Horridly frightening in its own right...but look at the logo! Even if you DO doubt conspiracies and such, it's things like that which make you really think... Discuss. |
|
We all are. It's not like I have anything to hide but this is lame. |
the biggest concern, now that the republicans control ....everything...the one thing that the dumbass general public didnt think about on election day....judges. guess who issues search warrants? if Bush starts sweeping his appointments right through the Senate...its assured that our Constitutional rights will be gone that much faster. way to go! i have my small collection of foreign and vintage pornographic films to hide. that is enough. |
|
Here's the scoop: In order for a civilian to be monitored, we still need probable cause. You have to be involved in some kind of activity that would bring you to our attention. With my connection at home, I am already being monitored because of my employment. Now, that does not mean that this will not change in the future. I am just speaking to current intentions. |
what if my activity of studying islam and physics is deemd "certain activity" and thereby "probable cause" and next thing you know my 4th Amendment rights are being violated? Current intentions are bunk. The laws didnt need re-tooling. |
Your letting yourself get all worked up over nothing. I think they have made it more then obvious that studying islam is not a flag. In fact, the government right now will be less inclined to use that as a determining factor. Now, going to Pakistan and disappearing from public records for 6-8 weeks and then flying back to the states, well, that is a trigger. But not enough to pick you up at the airport when you arrive. They will start watching you then. |
The government, since 9/11 has a horrid track record spunk of violating certain rights and international accord under the guise of security. wake up. |
Here is a classic example of how we are violating certain rights: (from ABC News With Peter Jennings) In Guantanamo Bay, Mohammed Sageer (spelling a guess) was known simply as 'Prisoner 143.' But in Pakistan, he had been a lumber cutter with two wives and nine children. He says he had only gone to Afghanistan last year as part of an Islamic teaching group (Taliban). But swept up in the chaos of the war, he was handed over to the U.S. and flown to Cuba, blind-folded and tied. Twice a month, he was bound in chains, he said, and questioned by U.S. intelligence about his ties to terrorists." Mohammed Sageer, through translator: "They asked me how I went to Afghanistan, where is Osama, are there any al-Qaeda people here or not? They showed me photos and asked me, 'Who are these men? Do you recognize them?' I said I'd never seen any of them." Woodruff: "In the beginning, his jailers were strict. Prisoners got just ten minutes for meals and could not talk to each other or even pray." Woodruff, over video of a prisoner in orange jump suit being pushed on a wheeled gurney by soldiers: "He says those who defied the rules were placed in solitary confinement -- small, air- conditioned cells. Sageer, who had never seen air conditioning before, thought it was a kind of torture." Sageer: "There was a small window in the roof and a light, and they pumped cold air from a hole in the ceiling. This was the punishment. The air was very cold." Woodruff: "In the final months, he says, his American jailers became friendlier, moving prisoners from cages into proper cells. But for nearly a year, he had been completely cut off from the world. His family thought he was dead. Then, suddenly the Americans let him go." Sageer: "The translator was holding a bag. He told me, 'Please take the bag, change your clothes, and be ready to go back to Pakistan.' I did not believe it. I thought he was joking." Woodruff concluded: "Sageer and his family are now heavily in debt. He claims the Americans promised him $2,000 in compensation for his ordeal, but all he has received is $100 from the government of Pakistan. And no one, he says, has even apologized. Bob Woodruff, ABC News." |
to Afghanistan last year as part of an Islamic teaching group. I appoligize for your mistreatment of giving you air conditioning in Cuba where it is only 110 degrees in the summer. I feel your pain. |
|
Give me a bit to look up the stats on the convention, and I will get back to you. |
Otherwise we are bringing ourselves to their level, which is cowardly and pussy. We are better than that, or at least we used to be Dont waste your time researching... the prisoners are being denied due process, access to their families, denied "war prisoner" status as well as any US legal "criminal" status putting them in some sort of prisoner/detainee limbo. we are in a war, they were captured in war time, in enemy lands, yet they arent "war prisoners" ????? they were paraded in front of the media at one point. They violated the Constitutional right of due process and the international Geneva Convention with these people, period. |
They are alive, they have full use of all limbs they came in with, no one has, so far, died in captivity. They get 3 square meals a day, better then what I am sure they are use to. Detainees' days start with a prayer call at 5 a.m., followed by breakfast, a shower (every other day), sick call, noon prayer, lunch, recreation (15 minutes a couple of times a week), mail call, sunset prayer, dinner, evening prayer and bedtime around 9 p.m. Each meal the detainees get is considered halal, or religiously appropriate for Muslims. A typical breakfast includes oatmeal, an orange, fresh bread and a bottle of water. For lunch, it's pasta or vegetable stew, dry cereal including Froot Loops, a box of raisins, two granola bars, a bag of chips, and bag of peanuts and water. For dinner they get white rice, red beans, a banana and water. They get a toothbrush, mint-flavored toothpaste, a bottle of "Lively Salon" antidandruff shampoo, soap, flip flops, a foam sleeping mat, two buckets, a washcloth, a canteen, a prayer cap, two blankets, a sheet, a Koran and two towels, one for praying. Every so often a prisoner is led to one of five interrogation rooms, freshly built wood buildings with air conditioners and no windows. Three guards accompany him -- one on either side and one behind. One of the guards puts a hand behind the head of the detainee, forcing him to look down. This is done to provide positive control (That means he can't look ahead. He can't make a plan. They don't know where they're going) The prisoners are there because we consider them "hard-core" terrorists, willing to escape, to kill themselves and others. |
A caution on generalization: The taliban massacred people. Therefore, they are evil. The United States massacred people... See where I am going? |
give me the facts. Who? When? Where? and WHY? Can you? hard cold facts. When did the US walk into a country and line people up and kill them because they did not conform to our way of thinking? I think you are going to say Japan, end of WWII. Right? Has there been a war with japan in 60 years? No. Why? Strong Detterence, that's why. Yes, what happened in those two cities was terrible. There is no denying that. But, how many lives do you think it saved in the long run? |
|
|
Im pretty positive sem was NOT referring to Japan. He's smarter than that. Trace you need to learn your history and learn who America has supported in the past. Who we have propped up into place. Its not always outright but it doesnt have to be. We have provided weapons and money to tyrrants, dictators and criminals of genocide all over the world. According to the Peter Jennings article, they could not pray, also a violation of the Geneva Convention. Ok, so if they werent "prisoners of war" then what the fuck were they? What would you call all this activity in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Is it a war or is it not? I realize our government uses the term "war" whenever it sees fit and whenever it benefits....so to get around the Geneva Convention, we are not in a war??? Which is it trace? Ok, so they were not prisoners of war...they were United States criminal detainees? Oh...ok, so then they get due process guaranteed to them right? No? Why not? What the fuck is an "enemy combatant", the term they used on these people? Its a term pulled out of our governments collective ass to justify their actions. Double speak it is. We don't have the right to go around the world detaining anyone we choose just because we THINK they may be guilty of association with a criminal organization. by your logic: "The prisoners are there because we consider them "hard-core" terrorists, willing to escape, to kill themselves and others." we should just roll into any sovereign nation and start picking people up. What about Columbia? Ireland? Palestine? Lebanon? Indonesia? Your logic is flawed, inaccurate and terribly uninsightful as to the damage and dangerous precedents it establishes. As far as Im unconcerned your attitude is highly unpatriotic and a threat to the Constitution. There are rules spunk and we only play by them when its to our advantage. |
There is no proof or foundation to say they are afraid of another nuclear bomb, so therefore they do not act militarily. the dont act because they are bound by treaty dipshit. |
That is a flat out, bull shit lie. |
|
|
Each meal the detainees get is considered halal, or religiously appropriate for Muslims. A typical breakfast includes oatmeal, an orange, fresh bread and a bottle of water. For lunch, it's pasta or vegetable stew, dry cereal including Froot Loops, a box of raisins, two granola bars, a bag of chips, and bag of peanuts and water. For dinner they get white rice, red beans, a banana and water. They get a toothbrush, mint-flavored toothpaste, a bottle of "Lively Salon" antidandruff shampoo, soap, flip flops, a foam sleeping mat, two buckets, a washcloth, a canteen, a prayer cap, two blankets, a sheet, a Koran and two towels, one for praying." Or did you miss that part? |
|
yes i read THAT part spunk. so what? what does that say? You posted a first person account as reported by Jennings from a recently released detainee. What is the source if this contrary info you have? hey, its your move. |
The man interviewed was an Arab. Therefore, he lied. Pretty simple, really. |
Yeah, his testimony can be taken for gospel I know what the prisoners are issued for a fact. I know that we provide Muslim Chaplins to them. I know that NO COMMUNICATION is allowed durring the meal period. ten minutes. Security percaution. There are no human rights violations here. But see how every one is all over us about our humanity? I see. We should have left them alone, to beat and murder the women and children in afganistan and plan more plane rides over here. your turn |
|
damn. i just weigh my sources. i said nothign of gospel muchless have i revealed what i really believe the matter to be. so far, i have you. and i have someone who was there. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. the american government is hypocritical machine spunky. if you havent learned this by now, you're a lost case. all you need do is pick up a fuckin history book. detaining them and denying them prisoner of war status or due process IS a human rights violation. you still havent answered me? are we in a war or we not? if we are, why arent they prisoners of war? if we are NOT in a war then why does the president say we are in "war time" all the god damn time? your selective view of the matter is tiresome you unpatriotic bastard :-P |
|
I cannot tell you how I know what I know, you know that. |
trace....because you are told what you are told doesn't make it fact. Our government has a well-established history of lying too. im not saying the motherfuckers werent fed fruitloops and bananas, but not being allowed to pray would be a psychological tool just like the excessive air conditioning. point is, because they have been denied certain status, we will never know. because their rights were violated and the Geneva convention blatently ignored we will never know for sure. i tend to think they were allowed to pray too, im just saying, |
You prefer the testimony of an ex-taliban who was captured while fighting American GI's, was put up for over a year with 3 squares and a dry bed, then released without harm, and you call my view selective? |
|
|
one hand i have a lowlevel civilian software technicians report based on an unidentified source within the government 2 thousands miles away in an unrelated segment of the military (you work for the AF, the Guantanemo is managed by the Navy) and on the other hand that of former Pakistani/Taliban prisoner who doesnt have any history of being associated with al Qaida (obviously since they let him go) as reported by ABC news. Um, you tell me which is the more worthy source. Of course they fought American GIs, they invaded their country. Youd fight too! And you speak about his meals and dry bed like we did the motherfucker a favor. what an asshole point of view. hell yeah your selective spunky. |
Article 4 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. Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13. Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. MS Word Lists of all countries party to (signed) the Geneva Convention as of 31 October 2002. See Pakistan? Afganistan? Iraq? Iran? Lebonan? Syria? Saudi Arabia? North Korea? South Korea? |
Bah! Dont be silly. You are probably of the point of view that when Saddam invaded Kuwait it was a huge surprise and totally caught us off guard right? We have satellites that can read a fortune from the palm of my hand, yet we didnt notice Iraqs 100s of thousands of troops massing on the border.....yeah....that was a total shock. Anyway, not to stray Article 4 supports my argument clearly, thank you. |
Anything goes. If we choose to be so cold hearted as to torture our prisoners with air conditioning........well, thats because we're capitalist pigs. Let em suffer..........Brrrrrr,"Have you had enough?""I'll just turn this thermostat down another degree or two,then you'll see what suffering is all about!" I feel sure that Bin Laden supplies all his prisoners with all the same ammeneties that we do. War is hell. |
Afganistan is not bound by it, nor protected by it. We could not charge them with violations of the geneva convention, because they did not sign off on it. We put them in a air conditioned cell, gave them clothes, food, a bed, and shelter. Damn, nasty us. |
What you fail to understand is, the Genevea convention would have gotten in the way of conducting the "war"...i mean conflict...i mean combative showdown, i mean international tussle, i mean.......oh yeah....WAR, they way they wanted to. A practice of selective enforcement. Hypocritics. Just because those countries didnt sign the Geneva convention (most of them you cite didnt exist at the time it was created genius) doesnt mean *WE* are not bound by it. |
czar you've exhibited much more intelligence than this, c'mon. thats a ridiculous, absurd statement. |
no one is talking about charging THEM with violations dipshit. US!!! The United States of America! We violated the treaty! and hey spunk, while you are doing your legal homework...pay attention to this under article 2 "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." which says then even though Afghanistan wasnt a member of the Convention they are still granted its protection. |
We should have done it back on February 26, 1993. Or April 19, 1995. Or June 25, 1996. Or October 12, 2002. |
|
I am not sure what you are getting at? What did we not give them, or what did we do to them, that you KNOW about, that you feel violates our obligations? |
|
|
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal" Did we have any kind of tribunal to determine the status of these prisoners? no. we didnt give them the due process they are promised under the convention. we didnt identify them. "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" the air condition? "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area." those cages they hung out in for a few months? "Canteens shall be installed in all camps, where prisoners of war may procure foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use." you think Mr. Sageer could have purchased a pack of smokes with in Guatanemo? "Immediately upon capture, or not more than one week after arrival at a camp, even if it is a transit camp, likewise in case of sickness or transfer to hospital or to another camp, every prisoner of war shall be enabled to write direct to his family" you think we let them contact their families while being held? I dont have time to go through the rest of it but some things off the top of my head, they were shot on camera in teh beginning. a no no. If they werent allowed to pray as Mr Sageer says, thats another violation. |
|
8.3, tiggy. dork. |
|
What about the United States (Government, Military, Industry, etc.) do you like? You think free enterprise is killing the rest of the world. You think only the United States should abide by that ridiculous peice of shit that no one else in the world adheres to. You think the government should tell manufactures can and cannot produce. YOu think your position is in the minority? unique? No. You are in agreement with most other countries of this world, that want to see the United States fall. Who else is going to step in and protect Canada? The UK? Germany or France? If we fall, the rest of the world is up for grabs by the biggest and meanest on the block. Sure, we push our weight around a bit. Especially when it comes to valuable resources, that we use, by the way, to protect these countries, most of which bitch about us. The point of most of the other countries is not "Make the world a better place". Germany said, in 1969, "We will wait. We will be patient. In 30-40 years, we will make such fantastic peace overtures such as the world has never seen. And while the United States trips over itself to extend the hand of friendship, we shall crush them with an iron fist". They don't have the world's best interests in mind. Do you honestly believe that the US Military is the only threat to the environment on the entire globe? Our businesses, which use the most advanced anti-pollution devices available on the market today, contributes the most to greenhouse gasses? You blame me of siding with the vast majority of idiots, but I hate to tell you this, but I am in the minority. You, my friend, are letting yourself be whipped up into a frenzy by the media, who is so hell bent on selling the liberal line, that they have not even stopped to think about what they are saying. You should have more intellegence then that. |
for one, i dont think the majority of the world wants to "see us fall". thats a fallacy. the majority of the world wants to be like us, the majority of the world depends on us for their own existance in so many ways, mostly financial. most of the world NEEDS us. "Sure, we push our weight around a bit." Not to argue semantics or anything but this is probably the understatement of the year. "Our businesses, which use the most advanced anti-pollution devices available on the market today, contributes the most to greenhouse gasses?" We consume the most and pollute the most. yes. this has been established by various organizations. if you wanna switch gears and debate energy, we can. Its fairly common knowledge we produce the most trash per person, comsume the most energy per person and pollute the most per person on the globe. "You, my friend, are letting yourself be whipped up into a frenzy by the media, who is so hell bent on selling the liberal line, that they have not even stopped to think about what they are saying. You should have more intellegence then that." The media is NOT liberal. The phrase itself, "liberal media" is almost like a benchmark in itself because (in my opinion) those who say it usually have little objectivity or comprehension of what the media is really saying. You've just heard that phrase so many times you believe it. Further, I don't need to define how I formulate my opinions, yet again. They are based on a broad range of sources, not just one media source mucheless just the media alone. |
Why is it rule of law is so important to you when Democrats ditch a loosing Senator in New Jersey yet, when hundreds and hundreds of potentially innocent people are rounded up, shipped and denied international law you seem ok with it? |
These international laws are a joke, because they only apply to the United States |
we can't cherry pick which international laws we will go with and which ones we wont. thats lame. are you saying the Geneva Convention only applies to the USA? what do you base that on? |
|
|
|
|
On the subject however, let them fucking watch me, I'm too fucking small potatos for them to care about, its not the local police goverment systems because the US goverment doesn't give local hick cops that power, and frankly they don't give a fuck about me. So let them know I download porn, let them know I spank it, let them know I smoke pot once in a while, and that I drink underage.... Fuccit, they don't care. They can eat my ass as far as I'm concerned. |
Flinging the "anti-American" label at those who are practicing one of our most important and defining rights as Americans, that of dissent, smacks to me of hypocrisy. |
I think we both care deeply about this country, but with contrasting views on how we actually see the country. |
Why,we could call it Eutopia. Unfortunately,thats not reality. If I had to be a prisoner of war,I'd damn sure want to be held by the Americans. And sorry Patrick,the "This is war God Damn it" was a joke......."cold hearted"......air-conditioning......well,nevermind. |
They resent us.For any number of our misdeeds. They may stand with us,for the time being.For protection. But,protection is a cold,ambivalent mistress. Let me put this in an easier format. A guy goes to prison. He knows he's gonna take it in the ass. The logical/pragmatic thing to do is to assess the situation,find the biggest,meanest guy,and announce,"I'm your's baby." Guys's gonna take it in the ass anyway,might as well just take it from one guy,as oppossed to the whole of the prison population. Moral of this story: The guy just wants to survive.So he chooses the the option that offers him the least painful way to accomplish this. Now,if this big guy should fall,said oppertunist,needs to re-assess his situation,and go with his next best option. Sadly,the world does not wish us well.But everyone loves a winner. While they're winning. Protection is a cold mistress. |
its so old hat....god damn...the guy isnt even in office and you still take shots. you know what I hear when that dipshit opens his mouth, especially as of late...i hear Darryl Hammond's fron SNL doing his impression of Gore. Its the only thing that keeps me from pulling my hair out. have another drink hal. |
|
i was at a burlesque show getting 'hammered'. uhh *yawn* |
|
|
Hu's On First ============= (We take you now to the Oval Office.) George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening? Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China. George: Great. Lay it on me. Condi: Hu is the new leader of China. George: That's what I want to know. Condi: That's what I'm telling you. George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China? Condi: Yes. George: I mean the fellow's name. Condi: Hu. George: The guy in China. Condi: Hu. George: The new leader of China. Condi: Hu. George: The Chinaman! Condi: Hu is leading China. George: Now whaddya asking me for? Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China. George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China? Condi: That's the man's name. George: That's whose name? Condi: Yes. George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East. Condi: That's correct. George: Then who is in China? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir is in China? Condi: No, sir. George: Then who is? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir? Condi: No, sir. George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone. Condi: Kofi? George: No, thanks. Condi: You want Kofi? George: No. Condi: You don't want Kofi. George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N. Condi: Yes, sir. George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N. Condi: Kofi? George: Milk! Will you please make the call? Condi: And call who? George: Who is the guy at the U.N? Condi: Hu is the guy in China. George: Will you stay out of China?! Condi: Yes, sir. George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N. Condi: Kofi. George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone. (Condi picks up the phone.) Condi: Rice, here. George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East? |
In a timely reminder of who's really in charge here, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has mounted a daring raid on the US Navy. Acting unilaterally at the behest of the RIAA, Navy officials confiscated 100 computers on suspicion of harboring illegally downloaded MP3s, The Capital, an Annapolis, MD daily reports. A Naval official quoted confirms the raid, adding that punishment ranges from "court martial to loss of leave and other restrictions". For the RIAA, there are no half measures: you're either with them, or against them. So even if you're risking having your ass blown off for your country, there's no mercy. It's no picnic in the Navy, as many Register readers serving in the forces remind us. From a terrific account of Gulf War combat by a US marine sniper in the new Harper's magazine* we learn that shortly before entering a live combat, infantry are required to remove "foreign material" from their packs: letters from women who aren't their girlfriends, mothers or wives , and pornography, because in the event of death the personal effects will be dispatched to their next of kin in their entirety. |
