AP Photographer Held By The US Military, Insurgent or Victim?

Baron

ok tthen stalin used to lock up peiople without proving their guilt.. Is this what the US is all about then.
 
Baron

ok then stalin used to lock up peiople without proving their guilt.. Is this what the US is all about then.
 
Zakariya04 said:
Baron ok then stalin used to lock up peiople without proving their guilt..
Click to expand...

No, he did prove their guilt .....he said that they were guilty! In a totalitarian dictatorship, that's enough.

Zakariya04 said:
Is this what the US is all about then.
Click to expand...

No.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
No, he did prove their guilt .....he said that they were guilty! In a totalitarian dictatorship, that's enough.



No.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
yes and this reprots being banged up without being proven guilty..

same tactics.. different semantics!!!
 
Baron Max said:
No, he did prove their guilt .....he said that they were guilty! In a totalitarian dictatorship, that's enough.



No.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
yes and this AP guy is being banged up without being proven guilty..

same tactics.. different semantics!!!
 
Zakariya04 said:
yes and this AP guy is being banged up without being proven guilty..
Click to expand...

He fell down a flight of stairs ....didn't you know that? ...LOL!

Ya' know, Zak, if you and others would be as concerned about people who lived within a few miles of you, this world just might be a better place. But instead, you worry about people like this guy, but allow people within a mile of you to live in poverty and sickness and disease.

Take care of those close to you ...if everyone did the same, we'd not have any problems anywhere in the world.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
He fell down a flight of stairs ....didn't you know that? ...LOL!

Ya' know, Zak, if you and others would be as concerned about people who lived within a few miles of you, this world just might be a better place. But instead, you worry about people like this guy, but allow people within a mile of you to live in poverty and sickness and disease.

Take care of those close to you ...if everyone did the same, we'd not have any problems anywhere in the world.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
Hello Baron

thank you for your comments... i was espically moved.

I am actually concerned about people who live near and around me.... Just cos i have view on other things does not mean local issues get neglected.
 
Zakariya04 said:
I am actually concerned about people who live near and around me....
Click to expand...

If everyone felt that same way, Zak, there'd be no problems in the world ....and you wouldn't have to worry about anyone or anything in such far-away places.

Too bad most people don't adhere to the philosophy, huh?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
If everyone felt that same way, Zak, there'd be no problems in the world ....and you wouldn't have to worry about anyone or anything in such far-away places.
Click to expand...
Tell the Neo-cons that.

"Full Spectrum Dominance"?
 
He's not a US citizen ...our Constitution and Bill of Rights is ONLY for American citizens, not for every human on Earth!!
Click to expand...

I don't believe I mentioned the constitution or the Bill of Rights. Due process and a fair trial are universal human rights, they are not just some side effect of the US constitution. There is a certain element on the american right that seems to think these kind of ideas are a quaint inconvenience*.
I'd expect the right to a fair trial, the right to hear charges etc, etc, stem from Iraqi law. If Iraqi law doesn't allow this, then what is the point of even staying in Iraq? To enforce laws that are fucking useless? If you expunge an evil and repressive regime, what is the point of not replacing it with something respectable? Are american's dying for half-assed justice and piss weak freedom?

If those rights are to be extended to all people on Earth, as you so avidly demand, then shouldn't you demand that the US force all foreign regimes to guarantee those rights to their citizens???? The way you talk about rights, I'd guess that you're avidly in support of invading Iran, right?
Click to expand...

There seems to be a pattern emerging in your argument. We shouldn't worry about dead people in Iraq because people die elsewhere. We shouldn't worry about civil rights violations in Iraq because violations occur elsewhere. This is as fallacious as saying that you shouldn't fight AIDS because more people die of measles.

So that makes automatically a non-violent Muslim? In Iraq, some of the policemen, duly chosen, are radical insurgents .....does that make them automatically innocent? Fuck no!!
Click to expand...

So you propose locking people up if you can't prove they haven't committed a crime? See any problems here?
And BTW, he hasn't been (unofficially) accused of violence. He was accused of associating with an alledged terrorist, which is not actually a crime.

No, he did prove their guilt .....he said that they were guilty! In a totalitarian dictatorship, that's enough.
Click to expand...

Does that sound familar? In the case of Hussein, what more was done? Trial? Charges? Evidence?

* Thankfully, there are people like McCain who are patriotic and principled enough to resist this.
 
Ya' know, Zak, if you and others would be as concerned about people who lived within a few miles of you, this world just might be a better place
Click to expand...
You should worry about everyone. People is people.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
Destroyer


Prove your statement, give legal proof that the war was illegal, name the laws that were violated, and the treaties that were broken?
Click to expand...
Basing the invasion of a sovereign nation which was no threat to the global superpower on lies is okee-dokee with you? Saddam Had WMD's and was planning to take over the USA!!!!! Uhhhh....Saddam is evil and we must build democracy! (unilateral imperialist invasion based on disliking someone'else's government is not a legal action.) So Iraq's invasion of former province Kuwait was illegal but the US invasion of Iraq was?? Why can't other countries get the green light to unilaterally invade whomever they choose whenever they choose for no proven reason? Conservatives don't even support the war on Iraq. The cost in lives, materiel and the trillions it cost is worth it? Why aren't you there killing non-Christians yourself? Israel saw Iraq as a threat so they had us take out Saddam. The Israel Lobby runs Washington and being their cheerleader is pathetic.
 
Zakariya04 said:
if he was a miltant why dont they charge him.
Click to expand...
We can't charge him. We can't charge anybody. The Supreme Court said so. We can hold them indefinately without charges, but we can't charge anyone held at Guantanamo.
 
madanthonywayne said:
We can't charge him. We can't charge anybody. The Supreme Court said so. We can hold them indefinately without charges, but we can't charge anyone held at Guantanamo.
Click to expand...
Good Morning MadAnthony

Thank you for this...

and they call that Freedom, strange form of freedom if you ask me!!
 
We can't charge him. We can't charge anybody. The Supreme Court said so. We can hold them indefinately without charges, but we can't charge anyone held at Guantanamo.
Click to expand...

No, you can't use secret evidence obtained through torture to conduct a kangaroo court that even makes the prosecutors queasy.

You could try them under regular court martial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html), but some americans are so pissing-their-pants afraid they're not prepared to risk a fair trial.

Also, if you care to RTFA, you'll see that he isn't being held in Gitmo. They've just detained this guy and kept him out of the Iraqi justice system. But hey, kidnappings are very fashionable over there.
 
Genji, you are stating your opinion, the War was legal under (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284),and 1441, Iraq violated the Cease fire agreement, and was in material breach , of the Agreement, and it just wasn't the inspector's that was the problem, they were violating the food for oil to buy weapons, and they had failed to reimburse Kuwait for the damage to them for the invasion, and they were constantly violating the cease fire by Firing on flight over the no fly zone, a cease fire means a cease fire, if you start shooting then that means you don't want the cease fire to continue?

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



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


JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Now this is Legal Proof, not my opinion, these are Legal Reasons passed by the United Nations, and the Congress of the United States of America, now show me your legal facts, your opinion is for shit in court.


Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

3) That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top