ViperPilot

The CIA and NSA report to Congress, the Natl Sec Advisor and the president. Who they report to is not the point. What is the point is that you argue that Bush personally and purposely directed the compiling of bogus intel. I asked for proof of that, and instead you just ignored my request and posted something that has nothing to do with the question/request on hand. Again, show me proof that Bush personally and purposely directed the CIA to compile bad intel, and I'll believe you. But until then, your baseless accusations hold no water. Well, I don't think you can call me naive just because I had a request that you can't fulfill, and thus avoided it all together. Making baseless accusations is naive.

Conditions b,c, and d were NOT filled. Therefore they are not legally considered EPWs/POWs, per the GC. That's what I was getting at. Yes the GC does give the benefit of a doubt to the prisoners, but since these detainees are not legally held under the GC, nothing in the GC applies to them. That should be agreed on. A sound argument here would be a moral-based one. The portion of the GC I pasted 100% proves that how they are held is indeed legal. However, is it morally correct? That's a better question to ask.

hahahahahahahaha....oh man, that's a good one.

It may not be right, but try to tell a company owner that he has to spend tons more money to keep the jobs in America and while he's at it, he has to raise the prices of his product quite a lot. Thus, he will actually make less because less consumers will buy his products. The process may not be fair, but what business owner in their right mind would say, "sure, I'll take a huge economic dive." Just by human nature, that mindset will never happen.

Interesting, but I looked further... Article 4 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. So, looking further, they do not meet criteria number one, as they are not members of one of the Party's armed forces. They also do not meet criteria number two because they do not meet sub-criterias b, c, and d. Thusly, under full legalities of the Geneva Convention, they are not legally EPWs/POWs. So, legally they can be held as they are now because they do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention; wether that is morally right or not is a separate argument, but it is definitly legal. It is plainly seen above in Article 4 that there has been no breaking of the Geneva Convention by the US.

so you know more about the chain of command than a member of the military...well isn't that rich. You need to understand that the US is designed to be a weak federal system. We have weak branhes of govt; they only can function strongly together. The govt is split into numerous entities so that we have what is called checks and balances. The president does not control the CIA, Supreme Court, NSA, FBI, State Dept, Health Dept, etc. He can provide directives, but does not run them (i.e. make intel reports). If he did, we'd be an autocracy and not a democracy. The CIA may ultimately work for the president, but that does not mean the president rules over them with an iron fist. Now, if you think Bush told the CIA to produce bogus intel reports, then provide proof and I'll believe you, that's all I'm saying.

Yeah seriously. Not that prisoners don't deserve humane treatment, but why do some people seem to care more about the well being of terrorists than they do of the innocent contracters?

Hey, you can conspiracy theorize all you want, but until you have proof that Bush personally, and purposely, directed the compiling of bad intel... Show me proof and I will believe you.

I'm not condoning this action, but outsourcing does create much lower prices for us, the consumers. It's much cheeper for companies to produce in a foreign country and then import to the US than it is to produce in the US. Thus, if they produced in the US, we'd all be paying tons more money for everyday products. However, they need to find a solution which makes it cheaper to produce in the US so it won't kill the consumer's wallet and not rob Americans of jobs. They really need to find that solution.

Bush and his cabinet have no say on what the CIA/NSA compile in their briefs, files, etc. The president in fact has very little power, our system is set up that way. The CIA/NSA act independent of the White House. They just provide intel on situations when asked (in addition to the standard "morning briefs"). However, the fact that Bush asked for intel on Iraq...even if he asked specifically for intel on WMDs in Iraq, it doesn't matter b/c at that point in time, it was the CIA's fault for distributing intel to Bush and his cabinet that said WMDs were indeed present. Bush did not make or direct that intel; he asked for it, and received it. What was in it was 100% up to the CIA, not Bush or any other cabinet member.

Oh, well sheer laziness is why that's not there...but hey, I can do that right now if it really really makes you happy! Ok, so I put in my info as best I can while still feeling comfortable on the net. Well now you know. I don't have 1600 jumps, but that doesn't mean shit when it comes to discussing politics, world events, etc. I'm not here on the boards, at least for a long time, to offer advice on skydiving. I'm the one who needs the advice on skydiving, but I do have the experience and capability to discuss controversial issues. So, don't write people off when discussing things that have nothing to do with skydiving. Remember, you don't even need to be a skydiver to have experience with politics or any other controversial topics.

How many times must people be told and presented with obvious fact that there were hundreds of other people who supported the decision to use force against Saddam based on that intel. Seriously, how many times? But perhaps witch hunts are just more fun, eh?

I'm very interested in measuring opinions. You are correct, I looked at it closer and the 20% term is too subjective. I apologize for this error and would change the wording if I knew how...can you even edit that stuff? If I find out, I'll edit the wording to be more objective. Thanks for pointing that out.

I wouldn't doubt there are innocent people there. That's unfortunate and I do hope their situations are cleared up immediately. However, you are misled to think that we just round up hundreds of people simply because of their religion, creed, etc. There is reasoning behind each one. There is evidence against them, or they were caught in the act of planning a terrorist act, or something along those lines. I'm sure there are some there that are there simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's unfortunate and I hope they are freed quickly, but to say we just arrest people because they're muslim is ludicrous. Probably, but that goes both ways. You think you know all about how the war is in Iraq, you have no idea. Do Americans behead people? No. Do we have total disregard for unarmed civilians? No. Do we purposely kidnap and murder civilians? No. But, you wouldn't really know about this stuff because its too easy to claim the American military are the sadistic ones. Until you see a little girl's head chopped off by a machete, you'll keep thinking that way. But many of us know it is the terrorists who are the sadistic scumbags plaguing this earth, not the military. So yes, much more shit goes down than you know, but it's not from us, it's coming from the terrorists.

I suppose it's obvious from my other posts that I tend to lean Republican (although I do agree with Democrats on some issues), but even I was pissed when I saw this. I think that was a bad decision, shame on those Republican judges for this. It's complete BS that this could happen in America. I understand the purpose for eminent domain, but it shouldn't go so far as to allow local governments to let Walmart tear your house down.

Well, can they really be labeled as EPWs when they do not wear a uniform, do not answer to a recognized military organization, and sell fruit by day, but shoot at soldiers by night? These insurgents are nothing more than vigilantes. So, isn't the current Administration correct in saying that they are not EPWs? If they do not meet the criteria listed above, then by law they ARE NOT EPWs. Am I missing something?

I agree. Terror is not a finite thing that we can wipe out. Well it ever be wiped out by us, no. But, that doesn't mean the war isn't worth fighting. Should we stop the war on drugs and just let drugs run rampant through our society and destroy lives? I think the answer is no. Even though both of these are causes that will almost certainly never totally end, they are still just. There was never any question that the primary mission was to end Saddam's threat. It's just that part of his threat included his arsenal of WMDs and materials to make WMDs. So I guess you could just say they're both one in the same. Well the original reason to go to war also included protecting America. In this situation, this is done by spreading democracy, freeing opressed people, etc. The more democracies in the world, the more free people there are, the safter the world will be. We will still never be completely safe, but definitely safer with more democracies, especially with the presence of one in a country like Iraq. Thus, these are really not revisions since protecting America and its interests was in the original reason/plan. Well this is true, the insurgents are getting more creative with explosives. However, I don't think we can simply just say, lets just leave Iraq a mess with a dictator in charge because if we go in, there's a chance we might help a few scumbags get a little more creative. But something you have to realize is, we're always steps ahead of them. They may get creative with a remote detonator, but we'll get more creative to combat that and kill the guy with the cell phone in his hand.

Bill, I replied to your post in the other one I just made...I took lawrocket's advice and actually made it a poll. So, go to that one. Thanks!

I defintely agree that torturing is for people like Saddam. And for those soldiers, CIA members, etc. who have truly tortured someone at Gitmo, shame on them. They deserve just punishment for that. But, because some people have been out of line, does that mean that the entire Gitmo operation is out of line? That's kind of what I'm trying to get at. I want to know if people think the whole thing is just completely out of line and all the prisoners should be set free, or if people think it just needs to be fixed, i.e. punishing those who torture and take better steps to prevent such behavior.

I had to repost this as an actual poll, not just a text thread, sorry. It is fact that the media (not all, but a good amount) has been bashing Guantanamo as a terrible place that tortures people. They condemn it like it's popular. But how popular is their opinion? A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 20% of Americans believe prisoners are treated unfairly, while 70% think Gitmo is fine. Even 36% of that believe the prisoners there are treated better than they deserve. So, what's your opinion on Gitmo? Was Amnesty International correct in calling Gitmo "the gulag of our time," was Senator Durbin in line when he compared the US military (specifically at Gitmo) to Nazis and Pol Pot? I'd like to see how the results of this poll line up on DZ.com. (poll edited at original poster's request)

Good point...I'll repost it as a poll. Everyone, to the new post!!!

Nope, we do not elect the electors. They are submitted in a list to the state's chief election official. Now, if the electors "choose" the president based on what the people voted, then how is it that the people aren't choosing the president? The electors can be viewed as merely a middle man. For instance, you give your friend some money to go buy you a coke. He brings you back the coke so you can drink it. Did you not buy the coke? Sure your friend could have said screw you and bought you a sprite instead, but he didn't. The point is, you bought the coke, it was your money. Your above arguments would say that your friend bought the coke, even though it was your money, and he did it for you. Well that's as simple of an analogy as I can make, hope this helps you understand our process better.

DON'T post on this thread, go to the other one entitled "LOOK AT THIS ONE: Gitmo Poll"

Well said.

I know, I competely agree. Just sometimes there are those people you just really want to "have a talk with." I just really dislike such ungrateful people.