Clinton Meltdown On Fox News

Quote from TM_Direct:

well, like i said....what country should i send them too? Who wants em boys? But to compare their plight with that of the american slaves is an insult to their history and heritage.
More...

it is about the shape not the color ...

and what kind of note is this: "where shall we send them to?" do you think that by emphasising their danger you make it easier to get away with the cruelty of your government?

if they were guilty and you could prove it, you would kill them anyways. BUT you do not have the right to torture them. not them and not anyone else. sorry, hardline falcons. there IS a borderline even for your definition of power.
 
additional addition. you do not have the right to "send them" anywhere. there is a thing called international law and i think, amongst other issues, this regulates who can accuse whom for what. and it is not just your discretion to "send them" wherever you want. this is again some strange attitude regarding legal and sovereign power.
 
this administration does not recognize 'international law'... law, by definition, is sthg made in america, therefore it can only become international if international, well, becomes american... have i got this right?
 
Quote from man:

it is about the shape not the color ...

and what kind of note is this: "where shall we send them to?" do you think that by emphasizing their danger you make it easier to get away with the cruelty of your government?

if they were guilty and you could prove it, you would kill them anyways. BUT you do not have the right to torture them. not them and not anyone else. sorry, hardline falcons. there IS a borderline even for your definition of power.
More...


well, once again you are wrong. We do have a right to detain them as war criminals and enemy combatants.....and we are not torturing them....were there a couple of bad incidents? sure. but you think every one is being tortured? Ya see, war is a bad thing...that is why you always try to avoid it....and these assholes had a choice, surrender or face this risk...they got caught and now they are being held until our war is complete....in war, you don;t take an enemy and sentence him to a 6 month suspended sentence and then release him..you hold them until the war is over.....the war is not over. we are still fighting on two fronts AND the info obtained by these enemy fighters has helped lead to dozens of arrests and stopped other planned attacks. so quit your crying over the detainment of enemy forces....they should not have gotten caught.....or we can do like they do if you want, we'll butcher the body and drag it through the streets and set it on fire...
 
Yeah, we're gonna make those prisoners stay up till two in the morning, listen to loud music, and maybe even make em stand on one foot for an hour or so. In other words, we're just gonna torture the hell out of em!
 
Quote from man:

additional addition. you do not have the right to "send them" anywhere. there is a thing called international law and i think, amongst other issues, this regulates who can accuse whom for what. and it is not just your discretion to "send them" wherever you want. this is again some strange attitude regarding legal and sovereign power.
More...

Since you are such an expert on international law and human rights and are so sure the US is a rogue nation , why don't you cite the precise laws we are violating? Do you think the US likes keeping a collection of dangerous killers at Guantanamo? Would you or your country want that responsibility? No, you'd prefer to sit back, let the US protect you and carp and criticize.

These were not people seized at random. They were captured in battle or in terrorist activities. There have been lengthy legal debates in the US as to how to handle their cases, including several Supreme Court opinions. There is legislation pending in the congress now concerning them. It would be totally irresponsible to release them, as you seem to think should be done. They will be given far more due process than they would have received in their home countries and certainly more humane treatment than they routinely dish out to their victims.


ps. For anyone who doubts why President Bush was wise to reject the International Criminal Court, consider how eager this poster is to see US officials prosecuted to satisfy his rabid and mindless anti-americanism. Unfortunately, his attitude is widespread in europe and finds expression in their politics, and as a result it would be foolish and naive to believe that we could expect even-handed treatment at the ICC.
 
Quote from 2cents:

this administration does not recognize 'international law'... law, by definition, is sthg made in america, therefore it can only become international if international, well, becomes american... have i got this right?
More...

We are only bound by treaties that we sign and that are ratified by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. There is also a body of customary international law that we observe. What about that do you object to? Do you honestly think our sovereignty should be subservient to the UN or other countries?
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Since you are such an expert on international law and human rights and are so sure the US is a rogue nation , why don't you cite the precise laws we are violating? Do you think the US likes keeping a collection of dangerous killers at Guantanamo? Would you or your country want that responsibility? No, you'd prefer to sit back, let the US protect you and carp and criticize.
More...

antiPresentUSGovernment is not equal to antiAmerican. sorry. it is more about your government personally than nationally.
i am not an expert in international law and i think i do not need to be for this issue. i hope i do not have to dig out some paper from legal websites on the guantanamo issue and we get back and forth with that. in case you have not realised the US government has been criticised all over the world, including the ... US, for their treatment of whatever your military lawyers call them now.

and in case you have not yet realised that as well, your supreme court is quite late in all that. and not even the republicans are united in the issue.

there are some million people thinking that the current US administration is more a danger than a protection. remember your government's mission statement to bring peace to the middle east, starting with Iraq? still think this is the case? still think all the falcon-talk?
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Do you honestly think our sovereignty should be subservient to the UN or other countries?
More...

within certain limits: yes. that is what the very purpose of international organisations.

sure, you can refuse Kyoto as well as noit paying your fees to the UN and instead blow out billions in Iraq hunting unexisting WMD.

america used to be the symbol of an ideal with a lot of power. now it is left with ... a lot of power. the damage to the US reputation is enormous i think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top