Ya know what QM? You will never be a highdileeho.

My karma is different from his. I respect his decision to serve and he has to live with his life decisions like everyone else. Same with Corporal Twinkie, who is doing his brothers and sisters a grave disservice, even if he is sincere. If any of you think the war against this SCUM is anywhere near over, guess again. Jihadists don't give up until they're dead. Or you're dead. Or both.

He put his life on the line for his country, and will never have the same bloodthirst that you spout here.

My "bloodthirst" is mostly limited to jihadist fktards who want to kill Americans and other civilized peoples. That's the price I gladly pay for not being a moral relativist: recognizing there is real evil in the world, and that this world has real consequences for appeasement stupidity.

I'm a non-combat veteran...now, I don't know if that meets the high standards liberals set for everyone but themselves, and I've never had to shoot anyone, but the US GOV could've sent me into the fire and I would've gone. Unlike in Congress, military oaths to defend the Constitution mean something.

- Article 3 of Geneva conventions requires humane treatment of all persons held. Furthermore on June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. International and American rights apply to them.

Well, guess what, the dumbshts in the legal system have been wrong plenty of times before. They tried this bullsht with captured Nazi spies, that is, attempting to give them Constitutional rights, but the country was more sane in the 1940s and instead they were dealt with properly.

"The ones that have been released quickly rejoin [...] their jihad."

National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all 18 people on the "confirmed" list have "returned" to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.

Ah, so that's acceptable to you, those "small" numbers? How many a-holes did it take to bring about 9-11? Oh, that's right, that doesn't count, because the 9-11 jihadist scum were from Country X and not Country Z. Brilliant reasoning, libs.

The US looked for legal loopholes to justify its detention program at Gitmo, nor could it trail them as it had torture testimony which is inadmissible in a court of law.

Well, given the choice of calling this a real war against a real enemy or "Bush's Game" I'll gladly err on the side of real war. Let the animals run wild and free over some "clever" legal ACLU wrangling and before long you won't have a society to defend.

Wouldn't you rejoin? I mean if this group of jihadists captured you and put you in a shitty hole with crappy accommodations, when you were released wouldn't you come running back and join military...well you wouldn't cause you're a pussy, but somebody with balls would...

LOOKIT ME EVERYONE!...I'M TALKIN' TOUGH...ON THE INTERNETS. I CALL YOU NAME!

It's not some alien we're dealing with...it's people. So I don't know why you act so surprised when humans follow their own nature to feel hatred when they're mistreated.

I understand the "feelings" of Gitmo detainees and nothing they do surprises me. Go to any prison in America and you'll find plenty of the same resentment, since every one of those guys is ALSO not guilty! They'll tell you so! They were set up!

Why do liberals act surprised that there is real hatred towards jihadist animals sawing off heads, homicide bombing, beating women, honor killing, etc.

Liberals are always angry and ashamed of America first and "the oppressed" last. They just don't see this, the way a fish can't see the water. Maybe they're too fking far gone to notice, who knows. NYC could be suitcase nuked tomorrow and they'd use Gitmo to justify it.

"Gitmo detainees are not prisoners of war nor enemy combatants fighting under any nation's flag, so American and International rights don't apply to them."

- Article 3 of Geneva conventions requires humane treatment of all persons held. Furthermore on June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. International and American rights apply to them.

"The ones that have been released quickly rejoin [...] their jihad."

National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all 18 people on the "confirmed" list have "returned" to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.

The US looked for legal loopholes to justify its detention program at Gitmo, nor could it trail them as it had torture testimony which is inadmissible in a court of law.

More reading material - http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/article_2110.jsp and http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/02/12/detainees.documents/index.html

^ I totally understand what you're saying. But I think the point here is that while "enhanced interrogation" was ordered from the very top, it was also stated again and again on television and elsewhere that the Geneva Convetion doesn't apply to "enemy combatants".

Many statements like that were tossed around from Gonzales on up to Bush himself. This created a systemic problem with detainee abuse, not just with interrogators, but at every level at GITMO.

This puzzle has many pieces of many different shapes and sizes.

Assume you are the unitary executive of the US, and don't need to worry about Congress, the Constitution, the Geneva conventions, or deficit caps (i.e. pretend you're Bush, only smarter).

I would publicly execute the bankers convicted of fraud, nothing special, just a bag and bullet to the head. Their assets would be seized and given to charities to pass out to the needy. Government would be drastically reduced. No more welfare state. I believe people would step up and help their fellow man when government is not used as an excuse not to help. No more social engineering through legislation, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, if you're hurting yourself don't expect the government to bail you out. Anytime the military is needed war must be declared by the congress. In fact no more standing army except for nuke guardians. Any invasion of the US would not last long, almost everyone should be armed. Balanced budgets, hard money, no more fractional reserve banking. Now that the power is back in the people's hands, it will be written into the constitution in lawyer speak so there will be no misunderstanding and no loopholes, no more power grabs by Presidents and no more fucking with the currency no matter how well intentioned. Then I'll return to plowing my fields.

Just another example of "Might Is Right".

White phosphorous was used by the US in Fallujah and it was used by Israel in Gaza.

Geneva Conventions only apply to rogue states.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'm trying to poke and prod the insanity that allows some to ignore the atrocities Muslims have inflicted on the world throughout the centuries

Atrocities were committed by Christians and other religious dominations for centuries as well, you are connecting a religion with a political conflict. Islamic terrorism uses Islam simply as a tool not as a idealogical cornerstone.

in favor of exploiting and getting hysterical over what amount to minor infractions which likely saved innocent lives.

Minor infractions to someone who doesn't respect the moral and ethical standing of the US in the international arena. Americans won World War 2 and the Cold War because it did not succumb to the same thinking that drove oppressive regimes like that, the entire American ideology is built around Law and respect for Civil Liberties. You are supporting a means to a end that would basically bring down the America you seek to save.

When you let government nationalize once-free markets, you are giving up freedom for an assumed quality of health security.

This is just stupid Right wing alarmist rubbish, if the socialization of health care means that people do not receive health care please explain the high health rates amongst 'socialist' states like Japan, England, Canada and most of Europe. Thanks.

Health care is not a commodity thus you cannot create a free market around it, you can create a free market in it's provision but not in its supply. Corporations don't care about social health and welfare, they care about profits.

History does not support this conclusion. There have been over 12,000 attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and no news anywhere that Obama's election has given terrorists pause.

It's fucking January 24th 2009. How long has Obama been in power?

Call it a personality defect, but I feel nothing for people sworn to kill me for being an American or infidel.

Am muslim. I never really had the need to kill you because you are a kaffir. You are too amusing to be lost.

These scum are not part of a legitimate fighting force so they can't be sent home, nor do they qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, which they ignore completely.

Under Geneva Conventions Article 3 they are covered for capture. The Geneva Conventions give no coverage in the face of crimes, thus your allegation that they are given blanket protection is ill informed.

It's only treason to question The One's judgment and secrecy here at liberalsift.

Says the person who would vehemently defend each and every decision that Bush would make, even claiming that questioning his thinking was treason, before reversing course and calling him a soft Conservative and a RINO half way through 2007.

You're having a conversation with yourself. You don't even listen to what people say right here in this thread.

To the contrary, I know EXACTLY what is being said here. I'm trying to poke and prod the insanity that allows some to ignore the atrocities Muslims have inflicted on the world throughout the centuries in favor of exploiting and getting hysterical over what amount to minor infractions which likely saved innocent lives.

Why do liberals act appalled when it is suggested they hate America? What other conclusion could anyone reach observing such fault-finding? What kind of madness prompts the victims of violence to ask "What did we do to make them hate us?"

Franklin was talking about limits on search and seizure, freedom of speech, and habeas corpus, not the freedom to have your medical treatment denied by pencil pushers, and I think deep down you know that.

What's the more likely scenario, black helicopters and stormtroopers or some bureaucrat deciding you go to the back of the waiting list for a heart transplant? When you let government nationalize once-free markets, you are giving up freedom for an assumed quality of health security. Per the quote, in the end you get neither.

By closing Guantanamo (on pretty much the first day of business no less), Obama has sent a clear message to the world, and "terrorists" will have a harder time recruiting to fight what they perceive as injustices--like torture.

History does not support this conclusion. There have been over 12,000 attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and no news anywhere that Obama's election has given terrorists pause.

Call it a personality defect, but I feel nothing for people sworn to kill me for being an American or infidel. These scum are not part of a legitimate fighting force so they can't be sent home, nor do they qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, which they ignore completely. The best we can do for them is send them to Allah, postage paid.

Oh, and BTW, if criticism of Bush was anti-government and treason, any and all criticism of Obama is now anti-government treason.

It's only treason to question The One's judgment and secrecy here at liberalsift.

For now. :0)

Now take note, as I quote the Geneva conventions:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

-Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part III Article 17 paragraph IV

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68


Why is that important? Because most soldiers are considered Innocent Agents.

You can, interrogate and get your information easily enough with out violence. Or adverse treatment.

Listen to his rhetoric he's like the Liberal version of Bill O'Reilly.

I mean "With straight forwardness that was like water to the lost soul in the Sahara"? What the fuck was that?

Am against torture and for holding people accountable but this is the wrong way to do it.

Because it takes the stance of defending the people held in Guantanamo, which is a big no no when most of the people in the US still believe they are dangerous. Remember this is about persuasion not actually presenting information.

It would have been better to look at what kind of information was brought forward from torture techniques, and what methodology brought forward these techniques in the first place and interviews from the ex-US military intelligence, FBI and CIA with regards to torture effectiveness. Tying it finally with what it says about America that tortures, reminding us of how Geneva conventions were brought forward by the US, comparisons to states that torture and so on.

I just disagree with how he approaches every argument. Even though his heart is in right place.

My only problem is torture, whether it be prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantanamo Bay, is frankly no different to extraordinary rendition, other than that the latter operates in a netherworld of the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture, but which after all was authorised to be used by the CIA by none other than president Clinton in 1995 in a presidential directive.

That of course does not absolve Bush of guilt, but unless I have missed previous segments where Olbermann covers this, he is holding him to double standards.

Non-uniformed forces fall under Geneva Conventions common article 3, so the Geneva conventions apply to terrorist forces.
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661&from_page=./index.cfm

The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html

The interrogation and torture inflicted on these combatants using your definition that was co-authored by John Yoo and David Addington have only brought international infamy for the US and further threatened US national security.

This not to be taken as defense for those who choose to commit acts of terror but rather to uphold a better standard in the Western World.

When fighting monsters its important not to become monsters ourselves.

Using WP in a inaccurate delivery system as chemical weapon is violation of the Geneva conventions and a war crime.

But fuck who cares about that stupid piece of paper anymore.

Yehoshua, you don't disagree so much as you peddle forth the same BS spit out by the Israel media to justify the actions of the IDF. Shit your name is the Jewish pronounciation of Jesus for goddsakes.

And its not like you bring forth any objectivity to the discussion, not to mention that your comments are woefully ignorant or rather malicious in their reading of history and the conflict at large.

Hamas was elected not only because of it being terrorist, shit the Americans voted in Bush should we condemn all Americans to die for their unlawful unilateral military actions? Hamas provided the Palestinian people with a government that provided schools and hospitals when Fatah was too busy with infighting over who controls what after Yasser Araft died who ran the thing as his personal mob business more then any government institution that cared for its people.

Hamas is a reflection and embodiment of the bitterness that Isreal has wrought on the Palestinian people over the last 60 years, it is foolish and stupidity to simply relegate peoples actions to terrorism without thinking about what exactly drives a populace or a single person to resist and fight to the death.

To say that Israel is conducting this 'war' as safely as possible is the dumbest shit I ever heard, you yourself claim that war is hell yet at the same time you really believe that bombing and killing civilians will suddenly enlight them and turn them into docile democratic people. How is Israel showing care by telling Gazans to basically internally flee within the open air prison they set up with blockades, necessitating the tunnels that smuggle goods in. The Gazan blockade has been in effect since June of last year, something that Israel has claimed was to destroy Hamas as well by applying collective punishment of all Gazans, a war crime under Geneva conventions. Violence simply begets violence see the current destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan as a whole.

As a military strategy its disconnected with what Livni claims of peace and ending Hamas, the Lebanese war showed that all of Israel's military power could not destroy Hezboallah and what was the cost of this failure? The utter devastation of most of Lebanon. How did that work out for Israel? A great success? Will this hostile action cease the attacks or simply create even more fundamentalism in a people who see right that the world at large care not for their plight.

Countless cases have shown that COIN works best in fighting terrorism that is allying yourself with the general population to seek a common objective, this was shown to work in several locations in Iraq such as Mosul. However Israel has no common objective with the Palestinian people who they have shoved into smaller and smaller enclaves through slow acquisition of lands by 'settlers'. The west bank looks like fucking swiss cheese now. Israel seeks simply to acquire and hold land. It's military power assures even though civilian deaths will occur through hostile action, in the long term the land will become theirs.

But this is what Israel wants and needs, a perpetual war to keep its population in check and to continue having American support. To claim its fighting the good fight killing mostly civilians so that it can win elections.

But hell what do you care you come simply to shill propagandistic bullshit and by lines of the Israel apologist media who don't even cover Gaza because IDF does not allow reporters in.

I could on and on deconstructing your thinly veiled apologizes for what are essentially war crimes.

Think of the analogy of what is happening in Gaza, The US is being bombed by Russia because Russia is sick and tired of the nuclear threat America presents. Russia is full justified in assuring its national security and hopes that by bombing major population centers of America, the American people will rise up and over throw their tyrannical government that they voted in.

kthxbye.

^ Yes, Mukasey's nomination was a circus, mostly because Mukasey first tried to refuse to answer the question, then ultimately gave the answer that it was not (though he refused to ever give a direct statement on the topic).

The real circus aspect was that Democrats had said they would not approve of anyone who thought waterboarding was not torture, then approved Mukasey quickly, despite him failing that litmus test.

I don't think we're stuck with an America that openly tortures, and I think it's amazingly premature to discount everything Obama's ever said about torture before he's even been sworn in, and given at least 15 minutes to enact what he's promised.

I do think prosecutions for Bush & Cheney for war crimes (or any other kind of crime) do seem unlikely at this time.

That's not to say that Obama won't dismantle the policy, and put in place safeguards against cretins like Bush & Cheney taking it upon themselves to violate the Geneva conventions so casually in the future.

Personally, I think the only real safeguard would be war crimes tribunals for Bush and Cheney for violating existing law. I'm certainly going to keep calling for it, and I guarantee Obama and AG Holder will be more likely to listen to me than McCain and whatever AG he put in place would have.

Eventually there will be a reckoning for them for what they've done, or there will be a reckoning for our country that will not be pretty. I'd rather the former than the latter.

>> ^mharvey42:
It is a modern democratic republic, until recently the only one in the Middle East (Now joined by Iraq of course). Arabs are citizens within the country: vote, own property and businesses and have members in the Knesset.
Arabs have more liberty and prosperity in Israel than any Muslim country. Within the so-called occupied territories there are the Arabs calling themselves "Palestinian" who refuse to join Israeli society, or disperse around the region, or live in peace.
Israel does have a strong armed force: to defend against these belligerants, and to protect from the neighboring countries that periodically wage illegal wars of intended genocide on her.


You mean Arab jews of course. Do you consider Palestinians to be Arab? Because the treatment of millions of Palestinians kind of negates any "good" treatment of Arabs who live in Israel. I also think you mistake Arab jews treatment, which isn't the same.

Everything you say is beyond bizarrely ignorant.. THe so-called occupied territories.. they silly Palestinians "refuse" to join Israeli society... or "disperse"... You are completely ignorant of all modern history??!!

Israel wages illegal wars, both of the pre-emptive kind and also the regular justified kind where UN & Geneva conventions are shit upon. So if your point is that these other countries are waging illegal war, then you fail because Israel is ten times more illegal in it's military offenses. How often are these neighboring countries illegally killing international aide workers or attacking ships in the Mediterranean? In fact, Israel is probably the last country military to destroy a US naval ship.