The Scum Also Rises...Yet Again

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h2><font color=red>The Scum Also Rises</font></h2></center>

<blockquote><b><a href=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/201771_torture01.html>U.S. lawyers file complaint over abuses in Abu Ghraib</a>
Rumsfeld, others named in case taken to German court</b>

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER NEWS SERVICES

BERLIN -- A group of American civil rights attorneys filed a criminal complaint in German court yesterday against top U.S. authorities, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for acts of torture committed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The complaint also names former CIA Director George Tenet; the former commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez; and seven other military leaders.

Attorneys from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights said they filed the complaint because they were disappointed in U.S. investigations into the Abu Ghraib abuses and hoped the filing would prompt an investigation by German authorities.</blockquote>

Just how wrong have things gone in this country, when a foreign government is asked to look into the misdeeds of our own government? Ever since the attrocities at Abu Ghraib were revealed, the Bush administration ahs stone-walled or quashed any investigation into it.

But with the revelations of the DOJ memos approved by Alberto Gonzales and IRC reports of conditions at Guantanamo Bay being nothing short of torture, the moral bankruptcy of Dubbyuh's administration is being revealed. The attrocities at Abu Ghraib and the mistreatment and torture of detainees at Gitmo show a government dedicated, not to the ideals of "freedom loving people", but rather one dedicated to power at any cost...achievement of the ends by any means necessary...a callous disregard for human suffering. To win the "War on Terror", our government must live up to the ideals it so blatantly pays lip service to. Otherwise the war is lost, the terrorists will have won, not because of their moral or military superiority, but because of the weakness, the shortsightedness, the hypocrisy and utter moral bankruptcy of our elected leaders.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Best I can do for now Bully!

Which of the three monkeys are you?

<center><IMG src=http://store1.yimg.com/I/onlinediscountmart_1823_75640768></center>

 

[Merlin1047]

Attorneys from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights said they filed the complaint because they were disappointed in U.S. investigations into the Abu Ghraib abuses and hoped the filing would prompt an investigation by German authorities.</blockquote>

Right. The Germans are going to "investigate". You bet.

Send them. It might even be entertaining. Wonder if a German lawyer yodels when he gets his head cut off?

Get some help Bully. I think you're suffering post-election trauma.

 

[Mr. P]

The Scum Also Rises

...A group of American civil rights attorneys filed a criminal complaint in German court...

Well hey..there ya go, Bully is correct, it did. I'd like to add this... scum only rises in stagnant areas. :gross2:

 

[nakedemperor]

Bully has a point. Rumsfeld took "full responsibility" for the Abu Ghraib incidents. What did being "fully responsible" for torture entail...NOTHING. That IS NOT RIGHT.

 

[Avatar4321]

Who cares what they file in a German court? They have no jurisdiction over any Americans.

Even if they were found guilty it wouldn't be valid because of the lack of constitutional due process. if the case is so strong file it in the States.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Who cares what they file in a German court? They have no jurisdiction over any Americans.

Even if they were found guilty it wouldn't be valid because of the lack of constitutional due process. if the case is so strong file it in the States.

Guess again. German law permits prosecution for war crimes outside their borders. If the case comes to trial the defendants will be able to to defend themselves. But if they choose to disregard international law, as the administration has done from the gitgo, and they are found guilty, they may be arrested if they leave US territory. But that wouldn't be any great inconvenience for Dubbyuh. Before he was selected in 2000 he had never traveled outside the country. He only does do now because he has to.

 

[CSM]

Guess again. German law permits prosecution for war crimes outside their borders. If the case comes to trial the defendants will be able to to defend themselves. But if they choose to disregard international law, as the administration has done from the gitgo, and they are found guilty, they may be arrested if they leave US territory. But that wouldn't be any great inconvenience for Dubbyuh. Before he was selected in 2000 he had never traveled outside the country. He only does do now because he has to.

When did German law become International Law? I thought they lost WWII?
I hereby declare US law as International law....so there!

 

[CSM]

... Before he was selected in 2000 he had never traveled outside the country. He only does do now because he has to...

No kidding? I guess he wasn't President before he was selected and elected...maybe that has something to do with it. I know a lot of folks who never travelled outside this country and probably never will. So what?

 

[OCA]

Abu Ghraib was not war crimes, it was good soldiers doing a duty for their country. To win this war we cannot fight by this mythical moral high ground we keep talking about, we must get in the mud and beat these people at their own game. May god bless the soldiers of Abu Ghraib.

Bully you are a stupid fuck. Selected in 2000, what a tool.

 

[Avatar4321]

Guess again. German law permits prosecution for war crimes outside their borders. If the case comes to trial the defendants will be able to to defend themselves. But if they choose to disregard international law, as the administration has done from the gitgo, and they are found guilty, they may be arrested if they leave US territory. But that wouldn't be any great inconvenience for Dubbyuh. Before he was selected in 2000 he had never traveled outside the country. He only does do now because he has to.

Bully, you are an idiot. Even if i conceded that German Law permits prosecution of war crimes outside their boarders, it would only have power to prosecute Germans who committed war crimes or an nonresident who was either living there or committed those war crimes against Germany. Germany law cannot prosecute any American because they have no soviergnty over us. As an American, any citizen has a right to due process before the Law. Thus any court that robbed them of that due process, IE the German courts, would be illigitimate.

There is no international law involved here. German courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute international law. And even if they did you just pointed out that its German law that permits it. Not international Law. If any one of you wackos tried to enforce a ruling in Germany based on your incredibly dumb theory they would have to go through the United States court system and the Supreme Court would outright reject the notion. (Trust me, i know, just finished studying Supreme Court rulings on jurisdiction)

Any such attempt to subject American's to foriegn soviergnty without due process of the law would be an act of war.

This has been revealing though. This whole situation shows how much contempt liberals have for the Constitution and due process rights and how they will seek to undermine our Constitutional rights just so they return to power. Any American engaged in this activity or in support of it should be proseucted for treason.

 

[nakedemperor]

Abu Ghraib was not war crimes, it was good soldiers doing a duty for their country. To win this war we cannot fight by this mythical moral high ground we keep talking about, we must get in the mud and beat these people at their own game. May god bless the soldiers of Abu Ghraib.

Bully you are a stupid fuck. Selected in 2000, what a tool.

You're a horrible human being. They were soldiers having fun blindfolding detainees, stripping them naked, taking pictures with their smiling faces next to the prisoners' exposed genitals, and MUCH much worse. This is necessary for extracting information? THIS IS DOING A GOOD SOLDIER DOING HER DUTY? You're the first person I've met who argues that Abu Ghraib was a good. I think the best "duty" is when the soldiers covered a detainee in a "brown substance" and had him walk naked with his ankles handcuffed. Or maybe putting detainees in lewd positions while naked. Shame on you.

 

[nakedemperor]

Yeah, the poor bastards had it rough for a bit, good thing though they can live to talk about unlike those that had their heads sawed off!

I fail to see the correlation. The United States is a moral country and a signatory of the Geneva convention. The terrorists are despicable and immoral... since they chop off people's heads we should be allowed to torture Iraqi prisoners of war and detainees? No. We're better than that. We're better than them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I fail to see the correlation. The United States is a moral country and a signatory of the Geneva convention. The terrorists are despicable and immoral... since they chop off people's heads we should be allowed to torture Iraqi prisoners of war and detainees? No. We're better than that. We're better than them.

Yes. we are. Panties on the head and a little rough stuff pales in comparison to their barbarity. Get a clue.

 

[OCA]

You're a horrible human being. They were soldiers having fun blindfolding detainees, stripping them naked, taking pictures with their smiling faces next to the prisoners' exposed genitals, and MUCH much worse. This is necessary for extracting information? THIS IS DOING A GOOD SOLDIER DOING HER DUTY? You're the first person I've met who argues that Abu Ghraib was a good. I think the best "duty" is when the soldiers covered a detainee in a "brown substance" and had him walk naked with his ankles handcuffed. Or maybe putting detainees in lewd positions while naked. Shame on you.

I love those fucking pics! They always give me a nice pick up. Yes it was all those things mentioned but I suppose you haven't heard this yet because you've been around a bunch of handwringing libs.

I suppose the people who hung the bodies from the bridge and beheaded people didn't deserve a little humiliation? Boo fucking hoo, last I heard not one ounce of proof has been given to prove that anybody died as a result of this humiliation, thats right humiliation not torture.

Lets not forget these people were criminals, terrorists, insurgents whatever you want to call them. I don't believe for 1 fucking second that they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time as some claim.

 

[OCA]

I fail to see the correlation. The United States is a moral country and a signatory of the Geneva convention. The terrorists are despicable and immoral... since they chop off people's heads we should be allowed to torture Iraqi prisoners of war and detainees? No. We're better than that. We're better than them.

Well you keep saying that while some more people get fucked up, I say take the gloves off and retaliate in kind.

THANK GOD LIBS DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THIS!

 

[OCA]

NE - problem is that the Geneva Convetion does not apply here. Agreed that we should be held to higher standards and thats exactly why those few responsible will pay for it, However it seems you guys would rather have it out in front as if it was such a atrocity! Tell me, what would you do if you had a fellow soldier beheaded over there, would you think twice about your actions if you caught one of those bastards?

Its just like the guy getting reamed for clipping the wounded scumbag who was on the ground. Hey anybody who moves gets clipped, remember they are booby trapping bodies over there. That guy gets a silver star from me.

 

[Gem]

NakedEmperor,

I see your point regarding not "sinking to the level" of the terrorists. It it is a very common arguing point of the nonviolence movement...it has its roots in Christianity, other religions share the idea as well. It is also a very Western idea...

However, as with everything in life, it doesn't always fit every situation.

We are dealing with a drastically different culture...an entirely different philosophical foundation...one that we have not fully grasped yet, and that lack of understanding is causing numerous problems for the Coalition forces.

Some examples of this difference?

Abu Ghraib: The terrorists were not as angered by the torture as they were by the sexual humiliation at the hands of a woman. While many Americans looked at some of the photos and said, "Yeah, so what?" The Arab world was horrified at a people that would be willing to do something so horrific and dastardly...

Bush's Decision to destroy Abu Ghraib Prison: After the scandal, Bush publically announced that the vile prison would be destroyed. Why? Because we Westerners are very into symbolism...to us, we thought it would send the message to the Iraqis that we were serious about the tortures and crimes committed there by Saddam's men, and later the US's men, were finished...and that a new reign of democracy was starting...the US felt that this was the right decision.

However, many Iraqis were confused by the decision...and article in Time quoted an elderly man who lived across the street as saying, "Why tear down a perfectly good prison? Why waste the time when we need a place to put criminals and we need water and electricity?" For this man, the symbolic gesture of a new beginning was wasted and useless...he wanted tangible change, clean water, light, and criminals put away...we missed that point.

Al-Sadr: We fought Al-Sadr and his men off and on and on and off. Every time we came close to getting him, everytime we had killed too many of his fighters, had him cornered somewhere, etc. etc. He would come forward and say that he wanted peace and wanted to negotiate the ceasefire...and we would...why? Because we thought it would demonstrate that we were interested in peace, and would give people a chance.

Many people, however, feel that this was a terrible decision for the US to make...because the culture we were dealing with didn't respect a truce, the respect a winner, a warlord, a leader...and everytime Al-Sadr walked away it was as if he was saying, "Once again, I have survived, and I have triumphed over the US military machine...I am strong and a warlord leader because I have defeated the US one more time....one more time they cower and negotiate with me." You can see this attitude with Saddam as well...the fact that he remained in power after the first Gulf War was looked at by many in the region as a victory for Saddam, rather than the trouncing that many Americans feel it was.

Where am I going with this???

While I do not think we should be chucking the Geneva Convention out the window...we have to understand how our choices and decisions are being used against us in this war...and we have to be willing to consider how we are going to have to change if we actually expect to "win."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

NakedEmperor,

I see your point regarding not "sinking to the level" of the terrorists. It it is a very common arguing point of the nonviolence movement...it has its roots in Christianity, other religions share the idea as well. It is also a very Western idea...

However, as with everything in life, it doesn't always fit every situation.

We are dealing with a drastically different culture...an entirely different philosophical foundation...one that we have not fully grasped yet, and that lack of understanding is causing numerous problems for the Coalition forces.

Some examples of this difference?

Abu Ghraib: The terrorists were not as angered by the torture as they were by the sexual humiliation at the hands of a woman. While many Americans looked at some of the photos and said, "Yeah, so what?" The Arab world was horrified at a people that would be willing to do something so horrific and dastardly...

Bush's Decision to destroy Abu Ghraib Prison: After the scandal, Bush publically announced that the vile prison would be destroyed. Why? Because we Westerners are very into symbolism...to us, we thought it would send the message to the Iraqis that we were serious about the tortures and crimes committed there by Saddam's men, and later the US's men, were finished...and that a new reign of democracy was starting...the US felt that this was the right decision.

However, many Iraqis were confused by the decision...and article in Time quoted an elderly man who lived across the street as saying, "Why tear down a perfectly good prison? Why waste the time when we need a place to put criminals and we need water and electricity?" For this man, the symbolic gesture of a new beginning was wasted and useless...he wanted tangible change, clean water, light, and criminals put away...we missed that point.

Al-Sadr: We fought Al-Sadr and his men off and on and on and off. Every time we came close to getting him, everytime we had killed too many of his fighters, had him cornered somewhere, etc. etc. He would come forward and say that he wanted peace and wanted to negotiate the ceasefire...and we would...why? Because we thought it would demonstrate that we were interested in peace, and would give people a chance.

Many people, however, feel that this was a terrible decision for the US to make...because the culture we were dealing with didn't respect a truce, the respect a winner, a warlord, a leader...and everytime Al-Sadr walked away it was as if he was saying, "Once again, I have survived, and I have triumphed over the US military machine...I am strong and a warlord leader because I have defeated the US one more time....one more time they cower and negotiate with me." You can see this attitude with Saddam as well...the fact that he remained in power after the first Gulf War was looked at by many in the region as a victory for Saddam, rather than the trouncing that many Americans feel it was.

Where am I going with this???

While I do not think we should be chucking the Geneva Convention out the window...we have to understand how our choices and decisions are being used against us in this war...and we have to be willing to consider how we are going to have to change if we actually expect to "win."

These barbarians are not official armies of states and are not uniformed and as such are not subject to geneva protection.

In no way should anyone accept that their humiliation is equal in any way to REAL torture and muder. One is humiliation. One is death. You can say "it's the same to them". Well that's their problem. I'm not buying it.

 

[freeandfun1]

why should we understand them? Perhaps they should understand us.