Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
WH
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
01 May 2004 02:09:10 PM |
|
|
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>, (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister light.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "dreamwalker" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
01 May 2004 02:37:06 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>, (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
01 May 2004 04:24:00 PM |
|
|
In article <9def6$4093fc66$4076265b$18683@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com>, "dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.com> wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
My, my - such overreaction! Could it be this touches a little too close to
home?
In fact, nobody said anything about releasing anyone, just following the Geneva
convention and the suspicious pallor it now casts to *not* have been following
it.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Woods, Rumsfeeld testimony, the bottom line! Re: What to do withthe abusers. |
07 May 2004 08:37:13 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <9def6$4093fc66$4076265b$18683@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com>, "dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.com> wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
My, my - such overreaction! Could it be this touches a little too close to
home?
In fact, nobody said anything about releasing anyone, just following the Geneva
convention and the suspicious pallor it now casts to *not* have been following
it.
Woods
But indeed the top brass instructed them to abide by it as Rumsfeld said today,
(at http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/07/politics.abuse.main/index.html
verbatim):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld said the guards were instructed to follow the Geneva Conventions in
their treatment of the prisoners.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article clearly specifies that they took action to investigate the matter as
soon as they heard about it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Myers insisted the military justice system was working and that the reports
of the abuse were acted on promptly after they were first reported by a solider
on January 13, 2004.
"Our commanders did exactly the right thing in a timely manner," Myers said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it goes on to specify that he released teh information in fact when he
learned about it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Several senators criticized Rumsfeld for not briefing them about the abuse
reports. While Rumsfeld said he wished he had done a better job, he also pointed
to a January 16 press release from U.S. Central Command in Baghdad that had said
an investigation had been launched into reports of "detainee abuse."Central
Command's news release (which is at
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20040143.txt for
your info).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: Woods, Rumsfeeld testimony, the bottom line! Re: What to do with the abusers. |
08 May 2004 06:32:41 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<dRWmc.14884159$Id.2462425@news.easynews.com>...
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <9def6$4093fc66$4076265b$18683@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com>, "dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.com> wrote:
Snip
But indeed the top brass instructed them to abide by it as Rumsfeld said today,
(at http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/07/politics.abuse.main/index.html
verbatim):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld said the guards were instructed to follow the Geneva Conventions in
their treatment of the prisoners.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article clearly specifies that they took action to investigate the matter as
soon as they heard about it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Myers insisted the military justice system was working and that the reports
of the abuse were acted on promptly after they were first reported by a solider
on January 13, 2004.
"Our commanders did exactly the right thing in a timely manner," Myers said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it goes on to specify that he released teh information in fact when he
learned about it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Several senators criticized Rumsfeld for not briefing them about the abuse
reports. While Rumsfeld said he wished he had done a better job, he also pointed
to a January 16 press release from U.S. Central Command in Baghdad that had said
an investigation had been launched into reports of "detainee abuse."Central
Command's news release (which is at
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20040143.txt for
your info).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
They have had the report for 5 months and Bush Said "You will see
American Justice" oh yes wait until the boot is on the other foot,
too bad they cannot even sign a human rights treaty!
CIVILISED?
Did God tell him to apologise?
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Woods, Rumsfeeld testimony, the bottom line! Re: What to do withthe abusers. |
10 May 2004 04:47:56 PM |
|
|
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<dRWmc.14884159$Id.2462425@news.easynews.com>...
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <9def6$4093fc66$4076265b$18683@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com>, "dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.com> wrote:
Snip
But indeed the top brass instructed them to abide by it as Rumsfeld said today,
(at http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/07/politics.abuse.main/index.html
verbatim):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld said the guards were instructed to follow the Geneva Conventions in
their treatment of the prisoners.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article clearly specifies that they took action to investigate the matter as
soon as they heard about it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Myers insisted the military justice system was working and that the reports
of the abuse were acted on promptly after they were first reported by a solider
on January 13, 2004.
"Our commanders did exactly the right thing in a timely manner," Myers said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it goes on to specify that he released teh information in fact when he
learned about it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Several senators criticized Rumsfeld for not briefing them about the abuse
reports. While Rumsfeld said he wished he had done a better job, he also pointed
to a January 16 press release from U.S. Central Command in Baghdad that had said
an investigation had been launched into reports of "detainee abuse."Central
Command's news release (which is at
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20040143.txt for
your info).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
They have had the report for 5 months and Bush Said "You will see
American Justice" oh yes wait until the boot is on the other foot,
*****.
too bad they cannot even sign a human rights treaty!
Too bad you have no clue. These are 7 rogue soldiers. Nothing representative of
the whole military there. The US on the other hand has always had the boot on
the other foot. Not once have the Muslims terrorists ever respected the Geneva
convention. You make a big deal when they do find stupid losers who disobeyed
orders? Funny, I don't hear you, nor the Muslims losers from Aljazirah, or those
shouting in the street, talk about the difference between 5-6 prisoners who were
photographed by idiots and let free after being humiliated, and 5-6 *hundred
thousands* prisoners who were buried in mass graves after being tortured and
about which Saddam didn't take picture nor allowed survival, because it was
premeditated.
CIVILISED?
Did God tell him to apologise?
Bah, it certainly was not his orders. It was the disobeying of his orders. But
he did apologize, since it was under his responsibility. The REAL culprits will
be court marshaled.
LB
But as usual you kick your own, but say nothing of your enemies. Nice, Leigh.
Thank heaven most Americans do see it in a more understanding fashion.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
01 May 2004 03:00:25 PM |
|
|
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>, (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which include, in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees' but the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other communication.
This is indeed the normal conduct of war.
Woods has no clue about this. Even though it remains to be seen these days if
the Supreme Court sees it the way it has always been considered in history so
far. The way it is right now...
We shall see.
J.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
01 May 2004 04:25:21 PM |
|
|
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees' but the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
03 May 2004 08:06:06 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees' but the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as
the case may be.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
04 May 2004 06:29:47 PM |
|
|
In article <20Clc.3711642$iA2.434561@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees' but
the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other
communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full
rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as
the case may be.
So, the U.S. is still breaking international law by not following the Convention
by not allowing the Red Cross in there, as well as not allowing them the right
to a trial.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
05 May 2004 05:10:30 AM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:LHVlc.159057$e17.114333@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <20Clc.3711642$iA2.434561@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's
and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to
the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious
torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of
command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very
sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which
include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees'
but
the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other
communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of
Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of
or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under
the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such
individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as
a spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile
to the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited
rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity
and, in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular
trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full
rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying
Power, as
the case may be.
So, the U.S. is still breaking international law by not following the
Convention
by not allowing the Red Cross in there, as well as not allowing them the
right
to a trial.
Well exactly. Additionally, in order to believe that all the people at
Guantanamo are "illegal combatants" you have to believe they were ALL
captured while committing illegal acts on the battlefield and there is NO
doubt about their guilt. Obviously, this is not the case (seeing as many
have been released without charge) therefore they should be treated as
normal POWs as the GC specifies ("Should any doubt arise as to whether
persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands
of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such
persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time
as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/addm/gen3.htm ). In
addition, the GC only pertains to people caught on the battlefied - there is
at least one detainee who was arrested in Zambia (IIRC) on hearsay evidence!
Of course, the illegal spin used to justify this is that the whole world is
somehow a battleground in TWAT (The War Against Terror).
Jean believes they are ALL guilty (even the released ones, presumably)
merely because Bush says so - this is as clear an example of thr
"Fuhrerprinzip" (where whatever the leader says is true, because he's the
leader) as you will find..
But then Jean has never been terribly consistent, clever or able to back up
his insane ranting..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
06 May 2004 12:08:09 AM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20Clc.3711642$iA2.434561@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees' but
the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other
communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full
rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as
the case may be.
So, the U.S. is still breaking international law by not following the Convention
by not allowing the Red Cross in there, as well as not allowing them the right
to a trial.
I don't know why you believe the leis of the losers here Woods.
The US doesn't do such a thing. The Red Cross has access to all prisoners of
war, even those at Guantanamo Bay.
WAKE UP.
J.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
06 May 2004 05:46:20 AM |
|
|
In article <ZKjmc.14853007$Of.2479428@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20Clc.3711642$iA2.434561@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which
include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees' but
the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other
communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to
the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited
rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and,
in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full
rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power,
as
the case may be.
So, the U.S. is still breaking international law by not following the
Convention
by not allowing the Red Cross in there, as well as not allowing them the
right
to a trial.
I don't know why you believe the leis of the losers here Woods.
The US doesn't do such a thing. The Red Cross has access to all prisoners of
war, even those at Guantanamo Bay.
Nice obfuscation, but we're talking about people who have been conveniently
labelled "enemy combatants", not the POWs, which is a much smaller number.
None of the prisoners who were abused were POWs, and none of them were seen by
the Red Cross. And there's apparently a reason why the Red Cross is not allowed
to see their conditions ...
WAKE UP.
I would suggest that you follow your own advice.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
06 May 2004 10:49:24 AM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <ZKjmc.14853007$Of.2479428@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20Clc.3711642$iA2.434561@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which
include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees' but
the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other
communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to
the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited
rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and,
in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full
rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power,
as
the case may be.
So, the U.S. is still breaking international law by not following the
Convention
by not allowing the Red Cross in there, as well as not allowing them the
right
to a trial.
I don't know why you believe the leis of the losers here Woods.
The US doesn't do such a thing. The Red Cross has access to all prisoners of
war, even those at Guantanamo Bay.
Nice obfuscation, but we're talking about people who have been conveniently
labelled "enemy combatants", not the POWs, which is a much smaller number.
None of the prisoners who were abused were POWs, and none of them were seen by
the Red Cross. And there's apparently a reason why the Red Cross is not allowed
to see their conditions ...
I don't know what you are talking about. If they are in custody, they are POWs,
and the red cross has access to them.
J.
WAKE UP.
I would suggest that you follow your own advice.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
06 May 2004 06:13:43 PM |
|
|
In article <88tmc.14889803$Of.2484385@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <ZKjmc.14853007$Of.2479428@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20Clc.3711642$iA2.434561@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which
include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees'
but
the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other
communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of
Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to
the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited
rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and,
in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular
trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full
rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power,
as
the case may be.
So, the U.S. is still breaking international law by not following the
Convention
by not allowing the Red Cross in there, as well as not allowing them the
right
to a trial.
I don't know why you believe the leis of the losers here Woods.
The US doesn't do such a thing. The Red Cross has access to all prisoners of
war, even those at Guantanamo Bay.
Nice obfuscation, but we're talking about people who have been conveniently
labelled "enemy combatants", not the POWs, which is a much smaller number.
None of the prisoners who were abused were POWs, and none of them were seen
by
the Red Cross. And there's apparently a reason why the Red Cross is not
allowed
to see their conditions ...
I don't know what you are talking about. If they are in custody, they are POWs,
and the red cross has access to them.
They are not POWs.
However, as it turns out, the Red Cross did have access to them and has been
telling the Bush administration about the abuses since the summer of 2003 -
nearly a year.
Now, if they knew about it from the Red Cross, and didn't do anything about it -
it certainly sounds like that's their standard operating procedure. It *also*
explains why the Iraqis started becoming insurgents last fall.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
06 May 2004 08:15:10 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <88tmc.14889803$Of.2484385@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <ZKjmc.14853007$Of.2479428@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20Clc.3711642$iA2.434561@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which
include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees'
but
the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other
communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of
Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to
the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited
rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and,
in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular
trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full
rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power,
as
the case may be.
So, the U.S. is still breaking international law by not following the
Convention
by not allowing the Red Cross in there, as well as not allowing them the
right
to a trial.
I don't know why you believe the leis of the losers here Woods.
The US doesn't do such a thing. The Red Cross has access to all prisoners of
war, even those at Guantanamo Bay.
Nice obfuscation, but we're talking about people who have been conveniently
labelled "enemy combatants", not the POWs, which is a much smaller number.
None of the prisoners who were abused were POWs, and none of them were seen
by
the Red Cross. And there's apparently a reason why the Red Cross is not
allowed
to see their conditions ...
I don't know what you are talking about. If they are in custody, they are POWs,
and the red cross has access to them.
They are not POWs.
However, as it turns out, the Red Cross did have access to them
Of course they had. That goes without say. I don't know why you listen to the
enemies of the US who spread those lies.
and has been
telling the Bush administration about the abuses since the summer of 2003 -
nearly a year.
Now, if they knew about it from the Red Cross, and didn't do anything about it -
it certainly sounds like that's their standard operating procedure.
No, it sounds like they didn't believe what the POWs were telling the Red Cross.
It sounds like they couldn't even conceive this.
Well we will know the answer to this tomorrow with Rumsfeld.
It *also*
explains why the Iraqis started becoming insurgents last fall.
Pure *****. This stems uniquely from lies by AlJazirah who makes them believe
that the US is there to take over the country and spread all kind of rumors
about Jews being behind all this. The fact that the UN envoy spread the same
lies is very revealing of the brainwashing they all live. He should be replaced,
and it is very urgent. but I digress.
Bottopm line, we shall see tomorrow with the testimony of Rumsfeld what really
happened.
Don't be always so fast to condemn your own country to the benefit of those who
destroy it (and I include the rogue military as well as the terrorists
supporters in that category).
J.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
07 May 2004 04:40:01 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<yqBmc.14913184$Of.2487823@news.easynews.com>...
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <88tmc.14889803$Of.2484385@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <ZKjmc.14853007$Of.2479428@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20Clc.3711642$iA2.434561@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <tlTkc.14415348$Id.2390655@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your
neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which
include,
in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees'
but
the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other
communication.
Please cite the section of the Convention that states this outright.
Woods
The whole article 5 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of
Civilian
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, speaks of that.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or
engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the
present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual
person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy
or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to
the
security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where
absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited
rights
of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and,
in
case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular
trial
prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full
rights
and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the
earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power,
as
the case may be.
So, the U.S. is still breaking international law by not following the
Convention
by not allowing the Red Cross in there, as well as not allowing them the
right
to a trial.
I don't know why you believe the leis of the losers here Woods.
The US doesn't do such a thing. The Red Cross has access to all prisoners of
war, even those at Guantanamo Bay.
Nice obfuscation, but we're talking about people who have been conveniently
labelled "enemy combatants", not the POWs, which is a much smaller number.
None of the prisoners who were abused were POWs, and none of them were seen
by
the Red Cross. And there's apparently a reason why the Red Cross is not
allowed
to see their conditions ...
I don't know what you are talking about. If they are in custody, they are POWs,
and the red cross has access to them.
They are not POWs.
However, as it turns out, the Red Cross did have access to them
Of course they had. That goes without say. I don't know why you listen to the
enemies of the US who spread those lies.
and has been
telling the Bush administration about the abuses since the summer of 2003 -
nearly a year.
Now, if they knew about it from the Red Cross, and didn't do anything about it -
it certainly sounds like that's their standard operating procedure.
No, it sounds like they didn't believe what the POWs were telling the Red Cross.
It sounds like they couldn't even conceive this.
Well we will know the answer to this tomorrow with Rumsfeld.
It *also*
explains why the Iraqis started becoming insurgents last fall.
Pure *****. This stems uniquely from lies by AlJazirah who makes them believe
that the US is there to take over the country and spread all kind of rumors
about Jews being behind all this. The fact that the UN envoy spread the same
lies is very revealing of the brainwashing they all live. He should be replaced,
and it is very urgent. but I digress.
Bottopm line, we shall see tomorrow with the testimony of Rumsfeld what really
happened.
Don't be always so fast to condemn your own country to the benefit of those who
destroy it (and I include the rogue military as well as the terrorists
supporters in that category).
J.
Woods
***** furball! The seppo's have been committing crimes against
humanity...full stop!
The monkey took the credit for "winning" the war a year or so ago
despite he wasn't even there. So the monkey can also take the
responsibility for his "warriors" when they behave in exactly the same
way as the despot who he claims committed the same type of crimes.
You see it's like this...it's not only Arabs who act like animals as
you and your good facist friends think. Seppo's do it too. They did it
in Vietnam, Columbia, El Salvador, Grenada, Kosovo etc., and now
they're doing it in Iraq.
If you can get that yankie ***** outa your filthy mouth sometime maybe
you'll be able to think a bit straighter and *understand* what the
***** is happening in the world around you.
WH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
07 May 2004 04:28:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 May 2004 01:15:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
They are not POWs.
However, as it turns out, the Red Cross did have access to them
and has been
telling the Bush administration about the abuses since the summer of 2003 -
nearly a year.
Now, if they knew about it from the Red Cross, and didn't do anything about it -
it certainly sounds like that's their standard operating procedure.
No, it sounds like they didn't believe what the POWs were telling the Red Cross.
It sounds like they couldn't even conceive this.
kinda like you, i dare say.
Well we will know the answer to this tomorrow with Rumsfeld.
i don't know if you will *know* anything with Rumsfeld.
Pure *****. This stems uniquely from lies by AlJazirah who makes them believe
that the US is there to take over the country and spread all kind of rumors
about Jews being behind all this. The fact that the UN envoy spread the same
lies is very revealing of the brainwashing they all live. He should be replaced,
and it is very urgent. but I digress.
Bottopm line, we shall see tomorrow with the testimony of Rumsfeld what really
happened.
you remind me of a Grade 1 school kid.
"Gather 'round children. Mr Rumsfeld is going to tell us a story!"
"yaaaaaay!!"
"Well kids, what story do you wanna hear today?"
"da one 'bout da ***** US soljurs who aboozed da arakies"
"Well children, that never really happened. They were really Iraqi's
dressed up as US soldiers."
"aaaah! *gasp* tell us sumor!"
"Al Jazirah, the muslim news network, only tells lies."
"we hate muzlimz! we hate muzlims! all dey do is say liez! mommy
told us never to say liez!"
"Yes, and so does Uncle Sam."
"we luv unkel sam! we luv unkel sam! he wood never say liez!"
yeah....quite apt.
- cuan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
02 May 2004 05:37:40 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2004 20:00:25 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
dreamwalker a écrit:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:qBSkc.134503$e17.32587@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>, (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister light.
Yep, let us allow the Cubian detainees free. We'll settle them in your neighborhood. Seeing that
you're a regular Aunt Bee, you could even cook for the ragheads.
But there is red cross and all the Geneva convention provision which include, in
case of unlawful combatants, the 'no visits, no nothing for detainees' but the
red cross and all the basic necessities are there, just no other communication.
This is indeed the normal conduct of war.
Woods has no clue about this. Even though it remains to be seen these days if
the Supreme Court sees it the way it has always been considered in history so
far. The way it is right now...
We shall see.
J.
How do you feel about your American heroes now FROG? Told you they are
the real terrorists, just you are too stupid and blind to see it.
JKeep sucking up to those American pond scum there FROG, I'm sure they
will save you.....not. Hahahahahahaha
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
01 May 2004 02:55:00 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>, (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister light.
Woods
I am sure they didn't go as far up as sergeant.
It is blatant abuse whose initiative can only be from, ignorant privates full of
resentment and feelings of vengeance perhaps for the barbarism of the
terrorists, and looking to get information out to save their comrades. But it
doesn't go up much, maybe a caporal, at most... Even then, very unlikely it went
even one rank up to caporal, although indeed, it's hard to conceive of their
caporal not knowing about it. But surely not as high as Sergeant.
This is totally unsanctioned (unauthorized) violation of army regulations by
simple soldiers.
Still, even if it is not what WH makes it to be, it is a sad day for the US
military.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WillyWaco" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
02 May 2004 12:03:24 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:ogTkc.3560536$iA2.417299@news.easynews.com...
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command
these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very
sinister light.
Woods
I am sure they didn't go as far up as sergeant.
It is blatant abuse whose initiative can only be from, ignorant privates
full of
resentment and feelings of vengeance perhaps for the barbarism of the
terrorists, and looking to get information out to save their comrades.
But it
doesn't go up much, maybe a caporal, at most... Even then, very unlikely
it went
even one rank up to caporal, although indeed, it's hard to conceive of
their
caporal not knowing about it. But surely not as high as Sergeant.
This is totally unsanctioned (unauthorized) violation of army
regulations by
simple soldiers.
Still, even if it is not what WH makes it to be, it is a sad day for the
US
military.
J.
I think it's just a bit more "sad" for the victimized.
Willy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
01 May 2004 04:30:49 PM |
|
|
In article <ogTkc.3560536$iA2.417299@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Woods
I am sure they didn't go as far up as sergeant.
Journal of one of the people who'd complained, and is now charged, indicates it
goes up at least as high as Battalion Commander.
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4871554/
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
02 May 2004 12:59:35 PM |
|
|
In article <dGUkc.66561$X14.11144@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, (Woodswun) wrote:
In article <ogTkc.3560536$iA2.417299@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Woods
I am sure they didn't go as far up as sergeant.
Journal of one of the people who'd complained, and is now charged, indicates it
goes up at least as high as Battalion Commander.
Correction, apparently goes up as high as Brigadeer General within the army, and
Amnesty International is claiming that it goes as high as the US-led Coalition
Council (who were told 6+ month ago about torture/abuses and did nothing).
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
03 May 2004 07:49:28 PM |
|
|
Correction, it goes as far as the 6 soldiers in this article.
Now if you have other info, then WHERE????
J.
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <dGUkc.66561$X14.11144@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, (Woodswun) wrote:
In article <ogTkc.3560536$iA2.417299@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <a666e2c5.0405011036.605f4d34@posting.google.com>,
bollogs@hotmail.com (bollogs) wrote:
Hand the yankie and brit human rights abusers over to the Iraqi's and
let them dish out some justice or alternatively turn them over to the
international court in the Hague.
And how significant that they do it in Saddam's most notorious torture
prison...the mind boggles at the stupidity of these "liberators".
Unbelievable...and according to reports this type of activity is
pretty widespread.
And all the tossers here making excuses for them.
Fuckin' hell............
I think they should first find out how high up in the chain of command these
orders came from. This kind of puts the 'no red cross, no visits, no
nothing
for detainees' position of the Bush administration into a very sinister
light.
Woods
I am sure they didn't go as far up as sergeant.
Journal of one of the people who'd complained, and is now charged, indicates it
goes up at least as high as Battalion Commander.
Correction, apparently goes up as high as Brigadeer General within the army, and
Amnesty International is claiming that it goes as high as the US-led Coalition
Council (who were told 6+ month ago about torture/abuses and did nothing).
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What to do with the abusers. |
| | | | | | |
