• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

ANN-Are videotaped beheadings covered by Geneva?

passin thru

Well-known member
Are videotaped beheadings covered by Geneva?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 20, 2006
6:20 p.m. Eastern



Sen. John McCain has been carrying so much water for his friends in the mainstream media that he now has to state for the record to Republican audiences: "I hold no brief for al-Qaida."

Well, that's a relief.

It turns out the only reason McCain is demanding that prisoners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and other atrocities – be treated like Martha Stewart facing an insider trading charge is this: "It's all about the United States of America and what is going to happen to Americans who are taken prisoner in future wars."

(Column continues below)


McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Warner – or, as the Times now calls him, the "courtly Virginian" ("fag-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor" being beneath his dignity these days) – want terrorists treated like Americans accused of crimes, with full access to classified information against them and a list of the undercover agents involved in their capture. Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame.

As Graham explained, he doesn't want procedures used against terrorists at Guantanamo "to become clubs to be used against our people." Actually, clubs would be a step up from videotaped beheadings.

Or as the New York Times wrote in the original weasel talking points earlier this summer: "The Geneva Conventions protect Americans. If this country changes the rules, it's changing the rules for Americans taken prisoner abroad. That is far too high a price to pay so this administration can hang on to its misbegotten policies."

There hasn't been this much railing about the mistreatment of a hostage since Monica Lewinsky was served canapes at the Pentagon City Ritz-Carlton Hotel while being detained by the FBI.

The belief that we can impress the enemy with our magnanimity is an idea that just won't die. It's worse than the idea that paying welfare recipients benefits won't discourage them from working. (Some tiny minority might still seek work.) It's worse than the idea that taxes can be raised endlessly without reducing tax receipts. (As the Laffer Curve illustrates, at some point – a point this country will never reach – taxes could theoretically be cut so much that tax revenues would decline.)

But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn't work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese – enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.

By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?

It doesn't even work with the Democrats, whom Bush kept sucking up to his first year in office. No more movie nights at the White House with Teddy Kennedy these days, I'm guessing.

It was this idea (Be nice!) that fueled liberals' rage at Reagan when he vanquished the Soviet Union with his macho "cowboy diplomacy" that was going to get us all blown up. As the Times editorial page hysterically described Reagan's first year in office: "Mr. Reagan looked at the world through gun sights." Yes, he did! And now the Evil Empire is no more.

It was this idiotic idea of being nice to predators that drove liberal crime policies in the '60s and '70s – leading like night into day to unprecedented crime rates. Now these same liberal ninnies want to extend their tender mercies not just to rapists and murderers, but to Islamic terrorists.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill had a different idea: Instead of rewarding bad behavior, punish bad behavior. How many times does punishment have to work and coddling have to fail before we never have to hear again that if we treat terrorists well, the terrorists will treat our prisoners well?

Fortunately, history always begins this morning for liberals, so they can keep flogging the same idiotic idea that has never, ever worked: Be nice to our enemies and they will reward us with good behavior.

Never mind trusting liberals with national security. Never mind trusting them with raising kids. These people shouldn't even be allowed to own pets.

If the Democrats and the three pathetic Republicans angling to be called "mavericks" by the New York Times really believe we need to treat captured terrorists nicely in order to ensure that the next American they capture will be well-treated, then why stop at 600-thread-count sheets for the Guantanamo detainees? We must adopt Shariah law.

As McCain might put it, I hold no brief for al-Qaida, but what would better protect Americans they take prisoner than if America went whole hog and became an Islamic republic? On the plus side, we can finally put Rosie O'Donnell in a burka.


PS and let's see if we can keep the personal attacks out of this...........unless you have nothing else.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
If this is from Ann, she's making some very good points. And to think I used to kind of like McCain. He of all people, should realize that being nice to them, just ain't going to work.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
BUT...what about ' turn about's fair play"????

They do to us ( captured soldiers) in triplicate what we ( US/CIA, etc) do to them during " interrogation"??

Yeah, war is mean and messy.....but this( changes Bush wants to make) could take it up to levels no one has ever seen before!!!

This needs lots of " think time" by all concerned.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Geneva Rules are a joke and always have been...Japan never even recognized them- China, Korea, and Vietnam violated them repeatedly...Just another one of those treaties that everyone thinks is so great, but the US will be the only one to follow...And even many in the US military in WWII forgot them after seeing the horrorocities invoked on US GI's....

Just another sound good, feel good farce to make war sound nicer....

How do you sign a treaty of fair war practices with a mottley crew of people who say their only goal in life is to "kill and rid the world of infidels"...How do you sign "fair war" rules with people that purposely target noncombatant women and children and kidnap people that they saw the heads off of......

I think MacArthur had it right during the Phillipine Insurrection- he took the Islamic radical terrrorists they caught- shot them and buried them in hog guts (so they couldn't go to heaven :roll: )- kept one alive as a witness, that he sent back to deliver the message...
 

Cal

Well-known member
I think MacArthur had it right during the Phillipine Insurrection- he took the Islamic radical terrrorists they caught- shot them and buried them in hog guts (so they couldn't go to heaven )- kept one alive as a witness, that he sent back to deliver the message...
Obviously before the creation of the ACLU.
 

Steve

Well-known member
BUT...what about ' turn about's fair play"????

I agree we can behead a few on CNN, then hang a few from the Golden gate bridge after we fry thier @$$3$.....throw few in front of a speeding car full of explosives and the Radical Islamic terrorist might get the point........I am all for turnabout is fair play with these [email protected][email protected]

then can we load a bunch up on a plane and fly them into mecca.........
 

Steve

Well-known member
Sounds you need some fiber in that diet there Steve!!!

I think my "diet" is alright,

They do to us ( captured soldiers) in triplicate what we ( US/CIA, etc) do to them during " interrogation"??

but to Blame Terrorists actions on our interrogation of terrorist, as you Suggested just didn't sit to well with me....
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I didn't blame...I just ' mused' that the reprecussions could be in triplicate to us.....you just assumed and read that into my statement all by yourself.

Besides that it was a question anyway!!!! Didn't you see the ????? at the end??????????????

I didn't " blame" anyone......that word gets tossed about here way too much it seems.
 

Steve

Well-known member
They do to us ( captured soldiers) in triplicate what we ( US/CIA, etc) do to them during " interrogation"??

by your sentence structure with interrogation followed by question marks it appears as you are questioning Interrogation....and its use....

I guess when you toss words around way to much, you should expect someone to take offense.....








The fact remains the terrorist are the ones doing the unthinkable barbaric acts......
Terrorists blew up buildings, ships,....
Terroists flew Planes into buildings....forcing innocent people to make horrific choices...
Terrorists beheaded.....
Terrorists stand beside a crowded market, and blow up innocent lives...
Terrorists burn captured soldiers.....then hang them from a bridge.....
Terrorist beat captured soldiers to death, rig thier bodies with explosives.....
and the list is not done ......all this "before" the current proposed law existed...

so kolanuraven and "other liberals",....who believe we should "protect the terrorists dignity....and rights......


If we are aggressive in interrogations to prevent barbaric acts is it wrong?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Interrogations are just plain wrong. We should be trying harder to understand their feelings.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I'm still going with the idea that you need more fiber....you're going way out in left field with just a simple statement/question.

And what a STUPID statement to make that I protect or want to protect ANYONE be they Muslim, Buddists or Lutheran who would want to blow up me and mine!!!! Use that brain power man that you brag about having!!

If I wanted to ' protect' these types I'd been spending over $300 a month sending them--the terrorists-- supplies rather than spending on the kids---OUR kids-- in Iraq who are in the service. !!! DUH!!!!


How silly can you get?????
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Use that brain power man that you brag about having!!
I guess I missed Steve's bragging spell.

kolanuraven said:
If I wanted to ' protect' these types I'd been spending over $300 a month sending them--the terrorists-- supplies rather than spending on the kids---OUR kids-- in Iraq who are in the service. !!! DUH!!!!
I have seen this several times though.
 

andybob

Well-known member
Terrorists are by definition not adherents to the Geniva convention, any fairness on our part is construed as weakness, the ones we captured, were 'turned' if not guilty of crimes, the others were tried in civil court as common murderers, and hung (much to the chargin of the world's liberal media) Eventually, very few seemed to be being captured!
 

Steve

Well-known member
How silly can you get?????

I actually asked a serious question......

If we are aggressive in interrogations to prevent barbaric acts is it wrong?

and in follow up....

which came first the terrorists acts.....or the interrogation.....?
 

Steve

Well-known member
And what a STUPID statement to make that I protect or want to protect ANYONE be they Muslim, Buddists or Lutheran who would want to blow up me and mine!!!!

are you refering to....

"so kolanuraven and "other liberals",....who believe we should "protect the terrorists dignity....and rights...... "

if so please re-read your..."original comment"

They do to us ( captured soldiers) in triplicate what we ( US/CIA, etc) do to them during " interrogation"??

Yeah, war is mean and messy.....but this( changes Bush wants to make) could take it up to levels no one has ever seen before!!!

but how can "proposed" laws be the cause of Past barbaric terrorists acts?...

My questions spoke for themselves....either we effectively interrogate the terrorist or deal with more American Deaths.....


This needs lots of " think time" by all concerned.

yep. when someone rattles off a "a simple statement/question.", "And what a STUPID statement to make".....Maybe they should "think first...
 

Steve

Well-known member
"
BUT...what about ' turn about's fair play"????

if we respopnded in "turn about is fair play"...then we would do as I suggested....

I agree we can behead a few on CNN, then hang a few from the Golden gate bridge after we fry thier @$$3$.....throw few in front of a speeding car full of explosives and the Radical Islamic terrorist might get the point........I am all for turnabout is fair play with these [email protected][email protected]

then can we load a bunch up on a plane and fly them into mecca.........

as this would be in kind retailiation.....

if the terrorists did onto our soldiers they would dress a few up as frenchman and we would whine.....about dignity......but this is not so.....

they...
Terrorists blew up buildings, ships,....
Terroists flew Planes into buildings....forcing innocent people to make horrific choices...
Terrorists beheaded.....
Terrorists stand beside a crowded market, and blow up innocent lives...
Terrorists burn captured soldiers.....then hang them from a bridge.....
Terrorist beat captured soldiers to death, rig thier bodies with explosives.....

so by responding to your ridiculuos statement where you tossed about words, and I responded so I need fiber......I have plenty of fiber, Moral fiber.....I do not want US to stoop to thier levels, but to defeat your enemy one must be able to use "effective" means of winning.....and ineffective democrat proposed interrogation rules where the terrorist sits in a lazy boy lounger and has all his whims met won't get them to like US enough to spill the secrets....

as for the rest of your comment;
 
Top