Why is the US media more concerned with some soldiers who are going to get court martialed making some prisoners wear panties on their head (something most men like to do I might add...but I won't go there) but pretty much ignores the fact that 1 American was shot and then decapitated in his own drive way, 2 Americans and 1 south Korean were kidnapped and beheaded just for the publicity?! I think Fox News is the only news source who has gotten past Abu Ghraib. Look folks they are being court martialed, if there is news with that let us know, otherwise...move on to real news!
Clinton's book: I think the only thing funnier than the fact that people are comparing it to his 1988 Democratic National Covention Speech is the fact that he reads it on the audio version just like Hillary read her book: with zero emotion even when talking about things that would make a normal person bawl like a baby.
Just what is Iran up to these days? Do they think they are bullet proof? What makes them think the world "has" to accept them as a nuclear power? Why are they picking a fight with the British? And why oh why are they massing troops at the Iraqi border?
Would you let your kid be screened for a mental health issue by a public school and have treatment dictated to you by them? According to World Net Daily, that's just what Bush wants.
Posted by Skywalker at June 23, 2004 08:13 AM | TrackBackFunny you should ask. I know exactly why;
Most of the media slants to the left and all of the left is still pissed about the 2000 election. So much that they want to make sure that Bush loses in 2004 (which he wont). They want it so much that they will actually lie (New York Times) and anything else that will make the Bush administration look bad in the eyes of the American people. That includes slanting the news and only printing stories that further their agenda.
Too bad their only choice is Kerry. Otherwise they may actually have chance.....
Posted by: cwilli at June 23, 2004 01:11 PMOh how about CNN's blatant lie yesterday and their half @$$ed retraction today?
Posted by: skywalker at June 23, 2004 04:23 PMI dont even call that a retraction. I call that BS. That just goes to prove the point that they dont care about anything but trying to make the Bush administration look bad.
At any cost.
Posted by: cwilli at June 24, 2004 11:13 PMI wonder what you guys think of the recent supreme court decision about guantanamo prisonners.
Even that thoroughly republican institution had to admit that these prisonners had rights to contest their emprisonnment. G W Bush orders were unconstitutional.
There's probably 500 innocents held for no reason for more than 2 years overthere. Too bad for them if they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
What's your opinion on the last 2 judgements folks ?
Posted by: DF at June 30, 2004 04:39 AMThe judgement says they have a right to a lawyer to contest there confinement. In other words, they can go to the courts to try and prove that they are being held without cause, which will be a mighty tough thng for them to do. So essentially they said we can still hold them we just have to give them a chance to prove they are a baker and not a bomb maker. Personally, I don't see how any non-citizen, captured in a foreign battle who is not even a POW as per the Geneva Convention, has a right to our civilian courts, maybe a military court though.
BTW, the supreme court is pretty evenly split with conservatives and liberals.
We are about to start the first trial for some of the gitmo prisoners. Something that will be much more interesting than seeing how many of them a) don't try to get themselves freed and b) how many of them fail to get freed.
"500 innocents held for no reason"
Wow you so have reviewed all the cases in GITMO and determined that 500 of them are innocent and held for no reason?
How did you pull that one off? O'wait you must be reading the liberal news again.
You believe everything you read dont you, DF?
"place at the wrong time"
yea, pick up a weapon and fight against our military and that puts you in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is for sure!
Posted by: cwilli at June 30, 2004 12:11 PMAfter much thought I'd like to know how you characterize 500+ people who are not afghan, who were in Afghanistan fighting against US forces, out of uniform as "innocents."
They were al-Quaeda terrorists and were training to kill American, Frnech, British or whatever other country's civilians. They can try and prove their innocence all they want, but it isn't likely to happen.
Posted by: skywalker at June 30, 2004 09:19 PMThey were talibans, fighting for the government of afganhistan at the time. The taliban movement had been backed by Pakistan and the Pakistan by the USA in order to fight Iran's presence in Afganhistan and to move closer of russia.
Because they were islamist of dangerous kind in afganhistan implies in NO way that they were planning terrorist act in the USA.
If these people were fighting the USA in a war, then they are prisonners of war and should be released after the end of the war.
If they are terrorists then they should be judged for terrorists acts and proved guilty.
A bunch of them probably were sold by some people eager to get some dollars in exchange of a "terrorist".
It's been 2 years now and these people have not been convicted of anything. If there were any proof against them don't you think a trial would have set things straight since a long time ?
It's just the same as with the Weapons of Mass Destruction ... Nothing to see. But still we're asked to wait for the soon to come, one great catch that will explain all ...
And we should wait for good old bush to be so good as to may be one day recognise that part of them can be released ...
I don't think you get the right point
NOBODY HAS TO PROVE HIS HER INNOCENCE !
The army will have to prove that they are guilty, which will be a tough job.
And I'll be happy to see these people set free and shame on this administration for sending people in jail with no reason, launching a war with false reasons, creating a mayhem in middle east just as foretold, backing the use of torture full scale and pretending not to when caught ...
There s no future for those who like to live inside closed curtains, behind barriers, fences, protected by anti missile programs, for those who live in fear, fear of foreigners ...
Future is for those who dare move, meet and die.
which sets the USA and ISrael (and the western world ?) on the wrong track.
I said 500 because I read there are 600 overthere. So i thought 80% of errors was a good figure. 80% innocent of planning terrorist activities against the USA.
Now you know what ? Good thing is, we'll get to see how many are freed. And I know you'll come up with the 10 cases of dangerous terrorists, just like you did in the WMD case.
Posted by: DF at July 1, 2004 04:40 AMAnd just so it is not forgotten. There has been several cases of "strange" DEATHS in iraki prisons, raised by the people investigating abu ghraib.
Torture involved not only wearing panties, but beating people, raping women and men, forcing men to have or simulate sex together, depriving of food, creating diarreha with pills and forbidding access to the toilets ... ANd some time killing one or two.
If you account the number of iraki prisonners now in iraki prisons (tens of thousands), it seems highly probable that more iraki die overthere than do US citizens by iraki terrorists...
And in case you forgot. Iraki terrorists are supposed to be the bad guys so there's no surprise in their acts, and when they kill this way they create hostility to their cause ...
But the US army is supposed to be on the good side, bringing democracy an fair trial NOT TORTURE ... Beside any such act can only create more terrorists ... SO WHY DO THEY DO IT ? It is legitimate that the media spends more time studying how the good guy did wrong things (which it is not supposed too) than the bad guy doing bad things. And if the terrorists start holding elections in fallouja, using a fair penal code, freeing women and creating schools ... ALl this by their own ... I hope the media will be there ... Because that would be some news !
Posted by: DF at July 1, 2004 04:51 AMhttp://www.cpt.org/iraq/detainee_profiles/SaddamSalehAlRawiupdate.htm
For the full version ...
On that first day, an American man in civilian clothes and an Iraqi translator who had his face covered came in and abused me severely. They didn't ask me any questions. They just beat me and accused me of being a terrorist. The American beat me repeatedly with his hands all over my body and on my face, especially my eyes. The Iraqi man mostly kicked me. He kicked me in the nose and I bled all over. Then they left me alone. No one came to treat my wounds, feed me, or give me a blanket. I spent that night on the ground with my hands still tied.
(...)
I spent more than one hour in this room before soldiers came and took me out into the hall. They untied my hands and asked me to strip. I refused to because it is forbidden for Muslims. They forced off my clothes and beat me. One of them shouted in my ear. Then they made me stand on a box with my hands on my head for one hour. Then they beat me again and poured cold water on me. Next, they made me hold a plastic chair over my head for a long time. All along, I could hear them laughing and snapping photographs. (I could see the flash of the cameras through my hood.) I became so exhausted that I fell down and hit my head on the wall. They took off my hood at that point and continued laughing. I saw Sergeant Joyner, an Egyptian translator who wore fatigues, named Abu Hamed, two male soldiers, one with glasses, and one female soldier.
Then a soldier from another group came and peed on me. Other soldiers then dragged me along the floor in the hall and did other similar things to keep me awake all night.
other stories here
http://cpt.org/iraq/detainee_profiles/detaineeprofiles.htm
see ya
"If these people were fighting the USA in a war, then they are prisonners of war and should be released after the end of the war."
Accoording to the Geneva Convetion, you are very wrong - unless of course they are Afghan's who were wearign uniforms.
"NOBODY HAS TO PROVE HIS HER INNOCENCE !
The army will have to prove that they are guilty, which will be a tough job."
Wrong again. They are being tried by military tribunal. The military has to prove there guilt reasonable enough for 3 military judges and they have to fail to prove their innocence.
A"nd I'll be happy to see these people set free and shame on this administration for sending people in jail with no reason, launching a war with false reasons, creating a mayhem in middle east just as foretold, backing the use of torture full scale and pretending not to when caught .."
What do you want us to do with them then? Everyone that we released has since been killed because they went back and tried to fight with insurgents! Should we just shoot them and get it over with? I don't think so! You speak as if mayhem wasn't already in the mid-east!
"I said 500 because I read there are 600 overthere. So i thought 80% of errors was a good figure. 80% innocent of planning terrorist activities against the USA."
That's generous. Just cause they weren't planning attacks doesn't mean they couldn't be tapped for attacks. They were building an army for a jihad.
10 terrorists and 10 WMDs in the hands of a madman was to many.
DF, yu might want to be careful before believing a terrorist. I'm not even going to respond to those allegations because the source is a terorist who has nothing to lose and everything to gain by saying things like that!
Posted by: skywalker at July 1, 2004 07:58 AM"And I'll be happy to see these people set free..."
Ok, so if they are "set free" should we send them over to France to start a new life? Maybe, they could move into YOUR neighborhood. Would you like to help them get settled in?
"You speak as if mayhem wasn't already in the mid-east!"
Skywalker: you forget...*we're* the ones who start the trouble and wreak havoc everywhere getting everyone else to join in and continue our dirty work...don't you remember?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at July 1, 2004 10:11 AMYou may remember France has been subject of terrorist attacks from muslim related terrorist groups on several occasions since 1980's .
It did not jail hundreds with no charge following that.
"The military has to prove there guilt reasonable enough for 3 military judges" even that will be tough.
And it seems this is civilian judges we're talking about.
The question of who started what is irrelevant.
Islam invaded europe in 800s then Europe middle east
1100-1300
Then islamist turks eastern europe
1600-1900
Then Europe had colonies in Middle east
Then western world created Israel ...
THen arabs attacked israel
Then israel attacked arabs and occupied some territories ...
Then arabs attacked israel ... Draw.
American funded a coup against nationalist iran leader mossadeigh (he wanted to take hold of Iran's Oil, at the time in the hands of americans)
Came the Shah a tyran ...
Then came the Islamic revolution in Iran (helped by french president)
THen US (and french) funded Irak in order to fight Iran fundamentalism. The USA funded Pakistan and the talibans in order to fight the soviets and IRan ...
Then Ossama bin laden attacked the twin towers
Then the USA and NATO invaded afganhistan
Then The USA invaded IRak
So you think you know who started what ?
The thing is the USA are a country, they have signed conventions, are bound by international law. Therefore they ought to play by the rules and behave better than terrorist groups.
Well starting with election fraud, guantanamo, then Irak, then Torture ... It's becoming harded and harder to include the USA in the category :
democratic country with respect for international law.
The basic problem is to the rest of the world the USA behave more and more just like another terrorist group.
Apart from that michael s moore film seems to draw huge audience ... Who thought no one would see it ?
I can't wait to see it. It's good to know there are some decent americans in the USA.
"Apart from that michael s moore film seems to draw huge audience ... Who thought no one would see it ?
Oh, *I* always knew people would go see it. *I*, myself want to see it so I can keep track of the inconsistancies BUT I'm going to have to find a way to watch it without putting money into Moores pocket (I wouldn't want to be responsible for supporting him and giving him the means of making even more films).
"It's good to know there are some decent americans in the USA."
Ya know, DF...this may be the end of the road for me commenting to you (not that you'll shed a tear over that) at least when it comes to world issues. Let's face it...we can "discuss" things until we're both blue in the face but the only thing we'll have to show for it at the end of the day is our different shades of blue. And I've better things to do. However, just so you know:
Michael Moore is an angry, bitter, biased wind bag so if THAT'S what YOU think a decent american should be (not that YOUR opinion on the subject matters to me) then *I'M* sooo glad and proud *I* dissapoint you. So when you write a sentence of *Moore* being a decent american?! Just *reading* That sentence *alone* shaved 10 points off of my IQ.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at July 1, 2004 01:15 PMIt just goes to show you how out of touch DF is about Americans...
Besides he has to see the movie so that he can get more of his daily dose of left wing propaganda. He will then have more talking points to regurgitate like a good little liberal parrot:
"ROOCCCKK, America is bad. RRROOOCCCKK, Bush is a Nazi"
BTW is was me who thought that nobody would see this movie. I guess I underestimated the ability of the average American to throw away their money. Too bad you French people cant do that. How is your economy again?
I heard your jobless rate rose to 9.8% in May? WOW! Thats basically 1 in 10 out of a job. Now THAT is something that an American would not put up with but I guess for you French it is ok.
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=9054
"By 2007 we will have a significant fall in unemployment," Raffarin forecast, adding that his government aimed at ensuring growth was more widely shared among the population."
Could you imagine if our unemployment rate was that high and our President said he would get around to fixing it in 3 years? Thats the difference between Americans and the French I guess.
We actually work.
Posted by: cwilli at July 1, 2004 03:48 PM