'spider',

The message is 'violation by the US of international laws'. A most credible messenger of human rigts, amongst many, is Jimmy Carter.

PLEASE LOOK UP SOPHISTS, SOPHISMS, SOPHISTIC, it should be of interest to you, since 'sophists' were to Socrates, what 'pharyseans' were to Jesus.

... and until then, get back on topic!!!

By the way 'spider', I will not respond to other sophistic messages of yours on this topic. In your own interest, you really need to think this one through.

Good luck!

'The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law'????

Unbelievable!

Say it ain't so!

Well, with Gonzales in charge,
it was to be expected.

Too bad King George
doesn't know jack
about the Geneva Convention's
rules of war.

He left that to his lawyer.

Sorry Voil, an enormous number of people agree with my sentiments on Carter. I'm not going to try to rehash the rebuttal to your comments. It is all so old as to be stale. So there is my opinion. Don't care much about changing your mind, even though your analysis is lacking in depth.

wheres the human rights of all those that died on 9-11 ? Many suffered way more horrible deaths. Imagine if you will having to chose between jumping or burning to death.

So I say this. Lets give those prisoners them 2 choices. Then it is not torture

philosopher,

But philosopher...He has done humanitarian work!

Carter "certified" the Ethiopian election...before the votes were counted. Despite widespread voter fraud, Jimmah continues to believe that Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was rightfully elected. Perhaps because they are both socialists? Carter tried to do the same thing in the Ukraine after one of the candidates was nearly assassinated and even with pictures of voter fraud and intimidation happening, Carter still believed that the election was valid. Only those with a disdain for the truth could believe that Jimmy Carter is inpartial or a "credible messenger for human rights".

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/jimmy-carter-finds-angry-ethiopians.html

I happen to agreee with Fanta..there is no need to torture these poor souls.....just behead them, drag them through the streets and then hang them from the nearest bridge, like they do to our soldiers. Why waste all that tax money on them?.

As for Carter, he isn't worth this cyberspace for a comment

technically all combatants not in uniform

are spys they are not protected by any

rules and regulations

they can be lined up and shot

per international law

so yea quit torturing them and just shoot them

and get it over with



just a point to ponder

later got to go before i get stoned (not in a good way)

Why not just totally
ignore the Geneva Convention
altogether?

Oh, that's right,
Bush and Gonzales
already did that.

OK, here's an idea:

Kill 'em all and let God
sort them out.

That would simplify things.

No trial, no jury,
no inconvenient
international laws
such as the Geneva
Convention.

Why stop there?

Let's just bomb
the crap out of
the next country
we don't like.

(Hint: Iran)

Then we can put
them in Gitmo or
some obscure
Balkan country.

All those evil
young Iranians
who listen to Elvis.

What those countries
do to them, we
don't care.

It didn't happen in
the U.S.!

Hike, Geneva convention only covers "soldiers" from countries that signed the convention treaty. It DOES NOT cover "terrorists" or Militias that are from countries that did not or won't sign the treaty.

Well now, on the issue of torture, I am opposed to it. I just happened to get the idea that this post was mostly about supporting Carter's view on anti-Americanism. I highly doubt Carter is well informed on the matter and certainly he is not an impartial observer, carrying his anti-Bush vitriol firmly in place wherever he goes.

RedWine, this is subject to interpretation.

The Geneva Convention does not refer to
"unlawful combantant", but it "does describe
categories under which a person may be entitled
to POW status".

Here's a wiki on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Who is afforded POW status in this country has
been left to the sole discretion of President Bush.

Let me ask a rhetorical question:

The U.S. detained "unlawful combatants"
in Gitmo, most of them from Afghanistan
who are Al Qaeda.

Yet an Al Qaeda conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui,
who was arrested here in Minnesota, was given
a jury trial here in the U.S.

Why wasn't he sent to Guantanamo as an
"enemy combatant"?

There was another man arrested in Minnesota
with ties to Al Qaeda.

From CNN.com:

Mohammed Abdullah Warsame was in Afghanistan
and attended an Al Qaeda training camp where
Osama Bin Laden himself was present.

"He provided material support to al Qaeda for
more than three years" according to the
Justice Department".

He got a federal grand jury trial.

Why wasn't he sent to Gitmo?

Was it because Zacarias Moussaoui was
a French citizen and Mohammed Abdullah Warsame
was Canadian?

Two points maybe..(maybe three )
If you consider what happen to prisoners at Abu Ghraib "Torture" then you have never been to college and tried getting into a frat.

Second: Scenario...The year 2008( or anytime for that matter), the NSA gets very good intel that a nuclear device has been planted in a major US city. This intel includes the terrorists name and description. A man fitting this name and description is caught getting on a plane. His luggage tests positive for radioactive isotopes. What do you do?

I can tell you this, If 100,000 people die in New York or L.A. , and they ask officials of the Bush administration " Why didn't you get any info from this man?" and "We could have evacuated the city if we knew where it was" The Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reids would be having investigation upon investigation why Bush did such a horrible job at not getting these answers!!!

ok..just two points....for now

Well RedWine,
I see you've
dodged my question
instead of giving
me an intelligent
answer.

Hike...Easy answer, cases you site are people caught on US soil, so they fall into our "criminal" justice system. They are not " Combatants" attacking us on foreign soil.

Most of the prisoners at qitmo were caught in battle. Their uniforms may not look like ours, but who defines what a uniform is?

They were caught during battle, and Bush declared war on them. Therefore they are enemy soldiers!!

But who defines what a uniform is??? well just by it's very definition Fanta "UNIFORM"..it certainly doesn't have to look like ours, but all "soldiers" as you call them must be dressed "uniformily".They could all where yellow polka dot dresses as far as I care...but must show uniformity

I kinda thought they all did look alike!!

LMAO Fanta Well that is one very big point of the convention....to distinquish between soldiers and citizens.
BTW..How ya doing bud?

<--------------

Al Quieda soldiers captured in Afghanistan!!

Look like uniforms??

I could show you a hundred photos of "regular" afgani men that look just like that


off topic anyway..thought your post was about torture...what is your thoughts on the scenario of my previous post?