What A REAL Gulag Is!!

[IControlThePast]

Your article looks a bit weird. I used the Red Cross as my source:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

Article 5

"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 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."

Those rights for us should mean a Judicial trial for a check on Executive Power.

 

[Annie]

Your article looks a bit weird. I used the Red Cross as my source:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

Article 5

"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 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."

Those rights for us should mean a Judicial trial for a check on Executive Power.

They are NOT protected persons, right from Article 4:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.​

They do not meet the criteria. Guess you could stretch bin Laden into a, but not in reality. The other 3 are no brainers. They are enemy combatants and excluded from protected person status.

 

[Comrade]

Your article looks a bit weird. I used the Red Cross as my source:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

Article 5

"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 persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity

And such people certainly are. I have no problem with us giving them full POW treatment, as we are now.

and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."

Note a trial is not mandatory, nor should it be. As they are held in humanitarian conditions, we are more than satisfying the legal obligations of Geneva.

A trial for each and every POW is unheard of in modern times, for good reasons, not just because it's not required by either International nor US law.

1. The media ruckuss caused by covering the various trials (and of course slanting things against our US Military will only serve to fuel the propaganda machine of our enemies.

2. Justice is not served by punishing the detainees with judiciary penalties (like death). Justice in this case is best served by detaining them for vital intelligence.

3. We'd enable Al-Quada to abuse our own legal system in pursuit of underming the entire system, which is exactly what they wish to do. We'd see them manipulate their International lawyers, grant them a media platform, and what is presumably an Islamic jury (a jury of peers) will send them off with a slap on the hand, given the 'complexities' of the issue. In the meantime...

3. We'd garner NO INTELLIGENCE from the start of such a trial for each and every key individual who is deemed worthy enough to be shipped to Gitmo. Of course this would close down our most important intelligence tool in this war against Islamic extremists. Their friends still blowing up Iraqis are breathing easier.

4. Foriegn nationals apprehended alive on the battlefield in Iraq suddenly have more rights than American citizens living under the Patriot act. This is just wrong.

5. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of active duty soldiers in the field have to return to testify at such trials, leaving a gaping hole in experienced, key personell who are currently still carrying the fight to them.

6. There is no possible way to conduct an investigation for the prosecution in an active war zone in a foreign country, nor supeaona information from various hostile or subversive nations about the individual, providing a particularly overriding advantage for the defence, which of course leaves them walking free to yet again carry up the fight against the now depleted American experts in the military, who are mostly shuttling back and forth to testify at each multi-million dollar and exclusively U.S. funded trial.

Those rights for us should mean a Judicial trial for a check on Executive Power.

Whoa, slow down there for a second. You just made a massive subject change. This is now US Constitutional law you're objecting to, not Geneva.

And like you really mean that if a Liberal were in power, you'd favour a conservative Supreme Court overriding the expressly assigned authority for conducting foreign policy due to the executive branch? You know that will be the case after another few terms of Conservative rule install conservative judges, just in time for the next Liberal in the not-so-far-off future. It will happen. And then you'll totally switch sides again. I've seen a pattern of arguments here, and it's really about how you hate Bush after all. I mean it's not you really personally care about how these head chopping religious extremists don't get their own US sponsored show trial. It's clear to me now, you oppose Bush for personal reasons, and know very well how such show trials would undermine everything he hopes to accomplish in the war on terror. Isn't it? Even if it means we lose the war on terror. I see now how AI operates and you'd just rather take up the party line, and not care a whit for the repercussions involved with what you speak of.

 

[Comrade]

Your article looks a bit weird. I used the Red Cross as my source:

FYI, my source is one based on adopted provisions during 1977.

I.E., current.

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977.

 

[Annie]

Somewhere on one of these 'gulag' threads, someone posted that 'today' Gitmo is what a gulag 'is', using some sort of relativity thinking I guess.

Well today there is at least one place where the 'Stalinist model' is alive and well, right next door to Gitmo:

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/001775.html

June 03, 2005
Gulags: A Rant
(Be warned: foul language ahead.)

Somewhere in Cuba, there are prisoners of conscience, political prisoners, sitting in their excrement infested 3 foot by 6 foot completely enclosed cells rotting away for maybe owning a typewriter or for writing a poem or, far worse, for expressing their opinions.

They eat maggot filled slop maybe twice a day. Dont see the light of day and are tortured both physically and mentally in so many different ways that I, so far removed yet so read up on the subject, even have trouble imagining.

Some have their arms wrapped in refrigerator coils which are powered 24/7, rendering such pain that the use of their limbs is forever atrophied. Others have cables clamped to their testicles and the other ends connected to car batteries, destroying not only their bodies, but their manhood, or, if they be lucky enough to ever be released from their hell, their ability to create a family.

Others, yet still, in the darkness of their cells, lying there naked, are doused in powdery chemicals that irritate their skin, so much so that their entire bodies are bloody from their desperate attempts at scratching the incessant itching.

All are tortured mentally. Told daily that thier wives or sons or daughters have been arrested and lay in the same predicament as they. Your son, they say to them, the 12 year old, he is in prison with the general population. Es el buggarron de todos. Youre 12 year old boy is everyone's bitch.

They are prodded and poked. Beaten. Starved. Dehydrated. Bound. Gagged.

Some days they are led outside, completely naked and made to stand in line. One of the guard puts a piece of chewing gum on his bayonet and begins to poke the chest of the first one in line. After a few pokes the blade sneaks through the gum and begins to pierce the mans body, he winces from the pain and begins to step back. More poking, more stepping back. More poking, more stepping back until the men in line are crushed together, naked, dehumanized.

Some are lucky enough to be on the upper floors of their prison cell. Where when they defecate they dont have to worry about the shit falling from the cell above through the little hole in the slab above them. Some are unlucky enough to be on the ground floor, where the feces from the two or three other unfortunate souls above them flows through that little hole above and onto the cell's floor, covering it all, making it difficult to move. Difficult to breathe from the stench of accumulated waste.

That's what happens in the REAL GULAGS in Cuba. Where desperation and real torture and humiliation reign supreme. Where thousands upon thousands of men have endured that torture and humiliation for decades upon decades. Where thousands of men have died and the rest have been marked for life.

So dont come to me and talk to me about the "Gulag" and Guantanamo Bay. Dont come to me to convince me there's a "gulag" being run by the evil Americans. Dont come to me and and tell me the use of the word "gulag" is appropriate in reference to Gitmo.

Because there's no way in HELL that it is. Because the true gulag isnt just over the gottdamn fence of the Naval base, the true gottdamn gulags arent just found on the island of Cuba, scattered about from one tip of the crocodile to the other, filled with men and women who are truly tortured souls. No, the true gulag is the island of Cuba itself. Where it's not so much as how one is allowed to handle a holy book but to OWN one. To READ one. To BELIEVE in one.

Fuck you, Amnesty International. You have just spit upon the many who had hope in you. You have just spit upon those that supported you. You have just spit upon all of those that have died waiting for you.

Waiting for you, Amnesty International, in their very real Cuban fucking gulags.

Posted by Val Prieto at June 3, 2005 02:03 PM

 

[no1tovote4]

Your article looks a bit weird. I used the Red Cross as my source:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

Article 5

"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 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."

Those rights for us should mean a Judicial trial for a check on Executive Power.

Per the Treaty that you cite, those rights include a Military Tribunal which the detainees have been getting, which was my point from the beginning. The assumption that they get no trial at all is only good from one viewpoint, one that wants to debase the efforts of those leading the efforts.

The Detainees are given trials that fall under the definition within the Treaty you quote to say that they need to get trials. Evidence would be that over 200 have been released so far when the Tribunal finds that there isn't enough evidence to hold them.

I would agree that public trials would be best if all was equal, but most of these guys cannot have public trials regardless because too much classified information would be revealed in the prosecution, therefore the "regular" trial would be closed to the public much of the time, thus causing conspiracy theories to be borne on the wind every single time they had to once again close the trial to the public. This would actually be worse than what we currently have to endure...

 

[nosarcasm]

why do they not charge anyone.

It is a disgrace to America.

If they are terrorist convict em.

If they are not terrorists give em the Geneva convention treatment
at least.

 

[Annie]

why do they not charge anyone.

It is a disgrace to America.

If they are terrorist convict em.

If they are not terrorists give em the Geneva convention treatment
at least.

There is no way they can go through our system. In order to do that too much information would have to be 'declassified' when the military needs the classified. If not 'declassified' then they would go free. Not going to happen.

What I can see happening, is returning these folks to SA, Yemini, UAE, etc. Surely that would be an improvement, though they freak out when it's mentioned. Somehow they get the idea that returning 'home' might be worse than the 'gulag', weird.

 

[IControlThePast]

They are NOT protected persons, right from Article 4:

They do not meet the criteria. Guess you could stretch bin Laden into a, but not in reality. The other 3 are no brainers. They are enemy combatants and excluded from protected person status.

It appears most Terrorists we're holding are not in violation of the Geneva Convention .

And such people certainly are. I have no problem with us giving them full POW treatment, as we are now.

A trial for each and every POW is unheard of in modern times, for good reasons, not just because it's not required by either International nor US law.

1. The media ruckuss caused by covering the various trials (and of course slanting things against our US Military will only serve to fuel the propaganda machine of our enemies.

2. Justice is not served by punishing the detainees with judiciary penalties (like death). Justice in this case is best served by detaining them for vital intelligence.

3. We'd enable Al-Quada to abuse our own legal system in pursuit of underming the entire system, which is exactly what they wish to do. We'd see them manipulate their International lawyers, grant them a media platform, and what is presumably an Islamic jury (a jury of peers) will send them off with a slap on the hand, given the 'complexities' of the issue. In the meantime...

3. We'd garner NO INTELLIGENCE from the start of such a trial for each and every key individual who is deemed worthy enough to be shipped to Gitmo. Of course this would close down our most important intelligence tool in this war against Islamic extremists. Their friends still blowing up Iraqis are breathing easier.

4. Foriegn nationals apprehended alive on the battlefield in Iraq suddenly have more rights than American citizens living under the Patriot act. This is just wrong.

5. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of active duty soldiers in the field have to return to testify at such trials, leaving a gaping hole in experienced, key personell who are currently still carrying the fight to them.

6. There is no possible way to conduct an investigation for the prosecution in an active war zone in a foreign country, nor supeaona information from various hostile or subversive nations about the individual, providing a particularly overriding advantage for the defence, which of course leaves them walking free to yet again carry up the fight against the now depleted American experts in the military, who are mostly shuttling back and forth to testify at each multi-million dollar and exclusively U.S. funded trial.



Whoa, slow down there for a second. You just made a massive subject change. This is now US Constitutional law you're objecting to, not Geneva.

And like you really mean that if a Liberal were in power, you'd favour a conservative Supreme Court overriding the expressly assigned authority for conducting foreign policy due to the executive branch? You know that will be the case after another few terms of Conservative rule install conservative judges, just in time for the next Liberal in the not-so-far-off future. It will happen. And then you'll totally switch sides again. I've seen a pattern of arguments here, and it's really about how you hate Bush after all. I mean it's not you really personally care about how these head chopping religious extremists don't get their own US sponsored show trial. It's clear to me now, you oppose Bush for personal reasons, and know very well how such show trials would undermine everything he hopes to accomplish in the war on terror. Isn't it? Even if it means we lose the war on terror. I see now how AI operates and you'd just rather take up the party line, and not care a whit for the repercussions involved with what you speak of.

1. Of course have the trials closed to the public. We couldn't bring up any good intelligence if everyone could hear it.

2. Convict to hold them for interrogation, not execution.

3. If nothing else, it would make us examine the evidence more closely, which would have led to the discovery that many Terrorists were using fake IDs to dupe the Military tribunals.

4. Why yes, I do think the Patriot Act is in some ways wrong too.

5. Obtain official legal statements from the soldiers where you can leave them wherever they may be and just send the statement.

6. The trials won't cost hardly that. Capital trials only cost around $2 million a piece, but that is because there is 20 years worth of appeals.

I'm not one of the people who flip flop their positions depending on who is in power. The Clinton Administration wrongfully claimed prisoners at Gitmo had no rights at all, and I object to that too. The rest of this is just fantasy.

Per the Treaty that you cite, those rights include a Military Tribunal which the detainees have been getting, which was my point from the beginning. The assumption that they get no trial at all is only good from one viewpoint, one that wants to debase the efforts of those leading the efforts.

In the US legal system, the trial should not be a military tribunal, but one through the Justice system as a check on Executive Power.

I would agree that public trials would be best if all was equal, but most of these guys cannot have public trials regardless because too much classified information would be revealed in the prosecution, therefore the "regular" trial would be closed to the public much of the time, thus causing conspiracy theories to be borne on the wind every single time they had to once again close the trial to the public. This would actually be worse than what we currently have to endure...

Public trials would be best, but there is no way we could make the trials public. The regular trials are closed to the public already, and closed to the Judicial branch. There wouldn't be any more conspiracy theories than there are now about the tribunals.

 

[no1tovote4]

Public trials would be best, but there is no way we could make the trials public. The regular trials are closed to the public already, and closed to the Judicial branch. There wouldn't be any more conspiracy theories than there are now about the tribunals.

That's junk and you know it. Conspiracy theories abound when trials have portions or the whole of them sequestered from the public regardless of which branch works the trial. There would be "theories" of made up evidence, etc and it would do no positive good for the war effort or for the US image regardless of which way we try them. Those who wish to see bad will find it, regardless of the truth or the actual evidence. The only effective difference is we would be bringing Terrorists to the US for trials, escape or mistakes being possible, we could be bringing an attack on ourselves.

The Tribunals appear to be largely effective, from over 200 released only a couple dozen have been recaught, that's pretty good. (Of course I think that some of these were released to see if they would lead us to terrorists, and that too has been effective).

 

[IControlThePast]

That's junk and you know it. Conspiracy theories abound when trials have portions or the whole of them sequestered from the public regardless of which branch works the trial.

Right now the executive branch works the "trials" and all of it is kept secret from the public. The amount of information given to the public won't decrease, so they won't have more conspiracy theories spring up than there already are. The more people involved the less conspiracy theories there are, and the less credible they have. A whole nother branch would be involved here.

 

[no1tovote4]

Right now the executive branch works the "trials" and all of it is kept secret from the public. The amount of information given to the public won't decrease, so they won't have more conspiracy theories spring up than there already are. The more people involved the less conspiracy theories there are, and the less credible they have. A whole nother branch would be involved here.

There will be just as many because every one of the trials would have the same "blackout" periods that would allow the conspiracy theorists to have all the openings that they want. We all know that "credibility" is never necessary when speaking of conspiracy theories, those who want to believe will, the same activity will take place regardless of where and who holds the trials.

We would have no gain at all, while still bringing Terrorists to the US, rather than keeping them in a whole nother place to have an extra boundary of protection. Tribunals are much more fair than people believe they are, and the standard of evidence is rather high.

Bringing them here only to avoid conspiracy theories would be nearly worthless and unnecessary, costly, and dangerous and would bring us almost no gain whatsoever in any public forum. Leave them there where they can do no damage to us, even if they do escape.

 

[Comrade]

1. Of course have the trials closed to the public. We couldn't bring up any good intelligence if everyone could hear it.

You misunderstand. The very fact of a trial precludes any government interrogation of the now legally shielded defendant. Is this what you wish for each and every Al-Qauda suspect captured on the battlefield?

2. Convict to hold them for interrogation, not execution.

Did I not just quote International Law with respect the legal status of such captured combatants? Where do the Geneva conventions say we need to convict a spy of being a POW before we can hold them for interrogation? Have you gone mad? Have you practically ignored and discarded the entire Geneva treaty language in pursuit of some sort of reprieve from the waterfall of facts which drown your argument? Yes, indeed.

3. If nothing else, it would make us examine the evidence more closely, which would have led to the discovery that many Terrorists were using fake IDs to dupe the Military tribunals.

What link was this? Oh, wait, I'm the only one to link to anything in this side of the argument. Never mind.

4. Why yes, I do think the Patriot Act is in some ways wrong too.

I injected mention of the Patriot act in #4 intentionally, just to give you some meat to latch on to. You didn't take the bait, but you did take a bite.

5. Obtain official legal statements from the soldiers where you can leave them wherever they may be and just send the statement.

Depositions don't mean squat in jury trials. You should know better than that.

6. The trials won't cost hardly that. Capital trials only cost around $2 million a piece, but that is because there is 20 years worth of appeals.

Oh, sure, let's just disregard the entire last few posts and imagine how
cheap and easy it is for the state prosocuter to obtain evidence overseas and among wartime compared to domestic capital cases.

I'm not one of the people who flip flop their positions depending on who is in power. The Clinton Administration wrongfully claimed prisoners at Gitmo had no rights at all, and I object to that too. The rest of this is just fantasy.

No, you're one of those people who disregard all my previously linked and sourced arguments and instead choose to restate your blind belief in spite of it, making a fool out of you and this entire thread. I'm almost at the point where I'll refuse to recognize your posts in the future, if this is the kind of response I can expect:

Your response:

"this is just fantasy."

In the US legal system, the trial should not be a military tribunal, but one through the Justice system as a check on Executive Power.

An enemy of the constitution, you are.

Public trials would be best, but there is no way we could make the trials public. The regular trials are closed to the public already, and closed to the Judicial branch. There wouldn't be any more conspiracy theories than there are now about the tribunals.

Your ripost addresses none of the flaws in your arguments you made earlier. You've been consistently wrong on stated facts... whether it be the number of detainees released, or the Geneva conventions.... instead you act like none of these arguments mattered (since you were proven wrong) and simply restate your 'feelings' on an entirely different matter.

Pretty lame. But like I told Howard Dean. You go boy!!!

We'll only gain more support from arguments such as yours.

 

[IControlThePast]

They are NOT protected persons, right from Article 4:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.​

They do not meet the criteria. Guess you could stretch bin Laden into a, but not in reality. The other 3 are no brainers. They are enemy combatants and excluded from protected person status.

In hindsight, let me see your source on that one. I did a bit of research and I found a bunch of sources that said this:

"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_4
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

You misunderstand. The very fact of a trial precludes any government interrogation of the now legally shielded defendant. Is this what you wish for each and every Al-Qauda suspect captured on the battlefield?

You misunderstand, read my post. We can interrogate them, but not hold them for interrogation indefinately without trial. The ruling will allow us to hold them as prisoner.

Did I not just quote International Law with respect the legal status of such captured combatants? Where do the Geneva conventions say we need to convict a spy of being a POW before we can hold them for interrogation? Have you gone mad? Have you practically ignored and discarded the entire Geneva treaty language in pursuit of some sort of reprieve from the waterfall of facts which drown your argument? Yes, indeed.

I'm still convinced that by international law they are subject to a military tribunal, as our government for some reason ruled, but that for checks and balances it should be conducted by the Judicial branch.

What link was this? Oh, wait, I'm the only one to link to anything in this side of the argument. Never mind.

Then maybe you should read what's in your own links before you post them.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108634

Depositions don't mean squat in jury trials. You should know better than that.

Oh, sure, let's just disregard the entire last few posts and imagine how
cheap and easy it is for the state prosocuter to obtain evidence overseas and among wartime compared to domestic capital cases.

Have members of the Judicial branch as "judges" instead of military offices. The groups of judges serve as the jury. Let the defendant have legal counsel to review the evidence against him and represent him.

Have the depositions be created when the alleged Terrorists are taken prisoner. Then send over a prisoner with the deposition(s) that correspond to him.

Your response:

"this is just fantasy."

Ok, then I would like you to prove the following statements , with links:

"And like you really mean that if a Liberal were in power, you'd favour a conservative Supreme Court overriding the expressly assigned authority for conducting foreign policy due to the executive branch? You know that will be the case after another few terms of Conservative rule install conservative judges, just in time for the next Liberal in the not-so-far-off future. It will happen. And then you'll totally switch sides again. I've seen a pattern of arguments here, and it's really about how you hate Bush after all. I mean it's not you really personally care about how these head chopping religious extremists don't get their own US sponsored show trial. It's clear to me now, you oppose Bush for personal reasons, and know very well how such show trials would undermine everything he hopes to accomplish in the war on terror. Isn't it? Even if it means we lose the war on terror. I see now how AI operates and you'd just rather take up the party line, and not care a whit for the repercussions involved with what you speak of."

That will be kinda hard considering I critisized Clinton explicitly in this thread while I haven't said anything bad about President Bush, and in fact the only time I mentioned the name Bush it was in the title of a US court case on the matter.

An enemy of the constitution, you are.

It's because I believe in the right to a fair trial, isn't it

We'll only gain more support from arguments such as yours.

I don't care whether my arguments make people take one political side or another. I make them because I feel it is for the best interest of the US. I put my country above partisanship.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ICTP, have you ever heard the expression "all is fair in love and war"?

 

[IControlThePast]

There will be just as many because every one of the trials would have the same "blackout" periods that would allow the conspiracy theorists to have all the openings that they want. We all know that "credibility" is never necessary when speaking of conspiracy theories, those who want to believe will, the same activity will take place regardless of where and who holds the trials.

We would have no gain at all, while still bringing Terrorists to the US, rather than keeping them in a whole nother place to have an extra boundary of protection. Tribunals are much more fair than people believe they are, and the standard of evidence is rather high.

Bringing them here only to avoid conspiracy theories would be nearly worthless and unnecessary, costly, and dangerous and would bring us almost no gain whatsoever in any public forum. Leave them there where they can do no damage to us, even if they do escape.

Now you're agreeing that the trials won't create more conspiracy theories. I'm don't think we should do this to stop conspiracy theories, but for checks and balances. In the public forum though, it would actually give us more respect. I don't believe the standard of evidence is very high or that the tribunals looked at these very closely if they were able to be fooled by a fake ID.

 

[IControlThePast]

ICTP, have you ever heard the expression "all is fair in love and war"?

Yeah, that's what the Terrorists say to justify their killing of innocent civilians.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Now you're agreeing that the trials won't create more conspiracy theories. I'm don't think we should do this to stop conspiracy theories, but for checks and balances. In the public forum though, it would actually give us more respect. I don't believe the standard of evidence is very high or that the tribunals looked at these very closely if they were able to be fooled by a fake ID.

Public respect is not a good reason to self flagellate. They will never admit respect for us. They're too envious. Eurosocialist dimwits.

 

[IControlThePast]

Public respect is not a good reason to self flagellate. They will never admit respect for us. They're too envious. Eurosocialist dimwits.

They did under Clinton.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

They did under Clinton.

Clinton was not good for america. It's not respect. Europeans are like the passive aggressive envious friend who likes to see you fail.