iam. I'm cutting you serious slack because, since you don't live here anymore, you obviously don't pay attention to what should be common knowledge to a concerned American citizen. I'm not arguing that torture is good or even necessary in this post. Nor am I advocating humiliation. I might do that in another post(or I might not), but this one is about clearing up some misconceptions you have about international treaties.
#1) the detainees are NOT prisoners of war. If you can accept this fact(any google search should clear this up for you) then it pretty much negates most of your objections to U.S. breaking international law. #2)Refer to #1 for all other objections. 'nuf said dj On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:20 PM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> wrote: > SD sometimes you make me laugh, All pirsoners of war are entitled to a > certian level of treatment guarenteed by international treaty, Which the USA > is a signing member and it has been approved by the US Senate, which must > ratify all treaties.. It keeps our soldiers protected in times of war.. > Keeps them from being lined up and shoot.. as you put it.. > > Now in Gitmo's case this very valuable treaty was ignored so they could > preform torture physical humiliation and other degrading acts for the > benefit of their sadistic egos. > > The truth is gitmo was a shifting of gears,, away from an agreed treaty,, > making the word of the USA worthless and treaties not worth the paper they > were written on. Personally I am surprised it is such a small percentage > that returned to combat. I personally hate war, but if I was treated the way > these POW's were treated by bush and the us military and intelligence I > would be sure doing a re-think about my position > > As for the state of the art hospital well if the picture is showing the > good side I have seen better facilities in rural Montana.. I think that is > called propaganda,, words are cheap in the bush and us militarys word are > very very cheap. to the point of no value. > Allan > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The recent news about the transfer of the Gitmo detainees had me >> thinking. >> I was wondering why and how humanity switches gears from killing the >> enemy to taking care of the enemy, once captured and imprisoned. >> On the battle field we kill the enemy, the enemy that wants to kill >> us. >> Why do we expend so much energy caring for these people that would see >> us dead tomorrow? >> >> **New Pentagon intelligence asserts that 61 former Guantánamo Bay >> detainees, or about 11 percent of those who have been released, appear >> to have returned to involvement in terrorism.** >> >> So why don't we just kill the enemy? Is it political correctness? A >> skewed sense of human compassion? What do you think it is? Your >> thoughts, ideas, insight and opinion? I mean we do have, in some >> places, the dead penalty for criminals, right? >> >> I think it is ridiculous that we should waste time and money caring >> for enemies. >> ***In every case, enemy combatants held here receive medical care that >> is "as good as or better than anything we would offer our own >> soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines," the general in charge of the >> U.S. detention facility here said. *** >> >> I say........... >> Line them up for the firing squad and be done with it. We would have >> killed them anyway on a battle field. >> >> >> ** >> http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/01/13/some-freed-terrorism-detainees-return-to-the-fight.html >> >> *** http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25852 *** >> > > > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
