What is the law of the land in Iraq?

I was wondering that, too. IIRC the US did not sign all of the Geneva Convention treaties, nor did the US recognize the International Criminal Court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1970312.stm


Little did we know, this would save our mercenaries from prosecution for murder...

 

Apparently, as a contractor, it is next to impossible to sue them in an American court, and the Justice Department has no plans to prosecute the guy for murder.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099954/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098571/
.
.
.
Moreover, while the Justice Department has jurisdiction to prosecute military contractors for actions overseas under a 2000 law, it may decline to do so as a result of limited resources and the fact that there is no U.S. attorney's office (yet) established in Iraq to govern U.S. civilian activities there
.
.
.

 

Woofer, you need to take your moronic antiAmerican ideas far away from this great land which has great men and women serving and dying for it. You need to get as far away from red blooded Americans as you can because one day you might not be so fortunate as to have a fighting force to defend idiots like you. Mercenaries? Give me a break. Take your communist ideas to another part of the world.

 

woofer I bet you kick puppies too!

 

No, but I'm sure we can find people to eat puppies and not leave any scraps for waste.



Funny that you should say that UT, because our own military investigators called those acts *murder*. So by repeating what they said does that make our own military more antiAmerican(sic) than me?

 

After actually reading the report I find our own army accuses the jailers at Abu Ghirab of not providing habeas corpus - innocent civilians are held indefinitely due to bad paperwork and recordkeeping and over half of those incarcerated there are not a threat to society (- because jeez, they might squeal on us)



If that's not antiAmerican, I'm not sure what is. Even Rumsfeld is finally calling it that. Is he antiAmerican, too?

 

Why are the liberals more concerned about defending the rights of terrorists and insurgents who are trying to kill *our* troops than they are about ensuring a safe Iraq for US troops?

...the depths to which liberals will stoop to smear the Administration.... It's gross.

 

a.) What part of innocent and no threat to anyone did you not understand
b.) I guess the army is full of liberals, since the army *wrote* that report
c.) Bush and Rumsfeld have come around and condemned those who's actions are memorialized in those pictures, they must be the biggest liberals of them all.

 

Why are you seemingly unconcerned about the honor or our troops, the good name of our Country, and it's armed forces, and principles for which we were fighting fo... Principles that were supposed to set us apart from Saddam?

I have almost every liberal on this board voice their negative feeling towards Saddam, and their support for our soldiers. I have yet seen you say one bad word about the torture and murders carried out by U.S. troops and 'civil contractors' while supposedly serving in our name and best interests.

 

An honest question for the liberals:

Do you think that the methods of interrogations being used at Abu Grhaib would be considered wrong if they were used on Khalid Shaik Mohammed? What about Mohammed Atta, were he still alive?

I personally think they are acceptable in these situations, and in other situations where the United States can save the lives of many if they torture or humiliate a few.

 

Yes, the methods used at that prison would be wrong if used on Khalid, Atta, or anybody else.

There are other ways to get prisoners to talk. Again it's been pointed out that many of those tortured and humiliated had no knoweledge of anything.

I think things like principles, values, freedom, justice etc. are actually more important than life. If you sell every value the United States stands for up the river, then the lives you save aren't worth their weight in salt. To get rid of a tortuous tyrant, only to become one yourself does nothing.

But I also think that your question is flawed. I don't believe in the end it actually saves lives. Saddam may have saved his own life for a time by torturing and imprisoning others. He, certainly thought that these strong arm tactics would save him. For awhile they did, but in the end look at the lives they cost. He's gone, his sons are dead, thousands have been killed, and now more people are being tortured and we are losing lives too. The increased anger caused by our injustice will only fuel more violence against our troops, and any of our troops captured can now expect the worst possible treatment. These kinds of action may appear to save some lives, but in the end they cost lives, they cost dignity, they cost integrity and they cost honor.

Some of the signs at the protest In Iraq in front of the prison today read 'You have left a bad impression of America and Christianity.'

That is no way for to spread democracy across the middle east. In fact it sets back that cause by leaps and bounds. That too may end up costing lives, and cost people their freedoms.

 

Like what? Name them and document their superior effectiveness over these methods.

 

Do you what it is to be American? By what you call Un-American I have serious doubts. Do you have any idea of the principles this country of great men and women was founded on? Others have pointed out that the report which has everyone so upset is from our armed forces. GW Bush has said he was disgusted by what happened, yet you claim that Woofer is being un-American.

What is un-American is you criticizing anybody who speaks out against what they see as detrimental to American values such as freedom, justice, and the truth.

You have shown a lack of almost everything that is American. The fact that you served in the armed forces doesn't make you understand more about what it means to be American than anyone else.

 

I can only say what intel folks have been saying all along. Loud annoying music constantly, solitary confinement, etc.

The are superior because tortured people will say anything, whether it's accurate or not to get the torture to stop.

 

This is what really strikes me as wrong. Several liberals have been on talk shows recently, including Hillary Clinton, second guessing the interrogation methods of the CIA and our troops. I find this ridiculous. No politician should be telling our troops how to do their job. No politician is in the trenches, fighting this war on the front lines, and seeing what it takes against this enemy. No politician is dodging bullets, discovering land mines, or fending off ambushes. No politician is in charge of guarding a group of Iraqis who just murdered their fellow comrads. No one can understand the pressures of guarding the worst of the worst under these conditions. This is why I am hesitant to condemn their torture. For a politician to think that they are in a better position to say what it takes to interrogate people is absurd.

 

I wasn't referring to politicians, but to CIA folk, and military intel people who say there are other ways to get them to talk.

I do understand the pressures to get results, and find answers. I do believe that's what lead to the torture, but that doesn't make it excusable or justified. It has nothing to do with what politicians say, or even what intel people say. It has to do with the principles of freedom, and democracy, and justice.

 

Yeah those commies Bush and Rumsfeld really make me sick too.

 

Why do you even bother changing screen names? Are you trying to preserve your reputation in the Hangout by not using the same moniker in D&D?

 

I only post under one name.