Kerry Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I don't think that's an unreasonable position at all. Where is the idiocy in that position? Explain to me where I am wrong.

It's only unreasonable in that the facts don't support you.

Other than that, it's a perfectly logical statement.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

If Rahn-ville is a war zone, and you're with a group of people that are firing on me from a mosque or the top of a building, then you're probably a goner.

Again, many of the people imprisoned and abused, some even tortured, were not with anyone shooting at all, lest they be released in the immediate days after the scandal broke. Thank goodness the New Yorker broke the story or they may still be in there getting, as someone put it, "ass-raped".

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by CentralMassHokie

It's only unreasonable in that the facts don't support you.

Other than that, it's a perfectly logical statement.

Ok, so which ones?

[GrantDawg]

Is this the final straw thread that caused Kickstand vow?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Ok, so which ones?

This is exasperrating.....

would you just admit that not all of the people imprisoned there shouldve been and that more then a few kiids were involved in the abuse. Oh and that the new report says that the entire chain of command has been found to be accountable "directly and indirectly" for the atmosphere in which the mistreatment was allowed to grow and live?

All of the above is true to fact.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Is this the final straw thread that caused Kickstand vow?

Doubtful. I am betting it's the one where I mentioned Chan Ho Park and MVP in the same sentence.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Oh and that the new report says that the entire chain of command has been found to be accountable "directly and indirectly" for the atmosphere in which the mistreatment was allowed to grow and live?

All of the above is true to fact.

How can the entire chain of command be both directly accountable and indirectly accountable at the same time? If you're directly accountable how can you indirectly be accountable?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

This is exasperrating.....

would you just admit that not all of the people imprisoned there shouldve been and that more then a few kiids were involved in the abuse. Oh and that the new report says that the entire chain of command has been found to be accountable "directly and indirectly" for the atmosphere in which the mistreatment was allowed to grow and live?

All of the above is true to fact.

I never once said that all the people in prison should have been. So admitting it would be pointless. There WERE only a few kids involved in the abuse, so I don't think I'm going to admit that.And regardless of whatever this congressional committe says, "fostering an atmosphere that allowed mistreatment to grow" does not equal guilt or responsibility on the part of the Defense Secretary.

It's the same victim mentality balogne that is prevalent today... Those soldiers aren't responsible for sexually assaulting those prisoners, their just victims because the atmosphere fostered that kind of brutality. That's total crap. No one put a gun to those soldier's head and forced them to stack buck naked Iraqis in a pyramid. Just because the atmosphere is such that you can do something, doesn't mean you should. In the end it is you, the individual who decides what you do.

Again, we go back to the personal responsibility issue.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

How can the entire chain of command be both directly accountable and indirectly accountable at the same time? If you're directly accountable how can you indirectly be accountable?

directly accountable for the techniques they authorized and indirectly accountable for knowing of abuses outside of what was authorized and not putting a stop to it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I never once said that all the people in prison should have been. So admitting it would be pointless. There WERE only a few kids involved in the abuse, so I don't think I'm going to admit that.And regardless of whatever this congressional committe says, "fostering an atmosphere that allowed mistreatment to grow" does not equal guilt or responsibility on the part of the Defense Secretary.

It's the same victim mentality balogne that is prevalent today... Those soldiers aren't responsible for sexually assaulting those prisoners, their just victims because the atmosphere fostered that kind of brutality. That's total crap. No one put a gun to those soldier's head and forced them to stack buck naked Iraqis in a pyramid. Just because the atmosphere is such that you can do something, doesn't mean you should. In the end it is you, the individual who decides what you do.

Again, we go back to the personal responsibility issue.

I guess its all in the definition of "few"....

I especially like the part about where you use the word "regardless" for what they say.....that tells me tons about your stance(s)

And in the military it is possible that those "kids" were instructed by, intel officers, apparently, to do the things that they did or that there might be repurcussions, but again....to you it wouldnt matter anyways......

****And in Rahn-ville the crowd cheers as the sacrificial lamb is sacrificed to the god(s) thus alleviating all of their sins.....tis a beautiful thing.****(hope its not me strung up....would you at least let me speak to a lawyer first?)

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I guess its all in the definition of "few"....

I especially like the part about where you use the word "regardless" for what they say.....that tells me tons about your stance(s)

Don't know why that word would have changed anything. I'm not one to be bashful in my opinions.

And in the military it is possible that those "kids" were instructed by, intel officers, apparently, to do the things that they did or that there might be repurcussions, but again....to you it wouldnt matter anyways......

The military has proceedures in which you can refuse an order and file complaint against your superiors. You can always refuse an order. The fact that they didn't tells me more about them, than the Defense Secretary.

****And in Rahn-ville the crowd cheers as the sacrificial lamb is sacrificed to the god(s) thus alleviating all of their sins.....tis a beautiful thing.****(hope its not me strung up....would you at least let me speak to a lawyer first?)

Since you keep ignoring my response to your Rahn-ville comments, I will repeat this again. If Rahn-ville is a war zone, and you are with a group of people shooting at me, you're a goner. I don't take prisoners in a war zone. Don't want to die, then don't hang around people while they are shooting at me.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Since you keep ignoring my response to your Rahn-ville comments, I will repeat this again. If Rahn-ville is a war zone, and you are with a group of people shooting at me, you're a goner. I don't take prisoners in a war zone. Don't want to die, then don't hang around people while they are shooting at me.

What if I don't think Rahn-ville is necessarily a war zone, and the combattants aren't necessarily attached to any side, they just like shooting at each other, and have been shooting at each other for years for the pure joy of exercising their second-amendment rights?

Are you still going to shoot at the village inhabitants? Who associate with some of the combattants, but have no interest in taking sides?

Or are you going to be as careful as possible to identify only those who are actually shooting at you at any given moment?

The collateral damage from choosing a strategy that doesn't reflect restraint could be quite severe.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Farrah again, the Red Cross had a report that 70% at the least were INNOCENT OF ANY CRIME!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Hope im not arrested in Rahn-ville apparently youre guilty until proven innocent and even then still possibly could end up dead.

How did you find out about Rahn-Ville? Farrah, did you spill the beans? I thought we agreed never to mention it in public

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What if I don't think Rahn-ville is necessarily a war zone, and the combattants aren't necessarily attached to any side, they just like shooting at each other, and have been shooting at each other for years for the pure joy of exercising their second-amendment rights?

Are you still going to shoot at the village inhabitants? Who associate with some of the combattants, but have no interest in taking sides?

Or are you going to be as careful as possible to identify only those who are actually shooting at you at any given moment?

The collateral damage from choosing a strategy that doesn't reflect restraint could be quite severe.

The last sentence rings true always....and I think it certainly has not gotten enough attention in today's environment, in its application.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

How did you find out about Rahn-Ville? Farrah, did you spill the beans? I thought we agreed never to mention it in public

Found a map in a cracker jack box

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Farrah again, the Red Cross had a report that 70% at the least were INNOCENT OF ANY CRIME!

Did the Red Cross list them by name? Because if they did, that would be pretty helpful and alleviate the need for interrogating them all.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What if I don't think Rahn-ville is necessarily a war zone, and the combattants aren't necessarily attached to any side, they just like shooting at each other, and have been shooting at each other for years for the pure joy of exercising their second-amendment rights?

Are you still going to shoot at the village inhabitants? Who associate with some of the combattants, but have no interest in taking sides?

Or are you going to be as careful as possible to identify only those who are actually shooting at you at any given moment?

The collateral damage from choosing a strategy that doesn't reflect restraint could be quite severe.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking about Rahn-ville...Are you saying you don't think Iraq is a war zone? That the people firing on soldiers aren't really firing on them but eachother? I'm going to try to respond to what I think you're asking, and if I am way off please tell me.

If I'm walking down the street in Rahn-ville, and it's not a war zone, and someone starts shooting at me, I'm not going to just start shooting like I'm in some movie. I'm going to call the police and let them deal with it.

But if Rahn-ville is hostile territory, and I'm clearly in the military uniform, and someone starts shooting at me...I would locate the shooters and take them out. I think that any other response just sends a message that its ok to shoot at the guys in the military. I would do my best to make sure I get the actual shooter and no one else. With technology what it is today, it should be easier to locate the source of the shots than it was say 30 years ago. Especially at night - the tracers would be highly visible.

Every effort should be taken to minimze collateral damage. I'm confident that the folks on the ground are doing their best to do so. But in war, some collateral damage is to be expected.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Farrah again, the Red Cross had a report that 70% at the least were INNOCENT OF ANY CRIME!

Isn't this the same organization that said showing photos of Saddam on TV violated the Geneva Convention? Forgive me if I don't put much weight into what the Red Cross says.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking about Rahn-ville...Are you saying you don't think Iraq is a war zone? That the people firing on soldiers aren't really firing on them but eachother? I'm going to try to respond to what I think you're asking, and if I am way off please tell me.

If I'm walking down the street in Rahn-ville, and it's not a war zone, and someone starts shooting at me, I'm not going to just start shooting like I'm in some movie. I'm going to call the police and let them deal with it.

But if Rahn-ville is hostile territory, and I'm clearly in the military uniform, and someone starts shooting at me...I would locate the shooters and take them out. I think that any other response just sends a message that its ok to shoot at the guys in the military. I would do my best to make sure I get the actual shooter and no one else. With technology what it is today, it should be easier to locate the source of the shots than it was say 30 years ago. Especially at night - the tracers would be highly visible.

Every effort should be taken to minimze collateral damage. I'm confident that the folks on the ground are doing their best to do so. But in war, some collateral damage is to be expected.

Didnt a few responses ago you say that if theyre standing next to a shooter, or nearby, perhaps with 5 to 6 % of him, he/she would be fair game and you would no apologies.

on the weopan advancement capabilities and tracers thus only getting the shooter, at least likely youd only get the shooter, i think your expectations are a bit high. Did you watch the embedded reporter's footage? Direct hits are pretty rare with only a few shots, usually the first one is close, then the second closer, and we get closer as we go...unless of course the target is moving.....regardles this is neither here nor there.

I AGREE, If someone shoots at you you shoot back. If there are a thousand people marching and some shots ring out I dont think you aim into therowd and start firing away in the hopes of hitting the shooter. The same if you catch someone raping someone, if you catch them in the act you arrest them. If you get a report of a rape and the culprit was likely in the march, im of the opinion, you dont arrest them all and throw them in jail with absolutely no plans to try and find out who the actual rapist was.


EDIT - Techinically showing pics of Saddam on TV was a violation but in that case I think the Geneva convention rulings should be revisited, in this regard. YOU CANT however decide what laws you want to follow and what laws you dont want to follow, when they best serve your purpose. Im sure if we tried that in our daily lives, well, our lives would be a bit more confined.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Isn't this the same organization that said showing photos of Saddam on TV violated the Geneva Convention? Forgive me if I don't put much weight into what the Red Cross says.

I believe it is the same Red Cross that a military representative noted on Newshour last night that they ought to have listened to when the IRC first tried to alert them to the ongoing prison abuses, and the same Red Cross whom this military fellow said they would listen to more closely in the future.

Quoting today's Washington Post on the Abu Ghraib report:

"Further, it acknowledged that organizations and personnel above the 205th were indirectly involved through lack of oversight, failure to react to warnings, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross report that warned of some abuse, and policy memos that failed to provide clear, consistent guidance for execution at the tactical level."

If people hadn't taken your disdainful view of the IRC this problem could have been handled much more quickly.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Didnt a few responses ago you say that if theyre standing next to a shooter, or nearby, perhaps with 5 to 6 % of him, he/she would be fair game and you would no apologies.

on the weopan advancement capabilities and tracers thus only getting the shooter, at least likely youd only get the shooter, i think your expectations are a bit high. Did you watch the embedded reporter's footage? Direct hits are pretty rare with only a few shots, usually the first one is close, then the second closer, and we get closer as we go...unless of course the target is moving.....regardles this is neither here nor there.

I AGREE, If someone shoots at you you shoot back. If there are a thousand people marching and some shots ring out I dont think you aim into therowd and start firing away in the hopes of hitting the shooter. The same if you catch someone raping someone, if you catch them in the act you arrest them. If you get a report of a rape and the culprit was likely in the march, im of the opinion, you dont arrest them all and throw them in jail with absolutely no plans to try and find out who the actual rapist was.


EDIT - Techinically showing pics of Saddam on TV was a violation but in that case I think the Geneva convention rulings should be revisited, in this regard. YOU CANT however decide what laws you want to follow and what laws you dont want to follow, when they best serve your purpose. Im sure if we tried that in our daily lives, well, our lives would be a bit more confined.

I've maintained all along that I would aim for the shooter, not just randomly start shooting. Here's what I said on page one....

If it were me, and I was fired on I would return fire and eliminate the target, not capture it. It's more of a condemnation of the way the war is being fought than condoning torture/murder.

I did watch the embedded reporters coverage, extensively. I watched the soldiers get fired on, return fire in the direction where the shots came from. Most of the time, that I saw, they were successful. Yet I also watched them risk their lives to protect civilians who were in the line of fire. Most of these instances were two or three people shooting from mosques or behind compounds. I did not see any soldiers coming under fire from marches or the like.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I believe it is the same Red Cross that a military representative noted on Newshour last night that they ought to have listened to when the IRC first tried to alert them to the ongoing prison abuses, and the same Red Cross whom this military fellow said they would listen to more closely in the future.

Quoting today's Washington Post on the Abu Ghraib report:

"Further, it acknowledged that organizations and personnel above the 205th were indirectly involved through lack of oversight, failure to react to warnings, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross report that warned of some abuse, and policy memos that failed to provide clear, consistent guidance for execution at the tactical level."

If people hadn't taken your disdainful view of the IRC this problem could have been handled much more quickly.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If it was such a problem of "fostering an atmosphere that allowed mistreatment to grow" that the committee found it necessary to assess blame on the Defense Secretary, do you really think the problem would have been rectified so quickly? I doubt it.

[Flasch186]

Farrah -

you also said in regard to ALL the prisoners:

"You call it torture, others call it foreplay. Isn't that a little judgemental of you?

In all seriousness...those weren't girl scouts in that prison. They were people who shot at the soldiers, or were accussed of working with the terrorists/insurgents. They're lucky I'm not in the military becuse I wouldn't have even bothered arresting them. I would have just killed them."



and also this:

But you do make an excellent point about capturing insurgents for more information...but your're assuming the one you capture will speak to you, and give you accurate information. What if they don't? Since we can't torture them, or give them sodium penathol (or whatever the name is for that truth serum), how will you get information out of them? You probably won't, and they'll be released. Then he's right back out there firing at you.


Which, IMO, means the person you catch was doing something wrong to begin with but we've already, well we meaning Bremer and I (and others), that not all of them are guilty of anything.


Thats all, im just trying to make that paint brush of ours a bit more person specific, and not so broad that you just capture anyone and everyone which is what I think a lot of people of Islam are scared of in re: to the War on Terror.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Perhaps, perhaps not. If it was such a problem of "fostering an atmosphere that allowed mistreatment to grow" that the committee found it necessary to assess blame on the Defense Secretary, do you really think the problem would have been rectified so quickly? I doubt it.

huh? i dont follow. They let the army know a long time ago and thats what the argument is.


BTW, which report to believe the army one or the independent one....Ill take independent for a thousand Alex. Or perhaps we should have Enron investigate Halliburton's books, better yet, halliburton investigate Halliburton's books. Not trying to threadjack, just drawing a correlation.

[druez]

The amazing thing is that our own Federal and State Prison systems have things like this going on all the time. Whether its inmates abusing other inmates or guards doing it. It just isn't that big of a story...

In fact the worse offenders were actually reservists that during their non military jobs were actually correction officers at prisons here in the US...

Anyway, Torture sucks but so does killing people. So if you are captured then a little torture isn't so bad. You could always just die fighting like you should do when you are doing the whole Jihad thing....

I still like the whole idea of pigs blood and bullets, so they can't goto Ali (spelling) when they die.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

In all seriousness...those weren't girl scouts in that prison. They were people who shot at the soldiers, or were accussed of working with the terrorists/insurgents. They're lucky I'm not in the military becuse I wouldn't have even bothered arresting them. I would have just killed them.

Hmm not to put too fine a point on it, but if the 'enemy' in whatever conflict America were involved in tortured american captives then there would (and has been) an outcry about it, rightly so imho - soldiers in a war are doing a job rightly or wrongly so and most imho aren't evil regardless of the side they're fighting upon or the causes involved.

Or are you indicating that you feel that torture was an acceptable action for both sides?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Hmm not to put too fine a point on it, but if the 'enemy' in whatever conflict America were involved in tortured american captives then there would (and has been) an outcry about it, rightly so imho - soldiers in a war are doing a job rightly or wrongly so and most imho aren't evil regardless of the side they're fighting upon or the causes involved.

Or are you indicating that you feel that torture was an acceptable action for both sides?

Actually Marc I disagree on some level. When Americans are tortured in captivity, there is barely an outcry. Kofi Anan flat out refused to denounce the terrorists who beheaded Nick Berg. He was to busy complaining about the treatment of Iraqi's in Abu Graib.

This war, bad things happen on both sides. No one comes out smelling like roses in war time. One side cuts off heads on video for the whole world to see and slaughters civilians in the name of God, the other sexually asaulted captives who may or may not have been innocent. It's not acceptable from either side, but it happens.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Actually Marc I disagree on some level. When Americans are tortured in captivity, there is barely an outcry. Kofi Anan flat out refused to denounce the terrorists who beheaded Nick Berg. He was to busy complaining about the treatment of Iraqi's in Abu Graib.

This war, bad things happen on both sides. No one comes out smelling like roses in war time. One side cuts off heads on video for the whole world to see and slaughters civilians in the name of God, the other sexually asaulted captives who may or may not have been innocent. It's not acceptable from either side, but it happens.

If its not acceptable then you should remedy what you can. Remember, supposedly, were fighting for the moral high ground....lets stand there too.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

If its not acceptable then you should remedy what you can. Remember, supposedly, were fighting for the moral high ground....lets stand there too.

Sure, after we've won. Focusing on all this now takes away the resolve to do what needs to be done to win.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by chinaski

the more evidence that comes out, the more 'independent panels' say Rumsfeld is responsible.

Actually the Schelshinger's panel said that the facet of the "scandal" senior personel in Washington are responsible for, is their lack of a timely and sufficient response to the incidents. In other words, they are responsible for not cracking down as hard and fast as they should have once they became aware of the situation. This is different from saying that Rummy was part of the problem in Abu Gharaib.

Originally Posted by chinaski

Why is this a partisan issue with ANYONE? Shouldnt the absolute fact that we have tortured people be enough for you too step back and look at the big picture? Why is it so hard to even consider the notion that these abusive tactics were sponsored by the Pentagon? Its beyond plausible that Rummy knew of all of this.

I agree, this is a big problem. It should be dealt with. I believe it is being dealt with. There are the charges being pressed, and the number of people was just expanded. It is so hard to consider that the Pentagon sponsored these tactics, because the evidence is to the contrary. As the Schleshinger panel pointed out, the Pentagon maintained and directed that "the Geneva Conventions were to be applied to all detainees". I do believe Rumsfeld knew about this. I believe he probably became aware of it in November. I am also troubled by his response or lack thereof. I do not believe he was behind the actions of those "deviants" in any way shape or form.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Actually the Schelshinger's panel said that the facet of the "scandal" senior personel in Washington are responsible for, is their lack of a timely and sufficient response to the incidents. In other words, they are responsible for not cracking down as hard and fast as they should have once they became aware of the situation. This is different from saying that Rummy was part of the problem in Abu Gharaib.

And that IMHO should be enough to demand Rummy's resignation. Slow response to the situation showed a lack of concern from him down.

[Glengoyne]

That is a valid opinion. I think what went on in the prison was abhorent, and we should punish those who were carrying out the acts as harshly as possible in each instance.

As far as Rumsfeld resigning. I don't think this alone merits his removal. I have a big problem with, and I'll use your words, his lack of concern regarding this issue. I think a more compelling case can be made for his resignation if you add in some of the other mistakes I think he has made. I do think he has done some good things for the DoD, including continued sheparding the transition to a more responsive force. Overall I like the guy, and would be disappointed if he weren't there.

[Dutch]

Admittedly, Rumsfeld is a soldier's secretary of defense. He says thing that motivate troops not reporters.

In no way is he a politician that gets the populous excited. Couple that with the fact that there is absolutely no way the left-wing newspapers would cast him in a positive light it's easy to see where the press or John Kerry can say, "Burn him!" and get away with it.

He does actually have a lot on his plate every day. Checking up on prisoners in Iraq was probably pretty darned low and thus the 'oversight'.

However, the investigative process started as soon as the soldiers in the prison began to report them.

But everybody understands that this is an election year and everybody will blame everybody else in order to gain a little ground.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

If its not acceptable then you should remedy what you can. Remember, supposedly, were fighting for the moral high ground....lets stand there too.

No, we are supposed to do everything possible to combat terrorism and those who have and will likely commit terrorist acts upon American citizens and interests. Most of the solutions involve non-military acts but some do require a hard hand. As I said before, I don't like what happened there anymore than anyone else but that cannot lessen our resolve and our will to fight terrorism.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Dutch

...

He does actually have a lot on his plate every day. Checking up on prisoners in Iraq was probably pretty darned low and thus the 'oversight'.

However, the investigative process started as soon as the soldiers in the prison began to report them.
...

I pretty much agree with you that the treatment of detainees by the soldiers on the night watch in a prison in Iraq, is well below what the Sec. of Defense is aware of on a day to day basis. My initial disappointment with him, at least where this matter is concerned, came when the pictures came to light, and he was questioned by congress. There had been a report completed about it for some time by then, and he hadn't even been briefed on it let alone read it himself. He hadn't kept on top of what I would expect him to consider a serious situation. He hadn't.

Also about the investigative process, Schleshinger's report indicates that Senior staff were responsible for not intervening sooner than they did. So that blame falls pretty squarely on Rumsfeld's shoulders.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Admittedly, Rumsfeld is a soldier's secretary of defense. He says thing that motivate troops not reporters.

In no way is he a politician that gets the populous excited. Couple that with the fact that there is absolutely no way the left-wing newspapers would cast him in a positive light it's easy to see where the press or John Kerry can say, "Burn him!" and get away with it.

He does actually have a lot on his plate every day. Checking up on prisoners in Iraq was probably pretty darned low and thus the 'oversight'.

However, the investigative process started as soon as the soldiers in the prison began to report them.

But everybody understands that this is an election year and everybody will blame everybody else in order to gain a little ground.

I think the ammo is that there were many reports further, much further back, before the soldiers began to report it. Therefore the liberals, like myself, say, "why didnt the investigations start when the Red Cross reported them..." The same Red Cross we consistently use throughout the world to check up on Human rights issues like in the Sudan. We quote them then, and use them as a "source" but when it is something against us, all of a sudden "they become irrelevant".....sounds familiar.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No, we are supposed to do everything possible to combat terrorism and those who have and will likely commit terrorist acts upon American citizens and interests. Most of the solutions involve non-military acts but some do require a hard hand. As I said before, I don't like what happened there anymore than anyone else but that cannot lessen our resolve and our will to fight terrorism.

The liberals, like me, will focus in on the "likely [to] commit terrorist acts". Thats the statment in some hands that lends itself to power mongering, manipulation, and eventually, potentially scary scary results. under the right circumstances many, many people could resort to what some other people consider to be terrorist acts anywhere. Shoot i think in Ireland alone there are two sides of an argument and each side calls eachother terrorist groups. Liberals just want a little thoughtfulness, IMO...of course we want to defend our country, our freedom, and our troops but were not willing to "shoot 'em all, and let god sort them out later." We shouldnt need to, we have the resources, we just need to implement them better........again all my opinion.

[Glengoyne]

I don't know about considering them irrelevant because they reported something against the U.S.. I think I had a feeling that the Red Cross might have had an agenda when they visited the camp. Some folks in the Int'l Red Cross had publicly opposed the invasion. So I think it is a completely viable response to try and verify the reports, rather than immediately act on them.

Just because I thought the RC had an axe to grind, doesn't mean I consider them irrelevant. It is just that I give what they have to say proper weight.

----

Also did the RC report come out in November? I don't know, but that is what I thought. If so it doesn't exactly seem that they sat on their hands upon hearing about it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

... many people could resort to what some other people consider to be terrorist acts anywhere. Shoot i think in Ireland alone there are two sides of an argument and each side calls eachother terrorist groups. ...

Here in the U.S. we only consider one side terrorists. You know the ones that used explosives to target and kill civilians for political motives. A spade is a spade, and I think it is beyond foolish to not call a terrorist a terrorist, just so you don't lend prejudice to his position. He's a freaking terrorist, I am prejudiced against him, and SO should the rest of the world.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't know about considering them irrelevant because they reported something against the U.S.. I think I had a feeling that the Red Cross might have had an agenda when they visited the camp. Some folks in the Int'l Red Cross had publicly opposed the invasion. So I think it is a completely viable response to try and verify the reports, rather than immediately act on them.

Just because I thought the RC had an axe to grind, doesn't mean I consider them irrelevant. It is just that I give what they have to say proper weight.

----

Also did the RC report come out in November? I don't know, but that is what I thought. If so it doesn't exactly seem that they sat on their hands upon hearing about it.

I read somewhere that the earliest reports came in the summer, but thats neither here nor there.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Here in the U.S. we only consider one side terrorists. You know the ones that used explosives to target and kill civilians for political motives. A spade is a spade, and I think it is beyond foolish to not call a terrorist a terrorist, just so you don't lend prejudice to his position. He's a freaking terrorist, I am prejudiced against him, and SO should the rest of the world.

Of course i agree that those that want to hurt us and dont do so under an enemy country's flag is a terrorist BUT that definition is in the eye of the beholder. We are legitimately "Sold" as terrorists to those that we "offend". I just dont want us to be naive enought ot think that all terrorists hate america and that EVERYONE WHO HATES AMERICA IS A TERRORIST, because (cuz) theyre not. That is where we branch off from eachother, we believe unless we have somethng on someone, evidence wise, we need to act with a morality that we want them to meet. If theyre guilty then they be punished, if they shoot at us, shoot them, if they want trouble we'll give it to them but, in defference to Farrah, not all of them, whoever them is, (nationality or religion wise) is guilty of anything.

[Glengoyne]

I don't believe that those who hate America, do so because they are terrorists. My point is that I feel it is disingenuous to avoid calling Al Qaeda and others of their ilk terrorists, so as not to diminish their viewpoint. Which it seemed to me you might be leaning to. I might be wrong there, but the BBC lost pretty much all of their credibility with me when they decided that terrorists would no longer be called terrorists because it would make people prejudiced toward them.

[Flasch186]

I absolutely believe theyre terrorists but I know that I wouldnt call them that if I was their supporter. Thats my point. Our terrorists should be jailed or killed, period but its the broad brush, Farrah and the like are willing to paint with. To quote Mel Gibson, or William Wallace, History is told by the Victors of War....Id like to think we always write the history BUT the readers view us as not morally corrupt or any of the other things that we acuse the enemy of. In our history weve always been concerned with human rights and i want to make sure that this war on terror or the patriot act oesnt make our countrya nd leaders forget that.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Found a map in a cracker jack box

This is true in so many ways.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Isn't this the same organization that said showing photos of Saddam on TV violated the Geneva Convention? Forgive me if I don't put much weight into what the Red Cross says.

This unfortunately is where you show your ignorance of the issues involved. It wasn't just the Red Cross that addressed the issue.

Back when Iraq was putting captured US soldiers on TV, the US government and the Bush administration itself led the outcry that doing so was a violation of the Geneva Convention -- the same thing that was done with Sadam since he was commander of Iraq forces and a prisoner of war.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally in no way equate the two instances, but it shows the kind of double standard (along with prisoner abuse, detaining people without due process) or the appearance of one that the current US government and you apply to these situations. The problem with double standards is it makes winning any war against terrorism doubly difficult because of the doubts and mistrust it creates in the US's global partners that are needed in the war.

[Glengoyne]

I was pretty critical of the showing the pics of Uday and Cusay(sp?). Of course they were dead, and I thought that was just as bad as the photos of the Americans Killed in Action. I think the U.S. initially said it released the pictures of his sons, just to "prove" to the populace they were dead. It didn't matter to me, I don't think we should have done it.

I didn't really have a problem with showing Saddam's pictures. I think also the Red Cross was pushing it to call it a violation of the Geneva Convention, because at the time I think Saddam was closer to fugitive from Justice than a soldier in a war.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No, we are supposed to do everything possible to combat terrorism and those who have and will likely commit terrorist acts upon American citizens and interests. Most of the solutions involve non-military acts but some do require a hard hand. As I said before, I don't like what happened there anymore than anyone else but that cannot lessen our resolve and our will to fight terrorism.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect there. The administration refuses to discuss the terrorist problem in terms of the political issues that the terrorists advocate on (troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel/Palestine, imperialism and perceived Western mistreatment of Muslim nations). They've depoliticized it and only discuss the issues in terms of the tactics of the enemy (they attack innocents, they have no regard for human rights, etc). If you frame the issue in those terms, I think we're obligated to hold the high ground in terms of our tactics. If we carelessly injure and kill civilians, imprison innocents without process, torture prisoners, etc, how do we get off criticizing anyone else's tactics? And without that, the entire case the administration has built for justifying actions against the terrorist organizations collapses.

Personally, I think the administration has framed the issue poorly which has contributed to the lack of international support for our actions and led us to make some bad decisions in prosecuting the conflict. But it is what it is, and now we're stuck lying the bed we've made for ourselves.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

This unfortunately is where you show your ignorance of the issues involved. It wasn't just the Red Cross that addressed the issue.

Back when Iraq was putting captured US soldiers on TV, the US government and the Bush administration itself led the outcry that doing so was a violation of the Geneva Convention -- the same thing that was done with Sadam since he was commander of Iraq forces and a prisoner of war.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally in no way equate the two instances, but it shows the kind of double standard (along with prisoner abuse, detaining people without due process) or the appearance of one that the current US government and you apply to these situations. The problem with double standards is it makes winning any war against terrorism doubly difficult because of the doubts and mistrust it creates in the US's global partners that are needed in the war.

Actually, it was sarcasm, not ignorance. None of the smilie faces seemed to appropriate - do we have a sarcasm smilie here? Anyway...

When Iraq was putting the captured soldiers on TV, did the Red Cross send a report to Saddam and then say "See you should have listened to us"? Did they appeal to Saddam to investigage? No. They made some public comments, but no real effort to do anything about the treatment of those soldiers. You speak of my hypocracy, and that of the government - yet it no mention of the Red Cross' credibility problem. This is the organization that refused to take a public position in WWII, and have since been accussed, as recenlty as 1996, of working with Nazi Germany in smuggling German agents and assets out of France. They were on the wrong side then (even by not expressing an opinion) its a reasonable position to be suspicious now.

If we're going to be expected to abide by the Geneva Convention, then I expect all international bodies to demand that the other side do so as well, with as much insistance that is shown to the US, if not more. .

One side in this global terror conflict has announced that they will be intentionally targeting civilians. 3,000 died three years ago, and more since. One side makes no distinction betweem military or non-military, black or white, make or female, democrat or republican, they kill muslims, they kill christians and they especially kill jews. They kill anyone who is not like them. Don't you think that side deserves a bit more attention? I do.

But no, the side that puts its life at risk rescuing civilians, providing medical attention to insrugents, chosing its military targets with care so as not to hit bystanders, and doesn't return fire from cowards hiding in religious sites so as not to damage the site - That's the side that's the problem.They're the ones that should be bowing at the altar of the international community asking for forgiveness. Funny though, the US is the only side that ever makes any effort to rectify the violations.

[druez]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Actually, it was sarcasm, not ignorance. None of the smilie faces seemed to appropriate - do we have a sarcasm smilie here? Anyway...

When Iraq was putting the captured soldiers on TV, did the Red Cross send a report to Saddam and then say "See you should have listened to us"? Did they appeal to Saddam to investigage? No. They made some public comments, but no real effort to do anything about the treatment of those soldiers. You speak of my hypocracy, and that of the government - yet it no mention of the Red Cross' credibility problem. This is the organization that refused to take a public position in WWII, and have since been accussed, as recenlty as 1996, of working with Nazi Germany in smuggling German agents and assets out of France. They were on the wrong side then (even by not expressing an opinion) its a reasonable position to be suspicious now.

If we're going to be expected to abide by the Geneva Convention, then I expect all international bodies to demand that the other side do so as well, with as much insistance that is shown to the US, if not more. .

One side in this global terror conflict has announced that they will be intentionally targeting civilians. 3,000 died three years ago, and more since. One side makes no distinction betweem military or non-military, black or white, make or female, democrat or republican, they kill muslims, they kill christians and they especially kill jews. They kill anyone who is not like them. Don't you think that side deserves a bit more attention? I do.

But no, the side that puts its life at risk rescuing civilians, providing medical attention to insrugents, chosing its military targets with care so as not to hit bystanders, and doesn't return fire from cowards hiding in religious sites so as not to damage the site - That's the side that's the problem.They're the ones that should be bowing at the altar of the international community asking for forgiveness. Funny though, the US is the only side that ever makes any effort to rectify the violations.

Unlike basketball Farrah you actually know what you are talking about here. So great post!