to regimes in countries like Cuba, South Korea and Iran, where secret prisons and prisoners are held without charge, tortured and killed. Be thankful those lawyers are donating their time Sandy. And your calls to deny those detainees right to counsel only further reiterates just what is wrong with the US administration and how tainted many in your society actually are.

The whole principle is wrong. How many POW's are in there? The war is over acording to bush so they should have been releced and the rest should have been charged and brought before a MAGISTRATE with-in at the very least 2 years but no. Why did bush have to make up his own legal system for them? could it be because he couldnt satisfy the burden of proof sandy?

Agreed, at the very least they should be clearly defined and judged as POWs or regular American criminals. This vague enemy combatant bullshit that lets Bush do whatever he wants with them is disgusting and disgraceful.

It's hard to keep track of all the released since they try to blend in so well with their terrorists friends. Michelle Malkin had a good story about them

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/29/more-gitmo-catch-and-release/

I don't have time to go search for anything else.

Rezko... Obama's one source of campaign contributions that has any issue. Having just one is a record, probably. This happens to every politician who raises money, it is not a sign of guilt. It is particularly rich that Hillary would attack Obama over this.

And before you call the Red cross "libral losers" sandy let me point out that they have a policy of netrelity. In order to join the oranisation you have to renounce ALL political aliances (thats why i never joined, to closely alined to the Australian Democrats). They only comment on something VERY serious.

Bells do you have anything from AI about gitmo?

Well sure they're pissed now! Shrub really has a talent for creating terrorists.

No, the thing about Rezko is a legitimate complaint. It looks shady, no pun intended.

Rezko... Obama's one source of campaign contributions that has any issue. Having just one is a record, probably. This happens to every politician who raises money, it is not a sign of guilt. It is particularly rich that Hillary would attack Obama over this.

There are plenty of questionable contributors--the most vile would be the Iranians.

Sandy how much of a history of interfering in elections has IRAN had?

I would less than YOUR interfearance in THERE country. Not to mention South america and EVEN AUSTRALIA. I found some ridiculas plan of the CIA's to meddle in the australian electrol prossess (i wish i still had the artical but i dont)

And before you call the Red cross "libral losers" sandy let me point out that they have a policy of netrelity...

Of course they do. :rolleyes: The International Red Cross is on the "Americans are desecrating the Koran" bandwagon at Club Gitmo. :rolleyes: They are NOT our friend and have not been our friend for a long time. There is a list of horrendous things they have done. :(

They also demanded Saddam's release. What a bunch of morons...

:rolleyes:Right

They are the one organisation who can walk through a battlefield treating both sides and have been that way since the begining. They have special powers under the UN, but inspite of all that law, policy and history they have SUDDENLY turned anti US:rolleyes:


i notice that when they come to the aid of AMERICANS after the cyclone you wernt complaining:bugeye:

Of course they do. :rolleyes: The International Red Cross is on the "Americans are desecrating the Koran" bandwagon at Club Gitmo. :rolleyes: They are NOT our friend and have not been our friend for a long time. There is a list of horrendous things they have done. :(

They also demanded Saddam's release. What a bunch of morons...

way to prove you have no decency by attacking the IRC.

It's hard to keep track of all the released since they try to blend in so well with their terrorists friends. Michelle Malkin had a good story about them

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/29/more-gitmo-catch-and-release/

I don't have time to go search for anything else.

There are some strange things about this.

First, they call the ones who're released "returning." If they couldn't verify, charge and convict that these people were terrorists to begin with, and they freed them because of this, how can they say with such certainty that they're returning to fighting the US? Isn't it just as likely that they, thanks to being in Gitmo, now have a vendetta against the US which they're now acting out?

Second, look at the criteria the article from the age that Malkin cites uses to determine if a detainee is a threat to the US or not. "This was based on their affiliations with groups such as al-Qaeda, their enthusiasm for violent jihad, their having undertaken small-arms training or having been willing to perform a support role for terrorism." They say that 95 percent of the detainees fit in this category. And yet, just a sentence later, they say "But only one in three could be definitely identified as a fighter for the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated groups." That means 66 percent of the detainees already don't fit criterias one and four which are the most damning ones. The remaining criteria simply shouldn't fit the bill for being a threat to the US. Undertaking small arms training? Enthusiasm for Muslims fighting the US? C'mon.

Lastly, only a confirmed 30 released were later killed or captured. How do you know if these people were terrorists pre-Gitmo?

Syrian businessman Tony Rezko has been raising money for Obama's political campaigns since 1995, when Obama was first running for the IL Senate. Their friendship is golden.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/766605,CST-NWS-obama30.article

Feds have been watching him for some time. He's dirty.

Obama would be wise to stay away from dirty/dangerous people. His new shadow Ted Kennedy won't help him much either. :eek:

REZKO, TONY MR WILMITTE (sic),IL 60091 SELF-EMPLOYED/BUSINESSMAN 12/9/2003 $4,000 Bush, George W

REZKO, TONY MR WILMITTE(sic),IL 60091 SELF-EMPLOYED 12/19/2003 $2,000 Bush, George W

REZKO, TONY MR WILMITTE(sic),IL 60091 SELF-EMPLOYED/BUSINESSMAN 12/19/2003 ($2,000) Bush, George W

http://newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Tony_Rezko.php

:cheers: teh best evah! :yay:

People like that like to tie themselves to politicians as cover. It doesn't mean Bush or Obama did anything bad.

And before you call the Red cross "libral losers" sandy let me point out that they have a policy of netrelity. In order to join the oranisation you have to renounce ALL political aliances (thats why i never joined, to closely alined to the Australian Democrats). They only comment on something VERY serious.



Indeed. For example, they refused to act as witnesses for the prosecution in the trials after the Rwandan genocide because they wanted to maintain their neutrality.

Bells do you have anything from AI about gitmo?
Their report on Gitmo (http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/9ca4e5c4-a2cd-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/amr510512007en.html)

Of course they do. The International Red Cross is on the "Americans are desecrating the Koran" bandwagon at Club Gitmo. They are NOT our friend and have not been our friend for a long time. There is a list of horrendous things they have done.
Compared to beating and torturing people? I doubt the ICRC can be anywhere near as bad as the US staff who man Gitmo and others. And petal, the staff are desecrating the Quran in Gitmo.

The ICRC is probably one of the most respected international organisations and NGO's Sandy. It says a lot for them that you view them as being unfriendly.:)

There are plenty of questionable contributors--the most vile would be the Iranians.
No more questionable than the relationship Bush has with the Saudis.

Right.They are the one organisation who can walk through a battlefield treating both sides and have been that way since the begining.They have special powers under the UN, but inspite of all that law, policy and history they have SUDDENLY turned anti US.i notice that when they come to the aid of AMERICANS after the cyclone you wernt complaining.

Oh for God's sake, do you think I make this sh!t up? The IRC is a freakin joke. They wanted Saddam RELEASED! :mad: They whine about the royal treatment of the terrorists at Gitmo/Abu Ghraib. They are anti-America and I am sick of their terror-supporting bs. They're just another left-wing advocacy group like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Even the liberal Wall Street Journal says they suck/are politicized. And I even won't get into their mismanagement of money. :mad:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005080

Oh for God's sake, do you think I make this sh!t up? The IRC is a freakin joke. They wanted Saddam RELEASED! :mad: They whine about the royal treatment of the terrorists at Gitmo/Abu Ghraib. They are anti-America and I am sick of their terror-supporting bs. They're just another left-wing advocacy group like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Even the liberal Wall Street Journal says they suck/are politicized. And I even won't get into their mismanagement of money. :mad:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005080

yes i do think you are making this shit up. and the fact that you would attack such a noble group is disgusting and amoral.

I like how you linked OPINIONjournal.com as a source for your information.

Yes, you do make like 25% of this shit up, the other 75% you read on ultra conservative blogs or you get it from some douchebag who force feeds you your opinion, because you seem to be unable to think for yourself in any real constructive manner. in short you act like nothing more than a mindless whining conservative robot.

Thanks bells for finding this, if both AI and ICRC are complaining about something its serious, not left wing bullshit (as sandy would put it)



Without question, the isolation of a prisoner from the general population for an indefinite period of time raises Eighth Amendment issues, and due process concerns.


That not only makes it illgal under US law but unconsitutional as well


As of 1 April 2007, approximately 385 men of around 30 nationalities were detained without trial in the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Designated by the US authorities as “"unlawful enemy combatants”", many have been held for more than five years without knowing if or when they will be released or brought to any form of judicial process. None of those currently held has had the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court. A few face the prospect of trials by military commission under procedures that violate international fair trial standards.(2)


What can i say, oh yea right HUMAN RIGHTS VILOLATION


Amnesty International has raised concerns about the treatment of the detainees ever since the first of them were transferred by plane from Afghanistan to Guantánamo – hooded, shackled and tied down – in January 2002.(3) From the outset, the US authorities have asserted that all the detainees in its custody are treated “"humanely”". That such assertions should be treated with extreme caution has become clear over the years. Even when official investigations have revealed interrogation techniques and detention conditions that clearly violate the international prohibition on torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, US investigators and officials have concluded that no law was breached.(4)


Breaches of the international convention against torcher


Despite being provided with what the US government has called “"high quality”" medical care, adequate food, sanitation and access to religious items, most detainees have languished in harsh conditions throughout their detention, confined to mesh cages or enclosed maximum security cells. Moreover, in December 2006, a new facility opened on the base. This facility, known as Camp 6, has created even harsher and apparently more permanent conditions of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation in which detainees are confined to almost completely sealed, individual cells, with minimal contact with any other human being.


Not even going to coment on how discusing this bit is


The US authorities have described Camp 6 as a “"state of the art modern facility”" which is safer for guards and “"more comfortable”" for the detainees. However, Amnesty International believes that conditions in Camp 6, as shown in photographs or described by detainees and their attorneys, contravene international standards for humane treatment. In certain respects, they appear more severe than the most restrictive levels of “"super-maximum”" custody on the US mainland, where conditions in some units have been criticized by international bodies and US courts as incompatible with human rights and US correctional standards.


Viewed on the 31\01\08 at 11:16 (http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/9ca4e5c4-a2cd-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/amr510512007en.html)

So it breaches your OWN laws as well as international law

YAY BUSH IS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER?

Just for those who arnt sandy and maybe interested in the full text, i have only read the introduction to get these quotes. Its MUCH longer

Oh for God's sake, do you think I make this sh!t up? The IRC is a freakin joke. They wanted Saddam RELEASED! :mad: They whine about the royal treatment of the terrorists at Gitmo/Abu Ghraib. They are anti-America and I am sick of their terror-supporting bs. They're just another left-wing advocacy group like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Even the liberal Wall Street Journal says they suck/are politicized. And I even won't get into their mismanagement of money. :mad:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005080

You'd have to wonder just how bad things are at Gitmo that someone at the ICRC leaked their report and they then confirmed the findings of the leak. Lets not forget, the ICRC have refused to testify against people who have committed acts of genocide in the past to maintain their neutrality.

From Sandy's link:

The Pentagon did pledge to grant the Gitmo detainees many POW privileges, if not formal POW status. And the ICRC was allowed to inspect the facility. But it kicked up a major fuss anyway.

We wonder how many Americans on the right or left would have been sympathetic to this ICRC complaint if they understood that POWs are required to give only name, rank and ID number. Or that the Geneva Conventions forbid even positive reinforcements such as better rations to coax information from POWs.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005080

Yes. How dare they! How dare they protest the inhumane treatment and torture of detainees and how dare they "kick up a fuss" that the detainees are not granted the same POW rights as assigned by the Geneva Convention (a convention that the US is a party to)!:rolleyes:

How dare they expect the US to be capable of treating its prisoners in a humane manner!?!

Sandy, your protests only reiterate just how fucked up your administration is in the eyes of the international community. You have lost EVERY high ground you could have had in regards to human rights abuses in despotic regimes. You have given credence to tyrannical regimes who torture and kill their 'detainees', because if anyone dares to accuse them of it, they can now point their finger at the US and say 'they do it too and they are the supposed bastion of democracy and freedom'.. A despot like Mugabe can now torture and kill his opponents and refer to them as 'terrorist' and the US will have absolutely no grounds to say it is inhumane or illegal, because the US itself participates in similar behaviour. It is an absolute disgrace.

And I can assure you, things must be bad for an organisation like the Red Cross to actually leak information and then to admit the information contained in the leaked report is in fact correct. Because these are the same people who witnessed over 800,000 be killed in 100 days and refused to testify against the killers so they would not lose their neutral status. So for them to speak out about Gitmo and the US Government in such a fashion.. well.. it must be really bad.

[QUOTE=sandy;1732831]It's hard to keep track of all the released since they try to blend in so well with their terrorists friends. Michelle Malkin had a good story about them

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/29/more-gitmo-catch-and-release/

I don't have time to go search for anything else.

Of course you don't. You might find something which displays how incredibly ignorant you are

They are not innocent. They are vile terrorists caught in action. Did you even read the article? When some POS "lawyer" gets them out, they end up killing again.Speaking of BS, you appear to accept the BS that a valid way to catch the terrorists is to offer money to people for "information"; the default intelligence gathering strategy.

This does achieve a purpose though: it gives some people in Iraq and Afghanistan a way to get money from the US military--they hand over thousands for information, and it doesn't even have to be real, just mention "terrorist" or "jihad" and point at someone, easiest loot some of them probably ever made.

After all. it isn't like it matters whether they arrest any real jihadis or not (the ones that the CIA used to be friendly with and give money and weapons to), just as long as enough towel-heads end up behind bars or in cages where the military can torture confessions out of them.
As long as it looks like something is being done, who cares if it has any real effect? It's not like the lives of these people matter to anyone, is it?

Does anyone know what the US means by " RENDERING" ? It's a euphemism fot transporting prisoners to countries where they can be tortured on behalf of the US which can them claim that America does not practise torture.

One US plane made a refuelling stop at a base in the UK without declaring what it was carrying.It was subsequently admitted that it contained prisoners who were being taken abroad. That caused outrage here and put Blair in a tight spot because he claimed not to have foreknowledge of what the US was doing.

Has any of this been given publicity in the US ? It may still be going on, for all I know , and it is besmirching the good name of Americans who would never tolerate such brutal behaviour.

sandy how do you know that the "terrorists" arnt people who are speaking out against the goverment? Great way to shut them up isnt it

For the most part, no. Especially "lawyers" who defend terrorists. :mad:

And I thought you couldn't surprise me. Every Empire crumbles from within, and I have no doubt that people like you will be amongst those that cause its fall. So, I suppose I should thank you in a way.
You can either persecute an enemy as a fair and humane manner in accordance with your values, or you can be just as evil and ruthless as them.

I have no use for terrorists. I want them all destroyed. They are the vile scum of the earth. :mad:

They most certainly will not be. Vain idealism will not serve us well.

I have no use for terrorists. I want them all destroyed. They are the vile scum of the earth. :mad:

Do you know what is meant by "rendering"?

I noticed you ignored my post sandy. Whats to stop the goverment calling YOU a terrioust? Your never tried and rot in prision with no access to habis corpius.

edit to add: im sure we would all miss you though:D

For the most part, no. Especially "lawyers" who defend terrorists. :mad:

What terrorists are you speaking of? Have they been proven of being terrorists? Our legal system is why we're are free country and because of idiotic values voters like yourself we are slowly becoming police state. Do you even care about those who are wrongly incarcerated as "terrorists"? I don't claim there is no such thing as radical fundamentalist islamists but not every person who we capture is a member of the bullshit, James Bond villian-esque group called "Al-Qaeda"! Watch the documentary "The Power of Nightmares". It's a well made BBC documentary by an incredible documentarian. It's three hours long and it's about the rise of neoconservatism and fundamentalist islamism. Please watch it Sandy, I think you'll actually learn something.

What terrorists are you speaking of? Have they been proven of being terrorists? Our legal system is why we're are free country and because of idiotic values voters like yourself we are slowly becoming police state. Do you even care about those who are wrongly incarcerated as "terrorists"? I don't claim there is no such thing as radical fundamentalist islamists but not every person who we capture is a member of the bullshit, James Bond villian-esque group called "Al-Qaeda"! Watch the documentary "The Power of Nightmares". It's a well made BBC documentary by an incredible documentarian. It's three hours long and it's about the rise of neoconservatism and fundamentalist islamism. Please watch it Sandy, I think you'll actually learn something.

Put me on ignore. Do not ever address me again. And stop PMing me. :mad:

Fine ignore him sandy AND ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION

What is to stop the goverment accussing YOU of being a terrioust and locking YOU up without trial because your incoveniant?

I have no use for terrorists. I want them all destroyed. They are the vile scum of the earth. :mad:

as are you. Idiots such as yourself are viler than the islamists. They at least have a belief that is deeper than your pathetic attempt at having a political ideology.

Put me on ignore. Do not ever address me again. And stop PMing me. :mad:

Answer my questions! If you have data that makes sense and isn't neoconservatist jingoism nor metaphysical in its basis than I'll consider your point of view. However because you seem to believe that America is God's chosen country, must invade foreign lands for economic purposes and supporting these decisions by claiming the actions were committed to "free" the people and that our legal system is some how protecting the terrorists, I have to say you are an awful person.

Well I guess I'll just assume you have no answers as you refuse to post any. Disappointing.

Back on topic: The Chicago Sun-Times reports on the Tony Rezko-connected donations that Barack Obama accepted. Most of them are from Muslims and Arabs:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/the_barack_obam.html

No connection to muslims my @ss. :(

What does it matter if he is connected to either?

The comments on that article were enough to make my blood boil. I'm not an Obama supporter. I think he is too corporate. But that is bullshit about him being dangerous for receiving donations from arabs and muslims. What is wrong with being either. And last I checked our country has multmillion dollar weapons contracts with Saudi Arabia. Next it's more dangerous that politicians accept money and contributions from corporations. Over time it will slowly get worse, as our country becomes more and more a facist corporate state of compulsory consumerism.

You think Obama is un-american for receiving money from Arabs? What about President Bush who has done nothing but violate our civil rights and dig us deeper into debt while the entire time protecting corporations and not the people.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Go to this website. It has a constant ticker of the amount the war is costing us on a national level. You can break it down by city and state and find out how much taxpayers in your city will have to pay and what that money could be used for instead of a pointless war.

Put me on ignore. Do not ever address me again. And stop PMing me. :mad:

Why not watch the program and then you can tell him what a liar he is with CONVICTION. Normally you just repeat a few mantras like a parrot.

Obama has been denying his muslim connections. The article proved he is taking money from VERY shady people. These are not the "nice peaceful muslims". These are the dangerous ones. :(

Obama has been denying his muslim connections. The article proved he is taking money from VERY shady people. These are not the "nice peaceful muslims". These are the dangerous ones. :(

Why not watch that program and learn somehing for a change.? Or is it too much trouble to learn what is going on, as opposed talking nonsense ?

Rezko may be a flight risk. He just got $3.5 million dollars from a Lebanese bank. Prosecutors say he gave $500k to federal fugitive Alber Najjar, who is believed to be hiding in Lebanon since his 2004 indictment in Chicago.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/this_is_the_kin.html

This Rezko guy is bad news. So is Obama for even dealing with him.:(

Rezko may be a flight risk. He just got $3.5 million dollars from a Lebanese bank. Prosecutors say he gave $500k to federal fugitive Alber Najjar, who is believed to be hiding in Lebanon since his 2004 indictment in Chicago.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/this_is_the_kin.html

This Rezko guy is bad news. So is Obama for even dealing with him.:(

you do know your precious debbie worked for a republican congressperson who was found guilty for supporting terrorism?

you do know your precious debbie worked for a republican congressperson who was found guilty for supporting terrorism?

Yep. How do you think she knows so much?

Yep. How do you think she knows so much?

so you get you info from some linked to terrorism.