Topic: Fox News - Tucker's Fucked.

[fudge]

I do realize that. That is what makes it so very very sad.

The Middle East is rife w/ conspericy theories.  And it seems the more far fetched the better.

& yet you and the rest of the right don't mind having a 'news' channel dedicated to diseminating biased and often outrageous claims of their own.

Fox works on the basis of telling people something so often that it becomes accepted as fact . Thats why its so dangerous, at least Mr Viall is just a lone fuckwitt.

[Alan_X]

Isn't that the definition of a  SOVEREIGN nation?  They all have laws and procedures that are not recognized by other countries

You arrested those people in Afghanistan... a SOVEREIGN nation

or Iraq... a SOVEREIGN nation

or the Gambia... a SOVEREIGN nation

or Canada... a SOVEREIGN nation...

or anywhere else the US feels like and then fly them around the world so that they can be tortured in various other SOVEREIGN countries with even slacker laws than the good ol USA.

and surely the reason these people are being held in Guantanamo is so that they are outside the legal framework of your own SOVEREIGN country.

So just to confirm what you are saying. America isn't fighting for any universal or even commonly accepted legal or humanitarian values but for reasons that are wholly for it's own self-interest and the fact that they are condemned by the rest of the world is of no concern to Bush and the US. It's certainly my opinon - just surprised you agree with me!

[xavidub]

What worries me is that once these guys are out of office, people will let all of the issues go, even though both republicans and democrats were responsible. 

It's not just the republicans that need to "disappear up their own arse".

Hey, I will never deny any politician the right to disappear, extraordinarily or not.

[nyctex]

You arrested those people in Afghanistan... a SOVEREIGN nation

or Iraq... a SOVEREIGN nation

or the Gambia... a SOVEREIGN nation

or Canada... a SOVEREIGN nation...

or anywhere else the US feels like and then fly them around the world so that they can be tortured in various other SOVEREIGN countries with even slacker laws than the good ol USA.

and surely the reason these people are being held in Guantanamo is so that they are outside the legal framework of your own SOVEREIGN country.

So just to confirm what you are saying. America isn't fighting for any universal or even commonly accepted legal or humanitarian values but for reasons that are wholly for it's own self-interest and the fact that they are condemned by the rest of the world is of no concern to Bush and the US. It's certainly my opinon - just surprised you agree with me!

You can't be suggesting that any nation at war is not able to take prisoners where they are found.  We took German prisoners in Morocco, Tunisia, France, Belgium etc.  You take prisoners where you find them.

I'm more than willing to shot them as spies or combatants out of uniform as the Geneva Convention stipulates.  I thought you would appreciate the extra protections given by the US. 
At the very best hold them WITHOUT trial or legal recourse, which the US now provides, just like the allies did to hundreds of thousands of POWs in WWII.  No judicial review and no hope of release until the end of the war (whenever that may be)  We had POW camps in the US during WWII and those troops were not given US Constitutional protections that you are so willing to hand out to every thug and terrorist on the planet.

I would point you to US treatment of proper Iraqi Army troops in the First Gulf War and the Iraqi War as it's willingness to abide by the norms of modern war with honorable troops.

[Rorus]

We had POW camps in the US during WWII and those troops were not given US Constitutional protections that you are so willing to hand out to every thug and terrorist on the planet.

Wasn't there a couple of hundred thousand US citizens interned at these POW camps, during WW2?

 No constitutional protections were afforded to them and they were not 'illegal enemy comabtants'.

[nyctex]

Wasn't there a couple of hundred thousand US citizens interned at these POW camps, during WW2?

 No constitutional protections were afforded to them and they were not 'illegal enemy comabtants'.

Absolutely.  A very dark day in US history.  The US makes mistakes - very grave mistakes sometimes.  The US doesn't always live up to it's ideals.  Those camps were set up by FDR - a hero, to this day, of Democrats and progessives. The difference is the US is better able to correct and rectify - not always to everyone's satisfaction - those errors.   

[SMD]

Being able to correct them is different to correcting them.

It's amazing how PR can mop up so well.

[fudge]

Absolutely.  A very dark day in US history.  The US makes mistakes - very grave mistakes sometimes.  The US doesn't always live up to it's ideals.  Those camps were set up by FDR - a hero, to this day, of Democrats and progessives. The difference is the US is better able to correct and rectify - not always to everyone's satisfaction - those errors.  

Funny how you never own up and accept those mistakes until years later when the perpetrators can't be indicted

[Paul_h]

That is what is so idiotic about these theories.  They get so wrapped up in themselves that they take a life of their own.

I had never heard this and seemed so far fetched on it's face that I had to look into it a little.

It seems that during the build up to the war, when Turkey was not being helpful to the US, some Pentagon official wanted to give the Turks a little slap down.  He floated the idea to build a pipeline that would bypass the Turks.  The Turks make a pretty penny themselves off the transit of Iraqi oil.  The Turks obviously didn't like the idea. 

It seems the story was planted in an Israeli paper.  Once the tweak at the Turks hit the ether of the ME it became one of how many "reasons" the Americans/British liberated Iraq, with WMDs the cover story.

you simply don't know that it is not true though...
here is what the guardian had to say on this matter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940250,00.html

think about it for a minute.....before the iraq war, Israel had an Energy crisis, has almost zero oil reserves, and has to import all its oil.
then suddenly they have enough oil to win a contract to supply the American military  in Iraq with oil,
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/14002292-509C-4896-951D-DAE550DFB88F.htm   

foreign journalists, i believe, arn't allowed out the the green zone, , an area approx 4 sq miles in central bagdad ...

[nyctex]

Funny how you never own up and accept those mistakes until years later when the perpetrators can't be indicted

Your right, but it is funny how it is only the Yanks and Brits ever say sorry at any time?

[SMD]

Your right, but it is funny how it is only the Yanks and Brits ever say sorry at any time?

Being able to correct them is different to correcting them.

It's amazing how PR can mop up so well.

[Paul_h]

for those who doubt that american media is not delibiratley, systematically controlled, in order to recieve a distorted view of whats really happening in the middle east, should watch this documentary...
highly recommended viewing....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=peace+propaganda

[The Fletcher Memorial]

for those who doubt that american media is not delibiratley, systematically controlled, in order to recieve a distorted view of whats really happening in the middle east, should watch this documentary...
highly recommended viewing....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=peace+propaganda

Thanks for that mate, its a tough watch.

[Alan_X]

You can't be suggesting that any nation at war is not able to take prisoners where they are found.  We took German prisoners in Morocco, Tunisia, France, Belgium etc.  You take prisoners where you find them.

I'm more than willing to shot them as spies or combatants out of uniform as the Geneva Convention stipulates.  I thought you would appreciate the extra protections given by the US. 
At the very best hold them WITHOUT trial or legal recourse, which the US now provides, just like the allies did to hundreds of thousands of POWs in WWII.  No judicial review and no hope of release until the end of the war (whenever that may be)  We had POW camps in the US during WWII and those troops were not given US Constitutional protections that you are so willing to hand out to every thug and terrorist on the planet.

I would point you to US treatment of proper Iraqi Army troops in the First Gulf War and the Iraqi War as it's willingness to abide by the norms of modern war with honorable troops.

You really believe that last paragraph don't you?

"normal" treatment of Iraqi troops included burying them alive in their trenches with bulldozers and this appalling carnage on the Road to Basra:







Is strafing a convoy of retreating soldiers in the Geneva Convention?

I also gather that you have never bothered to read the Geneva Convention but accept what you are told by your Government.

The Allied powers did not hold thousands of POWs "without trial" in WWII. A POW can be held for the duration of the war and is not subject to trial because he is s soldier. Fighting in a war is not a crime - after the war is over he is returned to his country as a free man.

From Human Rights Watch:

2. Types of Prisoners under International Humanitarian Law

Under international humanitarian law, combatants captured during an international armed conflict should be presumed to be POWs until determined otherwise. Specified categories of combatants who "have fallen into the power of the enemy" are entitled to POW status. These categories include members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, members of militia forces forming part of those armed forces, and inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who take up arms openly to resist the invading forces. POW status also applies to captured members of irregular forces who are under responsible command; have a fixed distinctive sign (such as an insignia, uniform or other marking) recognizable at a distance; carry arms openly; and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

POWs receive the full protection of the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. POWs may not be tried for the mere act of being combatants, that is, for taking up arms against other combatants. However, they may be prosecuted for the same offenses for which the forces of the detaining power could be tried, including common crimes unrelated to the conflict, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Captured combatants who are not entitled to POW status have been described as "unlawful combatants" or "non-privileged combatants, " although neither term is found in the Geneva Conventions. Such persons are still protected under the Geneva Conventions, but under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."

The United States has labeled all persons in its custody captured in Afghanistan as "unlawful combatants," "battlefield detainees," or "illegal combatants," and has indicated that while they may be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, there is no obligation that the United States so treat them. For instance, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated on January 11, 2001 that those held were "unlawful combatants" and that "unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate."

The U.S. position is inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions on several counts. First, the U.S. may not classify as a group all detainees from the Afghan conflict as not being entitled to POW status; such a determination must be made on an individual basis by a competent tribunal. Second, there is a presumption that a captured combatant is a POW unless determined otherwise. Third, it is incorrect to assert that only POWs are protected by the Geneva Conventions-all persons apprehended in the context of an international armed conflict, including the types of prisoners the U.S. has labeled as "unlawful combatants," receive some level of protection under the Geneva Conventions.

The whole "unlawful combatants" thing is a disgusting attempt by subvert international law for its own ends. What kind of example does this set and what conclusions do others draw from it?

And give up with the moronic idea that I want to give protection to "every thug and terrorist". It's a childish comment that does you no credit. I am at more risk from terrorism in the UK than you are but I still would rather live my life in a fair and  just country that doesn't engage in torture and illegal wars in my name. Guantanamo Bay and the actions of your government give more pleasure to islamic terrorists and are better propaganda by far than anything I am doing in condemning Bush and his idiotic plans.

[SMD]

I didn't notice that last comment.

In the first Gulf War, the Americans told the Iraqis that there would be some sort of cease fire/armistice at one point. As some soldiers returned home, including one of my uncles, American planes came and bombed them all.

Not really cricket, is it?

[nyctex]

Killing an Army that is retreating is part of war, sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities.  IF that was done after a cease fire had been agreed to or if they were trying to surrender then yes you might have a point, but it wasn't - so you don't.


As far as the unlawful combatant issue - we have rights and RESPONSABILTIES under the Geneva Convention.  This is to protect all troops.  If you fight outside the bounds of the convention then you should not expect treatment consistant w/ honorable soldiers.

Do the Arabs fighting in Afghanistan fall into the following "captured members of irregular forces who are under responsible command; have a fixed distinctive sign (such as an insignia, uniform or other marking) recognizable at a distance; carry arms openly; and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."


I think not

[nyctex]

I didn't notice that last comment.

In the first Gulf War, the Americans told the Iraqis that there would be some sort of cease fire/armistice at one point. As some soldiers returned home, including one of my uncles, American planes came and bombed them all.

Not really cricket, is it?

I'm sorry about you uncle.       War is awful, just ask the Kuwatis

[SMD]

I'm sorry about you uncle.       War is awful, just ask the Kuwatis

Yeah, because the Kuwaitis were a) so innocent politically and b) the only ones to experience any hardship.

[fudge]

As far as the unlawful combatant issue - we have rights and RESPONSABILTIES under the Geneva Convention.  This is to protect all troops.  If you fight outside the bounds of the convention then you should not expect treatment consistant w/ honorable soldiers.

I agree entirely and so all US troops should be treated in exactly the same way for using depleted uraniums shells.

Hows your sensibilities now?

I look forwards to Bush's indictment as a war criminal

[Alan_X]

Killing an Army that is retreating is part of war, sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities.  IF that was done after a cease fire had been agreed to or if they were trying to surrender then yes you might have a point, but it wasn't - so you don't.

The Iraqis had agreed to withdraw. Bush decided, for no good rreason, to disregard the agreement and allow his air force to go on a "turkey shoot". Absolutely disgraceful and disturbing. How anyone who claims to be a Christian can display such wanton disregard for human life is beyond me.

As far as the unlawful combatant issue - we have rights and RESPONSABILTIES under the Geneva Convention.  This is to protect all troops.  If you fight outside the bounds of the convention then you should not expect treatment consistant w/ honorable soldiers.

Bollocks. International Law is not conditional. You either act in accordance with the rules or you don't. It highlights the obsession with revenge that seems to underly a lot of your country's behaviour. Don't you think the most powerful country in the world should act with intelligence and try and set an example of moderation. How can Bush go on about liberty, democracy, justice and freedom with a straight face? The lesson is an obvious one - America couldn't give a flying fuck about those ideals if "America's security" is at stake. I'm sure you don't see a problem with that and therein lies the problem.

Do the Arabs fighting in Afghanistan fall into the following "captured members of irregular forces who are under responsible command; have a fixed distinctive sign (such as an insignia, uniform or other marking) recognizable at a distance; carry arms openly; and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

I think not

Probably not - but if they aren't members of an opposing army then how can you be fighting a war against them? They are terrorists and therefore criminals and subject to justice under the law. Why are they being held without trial and tried under Military Tribunal. The US is simply making up "law" on the hoof to suit what it wants to do anyway: torture, imprisonment without trial, summary justice and in some cases murder.

I presume I don't need to go back over the glorious history of America's backing for death squads and other "terrorists" who have fought without insignia...

Why not just admit that America under Bush is a vindictive bully that is empowered to do anything it wants, instead of wrapping everything up in crap about liberty and freedom.

[redchiz]

Shit - it reminds me of Thatcher ordering the General Belgrano to be blown up during the Falklands war, with the loss of life of most onboard - and as everybody now knows the bloody ship was steaming away from the combat zone, but headlines needed to be made...

[Eric]

I agree entirely and so all US troops should be treated in exactly the same way for using depleted uraniums shells.

Hows your sensibilities now?

I look forwards to Bush's indictment as a war criminal

Shheeyat  I'm still waiting for Pinochet! (not to mention Kissinger that %8@$)

[nyctex]

The Iraqis had agreed to withdraw. Bush decided, for no good rreason, to disregard the agreement and allow his air force to go on a "turkey shoot". Absolutely disgraceful and disturbing. How anyone who claims to be a Christian can display such wanton disregard for human life is beyond me.

withdraw is not surrender.

ofThe Iraqis had agreed to withdraw. Bush decided, for no good rreason, to disregard the agreement and allow his air force to go on a "turkey shoot". Absolutely disgraceful and disturbing. How anyone who claims to be a Christian can display such wanton disregard for human life is beyond me.

Bollocks. International Law is not conditional. You either act in accordance with the rules or you don't. It highlights the obsession with revenge that seems to underly a lot of your country's behaviour. Don't you think the most powerful country in the world should act with intelligence and try and set an example of moderation. How can Bush go on about liberty, democracy, justice and freedom with a straight face? The lesson is an obvious one - America couldn't give a flying fuck about those ideals if "America's security" is at stake. I'm sure you don't see a problem with that and therein lies the problem.

moderation is shown by not executing them out of hand. 

Probably not - but if they aren't members of an opposing army then how can you be fighting a war against them? They are terrorists and therefore criminals and subject to justice under the law. Why are they being held without trial and tried under Military Tribunal. The US is simply making up "law" on the hoof to suit what it wants to do anyway: torture, imprisonment without trial, summary justice and in some cases murder.

Because a battle is not a crime scene.  I'm sure you have watched crime shows on the tele.  Have you every noticed the lengths they go to collect evidence? Have you ever been in a US court room?  Remember the OJ Simpson trial?  US lawyers are very good at getting the clients off for the smallest technicality - no matter how guilty they are.  That clearly doesn't work for foreign terrorists.  The US  justice system would grind to a halt and those that we expect to be protecting us would be too busy prepping for hundreds of court appearances to do their jobs.

I presume I don't need to go back over the glorious history of America's backing for death squads and other "terrorists" who have fought without insignia...

Don't think the US ever demanded or expected criminal court protection for them in their country of operation. 
I never said that fighting without insignia is immoral or wrong per se - just there are consequences.

[SMD]

moderation is shown by not executing them out of hand.

Fucking hell.

[Alan_X]

Because a battle is not a crime scene.  I'm sure you have watched crime shows on the tele.  Have you every noticed the lengths they go to collect evidence? Have you ever been in a US court room?  Remember the OJ Simpson trial?  US lawyers are very good at getting the clients off for the smallest technicality - no matter how guilty they are.  That clearly doesn't work for foreign terrorists.  The US  justice system would grind to a halt and those that we expect to be protecting us would be too busy prepping for hundreds of court appearances to do their jobs.

So you accept that there is little or no evidence against these people?

[The Fletcher Memorial]

moderation is shown by not executing them out of hand. 

And that, ladies and gentleman, is that!! A true terrorist apologist if ever I saw one. NYCTEX, you are one delusional fuck up!

[Alan_X]

And your point about "withdraw is not surrender". The Iraq troops (and civilians) were leaving the battlefield - they had given up and were going home. So because their government hadn't agreed to surrender it's ok to slaughter them out of hand?

Keep on fighting for "freedom, liberty and justice" mate.

[fudge]

moderation is shown by not executing them out of hand. 

People respect a strong leader, sensible policies for a happier Empire

[WillieBob]

John Kerry showing his support for the troops in Iraq.  audio

[Alan_X]

John Kerry showing his support for the troops in Iraq.  audio

Err... the comment was about education - You seem to be implying it's a critisism of the troops?. Any chance of the whole speech?

And of course KFIAM-640 wouldn't be quoting things out of context to make a point would they? Not with Rush Limbaugh as one of their presenters    

Have you read thye title of the thread?

[nyctex]

So you accept that there is little or no evidence against these people?

In a criminal trial sense - yes.  That shocks you?  You obviously have no sense of what a criminal trial is.

[nyctex]

People respect a strong leader, sensible policies for a happier Empire

   That is the best picture of me

[fudge]

  That is the best picture of me

You need some sleep looking at the bags under your eyes, it must be all that governing the world

[nyctex]

You need some sleep looking at the bags under your eyes, it must be all that governing the world

I was actually thinking of using that for my Christmas card this year.  you think it is that bad?     maybe without the backlighting

[fudge]

I was actually thinking of using that for my Christmas card this year.  you think it is that bad?     maybe without the backlighting

who you sending xmas cards to , the deceased peoples families?

[WillieBob]

Err... the comment was about education - You seem to be implying it's a critisism of the troops?. Any chance of the whole speech?

Indeed it was a quote about education - but why have a dig at the "uneducated" (my word,his implication) in the forces?

[The Fletcher Memorial]

who you sending xmas cards to , the deceased peoples families?

 

Indeed it was a quote about education - but why have a dig at the "uneducated" (my word,his implication) in the forces?

Disposable hero's?

[WillieBob]

Disposable hero's?

Yes, that's probably how Kerry see's them - thank God George W Bush see's them in a different light.

[nyctex]

who you sending xmas cards to , the deceased peoples families?

Yes,  the family of those killed by the terrorists.  Remember them?  Thousands of them.  Remember them?  Innocents all

[The Fletcher Memorial]

Yes, that's probably how Kerry see's them - thank God George W Bush see's them in a different light.

That's a joke, right?