Charges against child soldier held at Gitmo dropped.
Charges against child soldier held at Gitmo dropped.
A legal battle with global implications was set to begin tomorrow with the Guantanamo Bay arraignment of Omar Ahmed Khadr, accused of killing a U.S. soldier with a grenade in 2002, when Khadr was 15 years old. “A range of legal experts describe as the first child fighter in decades to face war-crimes charges.” Now, the case has inexplicably fallen apart:
A military judge has dismissed charges against Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, saying the matter is outside the jurisdiction of the military tribunal system.
Khadr, a Canadian who was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan…faced terrorism charges Monday under a reconfigured military tribunal system that critics say remains unconstitutional.
A 15-year-old held at Guantanamo for nearly 5 years, and now a day before his arraignment, the U.S. says he’s actually “outside the jurisdiction” of the tribunal system.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It has been only a week or so since Bloody Thursday when the new Democratically “controlled†congress voted to authorize continued and escalated spending for the Iraq Genocide Project. The war that they were elected to stop. Immediately. With the Dem “leaders†then telling us that their vote to continue and escalate the Iraq Genocide Project was a victory in the effort to end it and that it also placed the blame for the war squarely on Republicans. The logic here is so disconnected and contrary that you cannot call it logic.
But it seems that the “intelligentsia†here, with the guiding lantern of the Hillary camp that runs this place, has decided that this is old news and that we need to move on and set our sights for September before we address that unpleasantness again. A minimum of 300 dead and 2,000 wounded American soldiers from now.
So, what’s more pressing that international murder, human rights violations akin to that of a neo-con political party of the past that we dare not speak its name, and a criminal conspiracy so obvious that everyone in the world (yes, everyone) knows that the US corporations are stealing the oil?
Well, according to the good folk here, the most pressing issues of the day are:
- Which whore Rove is using this week
- Some inbred and racist talking head getting loads of free publicity for being an inbred racist
- It costs less to take a picture with a shrub
- More whacking at the Gonzales piñata with wet noodles and ostrich feathers
Progressive indeed.
By the way, in the time it took to read this, an 18 year old marine died, approximately 5 US service members were injured, 12 Iraqis were blown up, and 30 more Iraqis were injured.
Feel good about yourself? You shouldn’t.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:38 pmJudge dropped the charges, from what I read. How and why this doesn’t immediately free the man speaks volumes to how f#cked up this “system” of jurisprudence they’re practicing really is….
June 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pmAnd we wonder why the world community thinks we are morally corrupt? Bush and Company need to be impeached. Our government needs a cleansing, not only for the benefit of our forefathers, our Constitution, and our children, but also for our standing as a guiding light for the globe. We HAVE to lead by example, not by force. Maybe George W. Bush and his cronies will retire soon to their private hells.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pmIf this 15 year old didn’t hate America before, now that he is older I’m sure that has changed. Children in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been forced to fight against the American troops, or face dire consequences if they did not.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pmSo, Republicans are OK with holding a 15-year-old boy without charges for 5 years, then it turns out they can’t charge the boy anyway? Republicans are OK with forsaking the Constitution? I wonder if they would be OK if Iranians did the same to U.S. citizens?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pmSend the young man back to Afghanistan ASAP. His childhood was spent in a prison being tortured by Bush thugs.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:45 pmRead a conservative say that this kid should pay for his crimes.
All the time I was thinking “What the hell is wrong with these people? The kid was TEN.”
June 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pmRead this :
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/053107F.shtml
June 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pmWhy does nobody ever talk about the victim Sergeant Speer and his widow?
Sergeant Speer left a wife and two small children. His widow, Tabitha, said in an e-mail exchange with a reporter last week that Mr. Khadr’s youth entitled him to no special consideration.
“Given the opportunity, he would do it all over again,†she wrote. “He was trained to do exactly what he did, regardless of his age.â€
June 4th, 2007 at 12:49 pmm12
The kid was dragged out there as a child soldier at the age of TEN. Now, instead of taking this as a stirring indictment against Al Qaeada for doing what even the lowleist of animals won’t do (Use their offspring as weapons) you guys on the right tried to charge the kid with murder.
You tortured him, bet that felt good didn’t it? Then you got all self-righteous about how he must be held “Responsible” for things he did as a child soldier under the influence of what had to be an abusive father.
And in the end, what were you left with? A charge which wouldn’t stick anyway seen as by all reports he was a soldier in a militia who killed a soldier on a battle field, while fighting in a war.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pmhe’s out at just the right time to celebrate with alcoholic beverages!
June 4th, 2007 at 1:00 pmm12,
A judge threw the case out, did you get that part?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:00 pmAre Sergeant Speer and his widow also being held by the United States without charge?
Send the young man back to Afghanistan ASAP.
As he’s Canadian, this might not go over so well.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:01 pmThe only solution for all the prisoners we have tortured is to execute them. Otherwise they will turn right around and come back here to kill us. Age is no excuse. It’s about protecting ourselves, period.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:06 pmI believe the kid was 15.
The son of an alleged al-Qaida financier, Khadr is accused of killing U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer with a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002.
Khadr’s attorneys had decried the charges against him, saying he was a child soldier and should be rehabilitated, not imprisoned.
“The U.S. will be the first country in modern history to try an individual who was a child at the time of the alleged war crimes,†the attorneys said in a joint statement in April.
You can debate whether it is right to imprision the 15 year old, but how can you be so confident that detaining him and the others accused at Gitmo doesn’t provide some relief from terrorism? How can you be so confident that when you close Gitmo and release those detained that it won’t pose any threat? How can you say definitively that the policies that Bush has implemented – torture bill, Gitmo, war on terror, war in Iraq, secret prisions (if they exist) – don’t provide any relief from domestic terror. You can debate whether they are good policies. Can you reasonably debate that they may have been successful?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pmAre Sergeant Speer and his widow also being held by the United States without charge?
No. Sgt. Speer is dead, thanks to this islamic terrorist.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:10 pmThe charges were dropped because the kid was classified as an “enemy combatant” and the military tribunals can only hear cases against “unlawful alien enemy combatants.”
The charges were dropped “without prejudice” which means Bush can have the kid reclassified, then refile the charges. Or, Bush can just hold the kid the rest of his days without ever reclassifying him.
Welcome to American, land of the free, with liberty and justice for… all?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:12 pmCaptainMantastic
He was 10 when he was turned into a child soldier. I figure he had way, way, waaay diminished capacity under those circumstances.
He was captured at the age of 15 – and charged with killing a soldier on the opposing side of a war. How would you like to see some American soldiers getting charged with the deaths of the soldiers on the other side?
It is not that he was detained, hell he should have been permanently seperated from his family for his own protection (Willingly sticking your kid in a war zone as a soldier is seriously screwed up,) and rehabilitated.
Instead he was thrown in Gitmo, charged with murder (When even in an adult the charges likely wouldn’t stick) and, according to various reports, tortured. Can you seriously tell me that this is what you mean by justice?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:17 pmI’d rather the US didn’t start executing people it cannot charge with crimes just to give Americans peace of mind. Khadr’s sovereignty as a Canadian citizen concerns me more than the peace of mind of Americans, as do the rights of those the US is holding in legal limbo.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:17 pmKhadr, a Canadian who was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan…
June 4th, 2007 at 1:18 pmYou can debate whether it is right to imprision the 15 year old, but how can you be so confident that detaining him and the others accused at Gitmo doesn’t provide some relief from terrorism?
How can you be confident that it does?
The basis for our system of justice is innocent until proven guilty. That means if you want to lock somebody up, the burden of proof is on you to prove that that particular person committed a crime. Locking people up because they might have done something wrong is called tyranny.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pmI fail to see how attacking a soldier who’s coming for you is an act of terrorism. I thought terrorism involved politically-inspired acts of violence against a civilian population.
Speers was a soldier in an invading army, killed in action. He is not a child being held in legal limbo by a country that bends over backwards to pretend torture isn’t really torture. Why you think he should be discussed here as well eludes me.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:21 pmAmazing, Jake. You subscribe to the same philosophy of the “Islamofascists.”
You have become your enemy.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:21 pmDead soldiers and dead Iraqis. What’s the difference? One we weep for and the other one we cheer.
In the end, murderers always complain about not be allowed to murder.
Welcome to the new Amerika, not at all like your grand parent’s America.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:23 pmWhy should I assume that the lack of domestic terrorism in the US is due to Bush policies without direct evidence this is the case? And even if it could be shown unequivocally to be the case this wouldn’t necessarily justify US policy; the same crimes could have ostensibly been prevented had the prisoners been held under proper conditions and charged with whatever crime they had committed or were conspiring to commit as the US legal code demands. The US may well be justified in imprisoning some people, but that doesn’t justify how its prisoners are chosen or treated.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:26 pmLocking people up because they might have done something wrong is called tyranny.
Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 4, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Next, we take the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war into crime fighting. Pre-emptive incarceration. Lock people up because they might commit a crime sometime in the future. We’ll all be “safer” that way…..
Bush can even offer bounties for turning in someone who might commit a crime, just like He did in Afghanistan….
June 4th, 2007 at 1:27 pmThe only solution for all the prisoners we have tortured is to execute them. Otherwise they will turn right around and come back here to kill us. Age is no excuse. It’s about protecting ourselves, period.
Comment by Jake
That’s horrific.
I knew you were dead — one day you’ll be buried.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:28 pmBriseadh na Faire,
Exactly!
Fascists are fascists whether Christian or Muslim. Black hearted evil people, the American Taliban
June 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pmBruce. you make good points.
Gary. last night in the debate, someone ask if the candidates thought that Bush’s policies may have been successful in keeping us safe from domestic terror. Obama said “no”. He didn’t say, “well, it’s possible, but whatever potential benefit the policies provide, it’s not worth the assault on our liberties or our moral authority around the world. He said, “no”.
It is my contention, that when progressives absolutely deny any role that the Bush administration has played in limiting domestic terror attacks since 9/11, their credibility is strained.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:39 pmWhat role has it played?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pmJake,
You should be able to detain the prisoners (like you would a P.O.W), but you can’t can’t kill them.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:01 pmSeabass. It’s possible that going to war in the Middle East (Afganistan and Iraq) has shifted the focus of terror groups to that region.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:04 pmDefendant’s name: Omar Ahmed Khadr
! !! !!!! !!!!!!!! Guilty !!!!!!!! !!!! !! !
June 4th, 2007 at 2:12 pm#32,
What seems to escape you in your sanctimonious preachings is this; when you are known to be a murderer and a criminal, actions against you tend to be violent and extreme. They are also justified.
That statement is both factually true and logically pure. Yet many in the current crop of Americans thinks that by virtue of being American, that all of our murder and heinous human rights atrocities are forgiven because our “intentions” are pure (even though they have been proven not to be).
If I were killing off your family, you would feel justified in taking any steps necessary to stop me. Yet you expect the Afghanis and the Iraqis (and soon, the Iranians) to just bend over an take it.
Live by the sword…
June 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pmIt is my contention, that when progressives absolutely deny any role that the Bush administration has played in limiting domestic terror attacks since 9/11, their credibility is strained.
Okay, I’ll bite. What makes you think that the Bushies have done anything to reduce the probability of domestic terrorist attacks?
Please don’t embarrass yourself by arguing that there haven’t been any since 9/11. There weren’t any comparable attacks before that either, and the only reason 9/11 happened was the Bushies’ incompetence if not complicity in letting it happen.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:19 pmTerrorism is up world-wide, and it’s absurd to think that anything going on in Afghanistan or Iraq would prevent terrorist attacks against the US being planned in a flat in London or Madrid or anywhere else.
There was no threat to the US in Iraq. I don’t even want to touch the ‘fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here’ territory you’re inching into.
Obama was asked if he thought Bush policies made you safer. I’m not sure why he was supposed to talk about what Bush says the results of his policies are supposed to be, and I’m not sure why he was supposed to give the opposition, particularly the Bush Administration, the benefit of the doubt. Particularly when there’s no reason to think any of the things you say should be taken into consideration have actually happened.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:20 pmGary Kleppe
I would put it down to negligence rather then incompetence.
CaptainMantastic
Bush was right to invade Afghanistan. What he did when he invaded Iraq though, was take a serious oponent to Osama Bin Laden out of the picture.
Overall, I would say his policies have not made you safer. They have actually significantly increased your peril, as now you have less allies, more debt, and a growing list of enemy states you have to deal with.
He even tried to unite your enemies against you with that axis of evil speech. Think about it thus: Bush lists three countries as the Axis of Evil, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. He invades Iraq despite weapons inspectors not finding any WMD’s and not long after there is war talk in America around Iran, if you are North Korea what are you going to do?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pmOkay, I’ll bite. What makes you think that the Bushies have done anything to reduce the probability of domestic terrorist attacks?
Please don’t embarrass yourself by arguing that there haven’t been any since 9/11. There weren’t any comparable attacks before that either, and the only reason 9/11 happened was the Bushies’ incompetence if not complicity in letting it happen.
Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 4, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Nothing. It is the semblance of security that gives most Americans a feeling of comfort, in reality the probability has likely not changed all that much. But we did f*ck some shit up in monkeytown, you have to give us that.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pmGary. thanks for giving me the chance. first of all, I don’t deny that Bush’s policies are controversial and it should be debated whether they are in the best interests of this country (for the long term). What I am saying, is that I don’t believe the administration is interested in monitoring phone calls from suspected terrorists aboard to citizen’s of this country, just for grins. I don’t think the administration wants to water board suspects, just for fun.
Just like ever issue, I don’t think our anti-terrorism initiatives are black and white. I believe that those that are making the decisions, belief that those decisions will make us safer at home. I also believe that those policies are questionable. Is our total protection from terror worth alienating others around the world and/or are they actually fueling more terror than they are foiling.
I believe the world has been evolving and 9/11 was an indication of that evolution. You can argue that we were safe from domestic terror before 9/11, but that is denying the point that jihadists have declare war on the west (U.S.) and have now shown the capability to attack us at home. This evolution isn’t a one time occurrence, but a new reality. To question whether Bush’s policies are good for us in the long run, makes a lot of sense to me. To deny, outright, that his policies have had any effect on our domestic safety, seems to me, unrealistic. I believe there are definite consequences for pursuing Bush’s policies. Can you at least say, that there would be possible consequences for not spying on phone calls from suspects into the country; not aggressively interrogating terrorists; not pursuing suspected WMD in the middle east; not proposing an alternative to intolerant Islam theocracy for the middle east, not aggressively opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons program, etc?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:38 pmYou should be able to detain the prisoners (like you would a P.O.W), but you can’t can’t kill them.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
We’ll just hold them until they kill themselves, is that it?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:42 pmIf he did what he was alleged to do, IMO, he should be tried and, if found guilty, punished under existing laws.
Keeping him in Legal limbo under indefinite detention is as un-American as it gets.
Will it be another 5 years before so much as a hearing?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:44 pmThere was no need to go around FISA to implement wiretaps, and torture doesn’t work. It historically doesn’t work. And Iran doesn’t seem to have a nuclear weapons program; inspection reports don’t support the Bush Administration’s claims.
I can certainly say that Bush policies will have consequences, yes. You have us there.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:47 pmWell, this is what happens when you give a child the world’s biggest army, is it? They turn into petulant, tyrannica screw ups.
Let’s begin: The kid is considered a child soldier because that’s what the UN protocol on child soldiers states. One must be 18 to be compelled to fight and 16 to volunteer. 15 is not an option.
I’m sorry, but shooting POWs is not an option. It has only been a option with the villains of history –such as the Nazis. An enemy soldier has the lawful right to attack and kill soldiers from the other side in combat. That’s what war is all about. You can’t invade a country and then try to bring charges against everyone who put up a fight. How absurd!
Bush has been trying to make a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. Sorry. Gitmo still doesn’t make the grade here. A lawful combatant is a POW and must be treated as such under the Geneva Conventions. The prisoners at Gitmo have been denied all their POW rights. An unlawful combatant is not in legal limbo, but must be treated as with all the rights of a civilian accused of a crime. Again, Gitmo falls short –way short. And all prisoners MUST be treated as POWs unless a distinction has been made by a “competent tribunal”. Bush’s military tribunals have not passed the “competent” test.
I also not that the patriotic screwups posting keep mixing up Iraq and Afghanistan. That just shows how pathetic you guys are. And you can have a WAR on terror; terrorism is a tactic and not a state. alQaeda is a criminal organization and so should be treated that way. And we seem to have forgotten that the Taliban was never the target after 9/11; remember how Bush pleaded with them to turn over Osama bin Laden? Indeed, Powell was horrified when Rumsfeld unleashed the Northern Alliance –which now largely controls the country– because they were noted for being thugs who murdered, raped, pillaged, and sold opium. Remember: the Taliban were once considered the most civilized of a bad lot. (BTW, I think you’ve also forgotten that Bush refused to show Afghanistan any proof it had that OBL was involved in 9/11 and did not want OBL handed over to the ICC.)
It seems to me that neo-cons, Republicans, chickenhawks, and whatever yahoos now rule America, seem to make up whatever rules they have for governing. Law no longer matters. Rights are for sissies. And it’s the barrel of the gun that counts among these NRA loving rednecks. Or as my father used to say “American’s believe in the Golden Rule: Them that’s got the gold rule.”
June 4th, 2007 at 2:49 pmCaptainMantastic
Except the spying charge was never about suspects. It was about unwarranted (As in, he didn’t get a warrant) spying on everyone (Local calls too.) Had he gotten a warrant (Which he could have done 72 hours after starting the wire tap) there wouldn’t be an argument around it.
Also, the spying programme fails to convince us as to its legitimacy – seen as there is a very public, massive shortage of translators. If you don’t have anybody who can translate Farsi, what’s the point of listening to a call made in Farsi?
Torture is non-productive. Basically, you get the information the suspect thinks you want to hear, rather then the truth, and thus you get a lot of false leads. Worse, it dehumanises the torturer, acts as a powerful propaganda tool against you (In other words it makes more terrorists) and it is one of those issues which is supposed to define the West: We don’t torture.
As to WMD: You persue them, but when there is no clear evidence of them, when you have weapons inspections and they turn up nothing, you don’t invade. You don’t find a suspected murderer innocent and then execute them just in case.
As to proposing an alternative to radical Islam: We have been doing that for years. If the radical Islamists don’t want Democracy you can’t force it on them – and besides the Iraqi constitution shoots that one all down to heck. It bases its laws on Sharia law, which means it is a theocracy.
As to opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Iran is so dead set on that program in part because it is afraid of being invaded. Let’s say I am Iran, you are America: You list me on your top 3 countries you want to invade, you attack the first one despite world opposition to the invasion, and start talking war talk about invading me, what do you think I am going to do?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:56 pmZooey
Generally you hold them until the war is over. Wars end, eventually.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pmIf you can’t have a war on terror, can you still have a war on poverty?
June 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pmZooey sez:
Heck no! That’s “asymmetric warfare“! If the terrorists kill themselves, they win!
(I only wish Chimpy and his cohorts would try out this innovative strategy…)
June 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pmGenerally you hold them until the war is over. Wars end, eventually.
Comment by Bruce Gorton
This is a war without end. I’d kill myself.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:04 pmHeck no! That’s “asymmetric warfare“! If the terrorists kill themselves, they win!
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Isn’t that the most stupid thing you’ve ever heard?
June 4th, 2007 at 3:05 pmBruce. good points, good points and good points. I am still having trouble with the idea, that despite jihadists declaring war on us in 1998 and the demonstration that they have the desire and ability to attack us at home, we have had 6 years free of domestic terrorism (that many in 2001 would have considered remarkable). With that situation, what is the reluctance for progressives to even consider that the war in Iraq could be a diversion (at least temporarily) that consumes jihadists attention and resources that otherwised would be focused upon us at home?
June 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pmCaptainMantastic
Nope. Nor can you have a war on drugs, prostitution, immorality, bad breath… Its all just tired sloganeering.
You can act to reduce drug addiction, to get rid of prostitution, put across that being a horses ass is a bad thing, and brush your teeth, but declaring “war” on it is just propaganda.
Its the same with pollution, unless we are going to bomb Exxon I don’t think it apropriate to say we have a war on there.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pmCaptChildtastic,
Who said the warrantless wiretaps were only against terrorist suspects? FISA would have covered that just fine. No, the reason for warrantless wiretaps meant they wanted to eavesdrop on whomever they pleased whereever they were. Why not Dean, Gore, Clinton, and others?
The US Attorney scandal proves that this WH has been obsessed with loyalty, voter suppression, and “liberals”. This admin has said “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.” I don’t think that was mere rhetoric. These guys believe it. And they think liberal democrats are EVIL.
Torture is evil. And I think these guys do get a kick out of torturing people. Come on. Just read the posts from their supporters here. These guys take delight in describing pain and suffering; and they seem to get a rush if it happens with a denial of due process. Torture reveals a lack of good intelligence and a failure to understand “Why they hate us”.
Torture also is counterproductive, but there’s no point in telling a neo-con that. Neo-cons are True Believers. They believe that they’re saving souls for New Jerusalem. They don’t think much of the human body, it’s the eternal soul that counts for them. And the Muslims are the followers of the AntiChrist. Don’t expect any human sense from these people.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:10 pmYou understand what ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ means, yes?
Besides, I’m not desperate to make a silk purse out of Operation Sow’s Ear. Perhaps that has something to do with my not touting the imaginary effects of Bush doctrine.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pmCaptainMantastic
Clinton only had the one attack on American soil by Jihadist elements. The rest were overseas.
Anyway, that you aren’t getting hit at home may be because they are busy isolating you from your allies. Even the UK isn’t as enthusiatic as it was before in this war.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pmEveryone tells you that torture is unproductive. Strange that the practice has survived thousands of years of failure.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pmThe French just elected a pro-American President. I don’t believe this issue is as black and white as many here want to believe.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:20 pmEveryone tells you that torture is unproductive. Strange that the practice has survived thousands of years of failure.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
It survived because torture is not there to gain information. People are, down at the heart of them, vengeful beings who desire to hurt those who hurt us. Torture is not born of the need for information, it is born of the need to punish.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:26 pmCaptainMantastic sez:
That’s not entirely accurate, CM.
Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting intelligence. It is, however, a marvelously reliable means of extracting confessions, real or otherwise.
Torture a man long enough, and he’ll tell you whatever you want to hear.
In the hands of this corrupt and criminal administration, torture (or “enhanced interrogation techniques”, as the neocons call it, as did their predecessors, the Nazis) is a terrorist generator. Given the fact that this administration built its power upon fear of terrorism, such a generator is valuable indeed.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pmThe French just elected a pro-American President. I don’t believe this issue is as black and white as many here want to believe. Comment by CaptainMantastic — June 4, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
A Pro-American president that believes in Global Warming, and would be called a “moobat” by you “wingnuts” if he ran in the US…
If you can’t have a war on terror, can you still have a war on poverty? Comment by CaptainMantastic — June 4, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Terrorism has increased worldwide from your “war-on-terror”, whereas poverty has decreased in the US from our “war-on-poverty”. So yeah, one is working, the other is failing.
Maybe that’s because we aren’t torturing people in the “war-on-poverty”, and people are smart enough to not take the “metaphor” seriously? You’re a dum bass.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pmEveryone tells you that torture is unproductive. Strange that the practice has survived thousands of years of failure. Comment by CaptainMantastic — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
That’s because every generation breeds sick perverts like you, that get off on *torture* from your own f*cked pathology. The reason you “torture” isn’t because you want reliable information, it’s so you’ll feel “empowered” and can deal with your insecurity in a way that acts out. It’s no different than a gangbanger that goes out and randomly shoots someone. It’s not because it brings him “peace”, it’s because he’s insecure and crazy – LIKE YOU – Dum bass!
June 4th, 2007 at 3:29 pmCaptainMantastic
A pro-American president who was very careful around his phrasing over America’s enviromental policies and Iraq (I followed the election somewhat.) I wouldn’t take Sarkozy’s support for granted, I don’t think he is as pro-American as all that.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:29 pmThis was a kid under 18 a person must be 18 to join the millitary and fight overseas (17 to join with parental permission). Therefore I think he should have been given some consideration because of his age. Anyone under 18 is classified as a child and should be treated as suxh.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:55 pmHe was a child under 18 and a person needs to be 18 to fight overseas and 17 to join the millitary (with psrents permission) enough said.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:56 pmget off on *torture* from your own f*cked pathology.
it’s because he’s insecure and crazy – LIKE YOU – Dum bass!
Valiant. just so you know, after reading some of Bruce Gorton’s posts, I have had to reconsider some of my positions. But, not everyone can have the same command of the information as Mr. Gorton. you should probably stick to the profanity and condescension.
June 4th, 2007 at 7:19 pmThe real problem with torture is that it is counterproductive. All tortured prisoners will “confess”. This requires the torturers to check statements made under torture with intelligence gathered legitimately. The tortured prisoner will say whatever the torturer wants to hear. This confirms deluded positions of a paranoid administration. And torture punishes the innocent and guilty alike -as the method of interrogation is punishing. One only has to read stories by those tortured to know that this method is both self-serving and terrorism itself.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:21 pmDo you actually think that Al-Queda is only capable of
putting out misinformation ?
You must be nieve if so. This gent ain’t going nowhere !
June 4th, 2007 at 9:58 pmNo, torture must work. Torture was necessary to reveal and eliminate the scourge of Europe that was witchcraft, after all. And you don’t see any witches running around today, do you? The results speak for themselves. After all, if torture didn’t reveal those who were true witches then the Church wouldn’t have employed it, right?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:08 am