That is neither just, fair, right, ethical, or American. You should be ashamed of yourself if you are defending the treatment of detainees to this point. Because of attitudes like that, the Islamic world is ready and willing to kill us because of the treatment of detainees.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that we should ignore international law?
Please read the proper treatment of prisoners by Islamic law.


Prisoners of War
The historical legal principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war, in shar'iah, Islamic law, (in the traditional madhabs schools of Islamic jurisprudence), closely mirror the pre-existing norms of society during Muhammad's time[citation needed]. Men, women, and children may all be taken as prisoners of war under traditional interpretations of Islamic law. Generally, a prisoner of war could be (at the discretion of the military leader): freed, enslaved for the purposes of labor, or sold on the slave market. Female prisoners may be enslaved as Ma malakat aymanukum. In earlier times, the ransom sometimes took an educational dimension, where a literate prisoner of war could secure his or her freedom by teaching ten Muslims to read and write.
Muslim scholars have traditionally held that women and children prisoners of war cannot be killed under any circumstances, but that they may be freed, ransomed, or enslaved. However, there has been disagreement whether adult male prisoners of war must be executed, must not be executed, or may be executed at the discretion of the appropriate authority:
One traditional opinion holds that executing prisoners of war is strictly forbidden; this is the most-widely accepted view, and one upheld by the Hanafi Maddhab. However, the opinion of the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari Maddhabs is that adult male prisoners of war may be executed at the discretion of the Islamic supreme leader, or those legally deputized by him.[citation needed] Conventionally, execution was conditional on the reasonable belief that male prisoners would pose a genuine and immediate threat to the Muslim community if allowed to live. This opinion was also upheld by the medieval Muslim judge, Sa'id bin Jubair (665-714 AD). Taken together, these two views account for virtually all reputable Islamic scholarship that has consider the issue.
The above facts are attested to by a number of scholarly sources coming from medieval and modern, Muslim and non-Muslim sources:
Imam Shafi, said the Imam (supreme leader of the Muslims) is given the choice of killing the prisoners, showing them mercy, ransoming them or keeping them in bondage. This issue has been confirmed and has been proven in our book 'Al Ahkam.' (Tafsir of the Qur'an by Ibn Kathir [4])
Slavery was not abolished by the Koran, but ... only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim. (Annemarie Schimmel. Islam: An Introduction. Albani: State University of New York Press, 1992, p. 67)
Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. (People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted dhimma.) Captives might also be given the choice between Islam and death, or they might pronounce the confession of faith of their own accord to avoid execution: jurists ruled that their change of status was to be accepted even though they had only converted out of fear. Women and children captured in the course of the campaigns were usually enslaved, again regardless of their faith. Nor should the importance of captives be underestimated. Muslim warriors routinely took large numbers of them. Leaving aside those who converted to avoid execution, some were ransomed and the rest enslaved, usually for domestic use. (Patricia Crone. God’s Rule: Government and Islam. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004, pp. 371-72)
It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them [male POWs] humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle. (Roger DuPasquier. Unveiling Islam. Islamic Texts Society, 1992, p. 104)
According to the Qur'an a woman who has been captured by force falls in the category of a slave girl (kaniz). And because the Qur'an confines the use of force to the fighting (qital) in the way of God, thus according to the Qur'an a slave girl is that woman who falls in the hands of Muslims as a prisoner during the course of war waged in the way of God. (Maulana Maududi, Rasa'il wa Masa'il 3rd edition, Vol. III, p.102).
"There is no limit to their [slave-girls under custody of one person] numbers...This, however, does not mean that the Divine Law has provided the rich an opportunity to purchase as many slave-girls as they like for their carnal indulgence...the Shariah has allowed only that the women captured in war and whose people do not exchange them for Muslim prisoners or do not ransom them, may be kept as slave-girls...If these have been made a means of sexual enjoyment and luxury by the rich, it is they who are to blame and not the Shariah. (Tafsir of the Qur'an by Maulana Maududi, Vol. IV, exegesis of verse 33:52).
...that one can even...finish off the wounded, or kill prisoners who might prove dangerous to the Muslims...As for the prisoners who are led before the imam, the latter has the choice, as he pleases, of executing them, or making them pay a ransom, for the most advantageous choice for the Muslims and the wisest of Islam. The ransom imposed upon them is not to consist either of gold, silver, or wares, but is only in exchange for Muslim captives... As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. ('Abu Yusuf Ya'qub Le Livre de l'impot foncier,' translated from Arabic and annotated by Edmond Fagnan, Paris, Paul Geuthner, 1991, pages 301-302) Abu Yusuf (d. 798 CE) was a classical jurists from the Hanafi school of jurispudence).
The above discussion on the matter of prisoners of war in Islam concerns the traditional practices and opinions of Muslim warriors and Muslim scholars. Certain Muslims, such as those who reject the hadith literature in its entirely (e.g. Qur'an Aloners) or liberal Muslims may not necessarily agree with the traditional interpretations of Islamic law in general, and Islamic laws concerning prisoners of war in particular. It should furthermore be noted that some militant Islamist movements do in fact agree with the traditional interpretations. For such mujahideen movements, the execution of prisoners of war is a powerful political weapon (particularly in asymmetric warfare), while the ransoming and enslaving of prisoners of wars is a lucrative source of funding for their militant movements as well as a source of personal pleasure. Armed Islamic conflicts in Chechnya and the Sudan, in particular, have in recent times gained international condemnation for kidnapping and ransom schemes and for the international crime of human trafficking.
According to accounts written by Muhammad's followers, after the Battle of Badr, some prisoners were executed for their earlier crimes in Mecca, but the rest were given options: They could convert to Islam and thus win their freedom; they could pay ransom and win their freedom; they could teach 10 Muslims to read and write and thus win their freedom [5]. William Muir wrote of this period:

Should we follow their laws to be more fair?

In every country I lived in they all believed their county was the best in the world

Then you have not lived in the same European countries as me. What basically divides Europeans and Americans is that very few Europeans today actually believe that their country is "the best in the world" (with the possible exception of the French). Many European nations have enough shameful incidents in their past to make the very idea of living in "the best country in the world" inherently ridiculous.

No, what truly differentiates most Europeans from most Americans is that, nowadays, the very notion of claiming to live in the "best country in the world" seems to most Europeans to be not legitimate patriotism, but an extraordinarily childish kind of boastfulness, on a par with the playground "My dad can beat up your dad." Most Europeans like to think that they're a tad more sophisticated than that - and usually they are.

Now, maybe America is 'hated' in some parts of the world, but I can assure you that most Europeans do not hate America. They mostly just feel superior to America in a fairly condescending way - no more and no less than an exact mirror image of most American right-wingers view of Europeans.

Actually, you sound exactly like the kind of American who spent time in Europe without ever really trying to find out what the local culture was all about (convinced as you were in advance of your inherent American 'superiority'). What a sad waste of a potential learning experience.

"We projected a bad image to the Japanese so they attacked us."

Wrong.

"Should we follow their laws to be more fair?"

No we should follow a law, seperation of powers, checks and balances. When the executive branch has no law governing the treatment of certain individuals, then the legislative branch comes up with one, if not, then you can clearly see what happens when human psychology at the soldier level comes into play when there are no rules in the treatment of people. My point is that the damage was already done, and continues to be done, because of people who argue that there is no right and wrong, no ethics whatsoever when it comes to the treatment of these people. Since there are no laws, they are held indefinetly. What is to say that if this war goes on 25 years, or longer they won't be held until then. Nothing certainly no law. Well that's unethical, especially when you consider the fact that some of the capture are not affiliated with any terrorist group or action whatsoever, or even perhaps Muslim, or a an alien, but an American citizen. The rule makes no distinction because there is no rule.

It doesn't have to be the geneva convention, this is the first time I've mentioned geneva convention, so for you to say I'm insisting on that, is wrong, stop the twisting, what I'm saying is specifically there should be some measure of law guiding basic treatment of detainees, because it is the right thing to do.

On how Americans think of the rest of the world
"but an extraordinarily childish kind of boastfulness,"
"My dad can beat up your dad."

I agree in part that this is what a lot of Americans suffer from, in my opinion. Its more subconscious then conscious but it's there.

The "war no terror" is a propaganda name, this has never been the "war on evil" is not the psychological similarity of "war on drugs" or "war on poverty" its always been about elminating the terrorists who would kill us for no reason, elminating their strongholds, and working with the other countries of the world towards that goal.

A large perhaps majority of fundamentalists, have been captured or killed, and beyond that, their ideology hasn't caught on in any meaningful way in the Islamic world, sure there are a few nutbags, Iran's leader, Hezbollah, most of these guys are working towards their own agendas not cooperating together to rid the world of democracy. AQ is and only ever were the ones interested in luring the United States into a war against Islam, that has failed to happen.

If there were a true war on Islam, and any Islamic countries, the entire globe would be embroilled into a conflict very similar to WW2, nobody can make that claim that we are in the same type of thing today. Similar, yes, but all wars are similar, people die, resources are wasted, conflict occurs, suffering, refugees. Islam will come out of this war surviving and perhaps even thriving unless we take the route of attacking not just the extremists, but all Muslims, and that is a war we can never win.

Chakgogka wrote: Now, maybe America is 'hated' in some parts of the world, but I can assure you that most Europeans do not hate America. They mostly just feel superior to America in a fairly condescending way - no more and no less than an exact mirror image of most American right-wingers view of Europeans.

If you live with them long enough you will hear it come out first as you have written above. When they get to know you better they tend to in the same condecending way inform you that you are wrong to believe your country is good and when drunk they let slip how their country is better because of "x".

France is the most liberal and accepting country I have lived in. They are also the most racist I have ever seen. They make 1950 era rednecks look like Hillary Clinton.

Actually, you sound exactly like the kind of American who spent time in Europe without ever really trying to find out what the local culture was all about (convinced as you were in advance of your inherent American 'superiority'). What a sad waste of a potential learning experience.

Close except for the preconcieved ideas about Europe. Most of my family had spent time in Europe between collage and joining the the work force. I heard nothing but good things about Europe and my aunt thought France was the greatest place in the world. In context that was after WWII in the 1950's I went in the 70's and 80's I was disillusioned and shocked at the hate I saw there. Since my job at the time had me under different passports of several nations including Cuba most had no idea I was American. In a lot of cases it would have been safer for me if they knew I was America. NO I WAS NOT A SPY for the CIA.

Mr. Greene wrote: No we should follow a law, seperation of powers, checks and balances. When the executive branch has no law governing the treatment of certain individuals, then the legislative branch comes up with one, if not, then you can clearly see what happens when human psychology at the soldier level comes into play when there are no rules in the treatment of people. My point is that the damage was already done, and continues to be done, because of people who argue that there is no right and wrong, no ethics whatsoever when it comes to the treatment of these people. Since there are no laws, they are held indefinetly. What is to say that if this war goes on 25 years, or longer they won't be held until then. Nothing certainly no law. Well that's unethical, especially when you consider the fact that some of the capture are not affiliated with any terrorist group or action whatsoever, or even perhaps Muslim, or a an alien, but an American citizen. The rule makes no distinction because there is no rule.

It is very strange that the reason why we are being accused of torturing people in our own press is because the President asked what was legal and what was not in handling detainees. Then you say that we should have laws to govern the conduct of our troops. There are laws that do that. If you were not so stuck on ignorance you would have easily found out that there is a code of conduct for our military. UCMJ Uniform Code for Military Justice; Torture is one of the things we are forbidden to do under penalty of courts marshal with a maximum penalty of death!

This is what the psychology at the soldier level is.
893. ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Does this sound ambiguous, vague or even hint at being vague? There is another article of the UCMJ that says we are only authorized to follow LAWFUL ORDERS, this means that if the president himself orders us to torture someone it is not lawful and we have to refuse or go to jail. In fact we are by law required to arrest the person giving the unlawful order or at the very least report that person up the chain of command, and we are required to follow up on it and learn the out come. I know that it ruins your rant on how mean we are to people but that is the law. It has been a law since 1953 or there abouts. It even dictates the type of sex we are allowed to have while in the military. You as a civilian can get a six pack of beer and a bail of hay then settle down with your favorite pony and nothing will happen to you. If a military person does the same thing they get 7 years in prison. Sex with anyone under the age of 16 no matter what the legal age is where you are will get you 10 years in prison. In america if a woman claims rape the person gets a maximum number of years in prison, in the military the person can be hung by the neck until dead.
We get classes on the UCMJ before you get out of basic training and at least once a year after boot camp on the UCMJ; it is mandatory by military as well as federal law.

The laws on detaining prisoners has not changed since before WWII. You say it is unethical but those are the international laws we have to follow. As peoples stories have been vetted they have been released. If the war lasts 25 years as you and the President both have suggested (The President suggested it before we went to war) then that is how long they will be held. Most people with any brains will not walk around in civilian clothes shooting at our forces on a battle field if he is not part of the bad guys. It is clear that in order to get rounded up and sent to Gtmo you have to be seen shooting at our troops and live to tell about it.

Mr. Greene, I understand that you truly believe the crap you write, but it is clear you have no knowledge of how the military works, or the laws already in place for the military. Look up the UCMJ it shows all the laws the military must follow in addition to federal, state, and local laws, plus the laws of any host nation. I just did and it took less than a minute to do. I was proud to see that I remembered which article covered maltreatment even after being out of the Marines for almost 20 years. Give us all a break and learn something other than hate blogs, hate radio and news papers that want you to believe lies against your own country and the people that serve that country.

If there were a true war on Islam, and any Islamic countries, the entire globe would be embroilled into a conflict very similar to WW2, nobody can make that claim that we are in the same type of thing today. Similar, yes, but all wars are similar, people die, resources are wasted, conflict occurs, suffering, refugees. Islam will come out of this war surviving and perhaps even thriving unless we take the route of attacking not just the extremists, but all Muslims, and that is a war we can never win.

Mr. Greene, I totally agree with you on this. Thankfully we are not at war with Islam.

I wonder why, if an American hates people from other countries they are "bigots", but if people from other countries hate Americans, it's ok.

They lack objectivity as with most people. For example when I visited Ireland, friends wanted to know why I lived in such a violent country. Being from New York I just looked at them and smiled. It is the price you pay for living there, I told them. It would have been rude of me to point out that the IRA had been killing people for over 100 years. Or that London was the first city I had ever been to that had metal detectors built into the door way of almost every store, and CCTV cameras watched every move a person made within seven miles of the city.

"Mr. Greene, I totally agree with you on this. Thankfully we are not at war with Islam."

Some would disagree with you on that. I'll say we are not at war with Islam as a whole yet, not unless we allow those would see to it that way, that we become at war with the entirety of Islam, If that becomes so then that is a war we cannot win.

Regarding the treatment of detainees. It isn't so much the military mistreating them overseas, not today. It was at the prison, where they didn't have specific guidlines for extraction of information, yet they still held the UCMJ. My point is, these detainees have no rights, no legal councel, they can be discharged from military custody to CIA or even foreign operatives and operations, do they all follow the UCMJ? No. They also don't all follow the geneva convention. Or any convention, of treatment. For us to perform acts of torture is wrong, was wrong, and it has damaged the world opinion of our country, not just by Muslims but all peoples of all faiths, as well it should have.

We needed to take responsibility for that, and not allow that to happen again. Yet, detainees can still disappear for months, years, again no legal councel, no charges ever brough against them, just to be held against their will, right or wrong, unknowable because no trial is held, indefinetly. That is both unethical and morally bankrupt, and honestly no American would want to be treated that way. I know we don't need to hold the standard of Americanism to everything but we would expect our POW's in a war to be treated like that, and so rather then keep support in the Muslim world on our side of the battle, at least a percentage, we've yielded it away to the terrorists, those who would and will do us harm.

Regarding the treatment of detainees. It isn't so much the military mistreating them overseas, not today. It was at the prison, where they didn't have specific guidlines for extraction of information, yet they still held the UCMJ. My point is, these detainees have no rights, no legal councel, they can be discharged from military custody to CIA or even foreign operatives and operations, do they all follow the UCMJ? No. They also don't all follow the geneva convention. Or any convention, of treatment. For us to perform acts of torture is wrong, was wrong, and it has damaged the world opinion of our country, not just by Muslims but all peoples of all faiths, as well it should have.

What has damaged us is the media printing rumors of torture as fact. When you say torture it is assumed it is government sanctioned. When you have individules screwing around it is another story. Not even the CIA tortures people. (Still against the law.)Foreign operatives can torture people but they can't work for the US while doing it. Again that pesky law from back in 1975. Detainees don't need legal councel because they were caught on a battle field and the laws on that are very simple. In uniform you have rights out of uniform you have no rights. International law not US law. As the captors we are required to follow laws and guidlines for their treatment which we have been doing since the beginning.

Now, do people break the law? Yes! Are they prosecuted if they are caught? YES! What more do you want the Government to do? The UCMJ was written by Congress and covers all federal employees in a war zone. Has anyone proven a single case of the US torturing anyone? I am not aware of any give me something to work with other than that torture is bad. A stupid argument on your part since the Government has stated more than once that the US does not use torture. To keep our troops from even thinking about torture only law enforcement and intelligence agents are authorized to interrogate prisoners. There are ways to get information out of people without beating them as proven in Gtmo.

We needed to take responsibility for that, and not allow that to happen again. Yet, detainees can still disappear for months, years, again no legal councel, no charges ever brough against them, just to be held against their will, right or wrong, unknowable because no trial is held, indefinetly. That is both unethical and morally bankrupt, and honestly no American would want to be treated that way. I know we don't need to hold the standard of Americanism to everything but we would expect our POW's in a war to be treated like that, and so rather then keep support in the Muslim world on our side of the battle, at least a percentage, we've yielded it away to the terrorists, those who would and will do us harm.

The charge is illegal combatant. It is an international crime, and it is handled strictly by the law. I know you don't read the news papers or watch the news or you would have known that the war is over in Iraq and Almost ALL the POW's have been released. They are not POW's because in order to be a prisoner of war they have to belong to a nation that has declared war, and be in the uniform of that nation. The terrorist belong to no nation, wear no uniforms but get caught on the battle field fighting our troops. The legal term is spy. According to the Geneva Convention they can be shot on sight without a trial. Have you seen any reports of this happening? No! What you see is our people capturing them and locking them up. The people are investigated and if they are not from Iraq they are sent to Gtmo. Iraqis that are caught out of uniform are handed over to the government of Iraq. Where is this horrable treatment you speek of?

"Where is this horrable treatment you speek of?"

Forget it. You are not worth discussing, informing, or debating. The world can only be seen through your eyes, and noone else can have any point or fact which you can accept as being different from you own. So as I've said before grow up.

Forget it. You are not worth discussing, informing, or debating. The world can only be seen through your eyes, and noone else can have any point or fact which you can accept as being different from you own. So as I've said before grow up.

Wow... What a sore loser. You are proved wrong yet you can't except it. You can't argue with him not because he won't listen but because he has beaten you every time but you refuse to accept or contradict with facts his points. All you cry is "torture is bad" but you have yet to prove that torture has taken place.

Paladin77

You have done a great job holding your own. I'm far from being anyone who could give you a hand in this, I'm however surprised not to see anyone else take a crack at silent or greene. Keep up the good work.

Forget it. You are not worth discussing, informing, or debating. The world can only be seen through your eyes, and noone else can have any point or fact which you can accept as being different from you own. So as I've said before grow up.

I can say the same with you. I am asking for situations where we tortured someone and you say forget it. Does this mean you don't have any?

You have done a great job holding your own. I'm far from being anyone who could give you a hand in this, I'm however surprised not to see anyone else take a crack at silent or greene. Keep up the good work.

Mr. C.

Thank you for your kind words.

Silent and Mr. Greene are people that listen to hate speech and like what they hear. It is difficult to reason with them and always easy to tell when they lost they start attacking the people not the topic.

Silent and Mr. Greene are people that listen to hate speech and like what they hear. It is difficult to reason with them and always easy to tell when they lost they start attacking the people not the topic.

Funny, on this side of the fence, it's seems that YOU listenend to hate speech, and drank every lie or "attenuation" americans may have said about what's wrong with what you're doing.

You seem to be closest-minded person on this topic.

I am asking for situations where we tortured someone

Where is this horrable treatment you speek of?

There was the treatment at places like Abu Grhaib.

How about those terrorists we've tortured in order to gain information?

How about Qur'an desecration, that's also torture.

Torture">Link

Granted, as far as I know the AG debacle was dealt with and justice has been served. Still, I've heard precious little about that anymore. Has anyone taken a look at the policies involving torture,etc...? i.e. when to use it, etc...

Can we really justify using torture?

I don't think we can, that's my opinion on it.

According to the constitution the president is the sole person in Government to deal with foregin affairs. Our image is not our responsibility, though we do care when we can. We projected a bad image to the Japanese so they attacked us. Should we have let Japan continue to murder Chinese and Koreans becaue we want to be liked by the Japanese? It went agaist our best interest so we stopped selling them raw materials for war, this made them mad at us. We did nothing against Germany but they declaired war against us anyway. Ok it was a big mistake for Germany.

1. Germany had an agreement with Japan, and Italy. RE: Triparitite Treaty (Link below)

[link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Treaty"]Triparitite Treaty">Link

2. Where does it say so in the constitution?

3. I'm saying (and I apologize, i didn't frame my point the way i intended/meant to), is: Be compassionate. I mean, can we in good conscience - knowing that there are people being murdered/slaughtered, etc.... - just because if we step in, it will not be in our best interests? Specifically, do we take it up, or not, based on morals?

4. Japan was intended on attacking the US even before we pulled resources. We were the biggest threat to their dream of a pacific empire. They'd already man handled most, if not all of the powers in the pacific, others were busy with hitler/mussolini in europe. i.e. Next stop: USA.

Silent and Mr. Greene are people that listen to hate speech and like what they hear. It is difficult to reason with them and always easy to tell when they lost they start attacking the people not the topic.

Pardon...oh fudge it.

WTF!?!?

When did I ever attack you? You just attacked me - you insulted me.

I have never, EVER liked hate speech. None of it. I would be the first to say that the hate speech is - in my opinion - wrong.

However, remember these words, they are ones I live by:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~Voltaire


Plain and simple - you assumed, and made yourself look like foolsih.

From one fool to another (cause i admit i've done it myself):

Bravo, you did well.


~SilentPoet

[link="http://wulfwolf.blogspot.com/"]Wulf & Wolf

Oops, double post - my bad.

Funny, on this side of the fence, it's seems that YOU listenend to hate speech, and drank every lie or "attenuation" americans may have said about what's wrong with what you're doing. You seem to be closest-minded person on this topic.

I will never figure out where people like you get this kind on mentality. It seems to bother you to see someone defend what he believes is true if it contradicts what you believe in.

There was the treatment at places like Abu Grhaib. How about those terrorists we've tortured in order to gain information? How about Qur'an desecration, that's also torture.

Can you prove this was ordered by President Bush or the military or are you talking about the few idiots who were dumb enough to do it knowing the consequences? Cause you can not blame an entire Gov't for the acts of a few stupid people. Like Paladin77 said, there is no proof or no real accusations as to torture happening due to being told to. You talk as if somehow you have proof that not even the Media has. But even worse you talk in general and never actually point to a person or persons involved. As usual swallowing what the Media tells you.

Granted, as far as I know the AG debacle was dealt with and justice has been served. Still, I've heard precious little about that anymore. Has anyone taken a look at the policies involving torture,etc...? i.e. when to use it, etc... Can we really justify using torture? I don't think we can, that's my opinion on it.

How's about you ask those terrorist who do it? How come people like you never point out that the ones actually doing it are the ones that should be condemned? How come you never say how wrong these terrorist are and that they deserve to be punished for what they do? You only care about what the US does as if somehow these terrorist we're just sitting home, having a cup of joe, remembering past times and just enjoying life and it was us who started killing innocent people and we are the true world criminals. Ahhhh, I can't stand this kind of mentality, the people who can ignore to the true criminals to go after those who may not seem to be doing things according to the rules they cry so much about. That's it, continue to make this world a worse place by criticizing those who try to make things better and ignore those who don't give a shit about anything or anyone.

Thank you for your kind words.

No problem. I agree that because of how great this country is, I have to respect the opinions of other people here. That does not mean that makes their opinions right. People in these forums have forgotten what debate is all about. They somehow think that their ideals are absolute and that no one else can be right. That goes for both sides. Even I have agreed with Col gene from time to time, rare but it does happen.

Silent and Mr. Greene are people that listen to hate speech and like what they hear. It is difficult to reason with them and always easy to tell when they lost they start attacking the people not the topic.

They don't understand it when you say hate speech. But it's true, they only listen to all the bad that the US does according to the Media, the Democrats and leaders of countries like Iran, North Korea, France and Germany. But that's OK, let them believe what they wish, after all, it's their right. However, sitting around on a website crying about how bad we are and what are doing wrong will not help their cause. People like them either just sit around and do nothing or just get up, vote for a, in this case, Democrat and then go back to their chairs and let them do the rest. They will never get involved in actually making sure that what they think is wrong is actually changed. They expect others, like the Gov't, to do it for them cause they did enough by voting for them. That's the reason we are where we are today.

I'm ok with Paladin spouting lies, just not lies about what I've said, though I don't even care about that anymore, not because of the perspective, but the way in which you choose to ignore facts and logical conclusions. The fact that you refuse to defend your "facts" or your views, with anything but imaginary facts and opinion, well that's ok too.

"Silent and Mr. Greene are people that listen to hate speech and like what they hear."

Twists of facts like that, and the above are why I've stopped debating or discussing. I wasn't interested in libeling you though clearly you are of me and my words. So I'm not adding anything more to your debate.

Have a good week.

Funny, on this side of the fence, it's seems that YOU listenend to hate speech, and drank every lie or "attenuation" americans may have said about what's wrong with what you're doing. You seem to be closest-minded person on this topic.

Well now here is your chance to prove yourself right. Point out the lies and see what happens, or you can hide behind generalities and keep your point of view.

They don't understand it when you say hate speech. But it's true, they only listen to all the bad that the US does according to the Media, the Democrats and leaders of countries like Iran, North Korea, France and Germany. But that's OK, let them believe what they wish, after all, it's their right. However, sitting around on a website crying about how bad we are and what are doing wrong will not help their cause. People like them either just sit around and do nothing or just get up, vote for a, in this case, Democrat and then go back to their chairs and let them do the rest. They will never get involved in actually making sure that what they think is wrong is actually changed. They expect others, like the Gov't, to do it for them cause they did enough by voting for them. That's the reason we are where we are today.

In most cases what you write is true but I don't think that is true with these two examples you gave. Based on what Silent and Mr. Greene have written they seem to believe the lies and ignored that people have said. For example when asked what lies the president told they reference what others said the President said not what the president said. The President listed reasons to go to war. The media listed those reasons and added to them and is now saying the president lied because their embellishments did not come true. The subtle differences make it easy to pin the blame on the President not the media unless you quote the president. America gets tagged as torturing people but no one has come up with a single person tortured. Does that matter? Not at all and when Muslims around the world protested the meat of the stories in the media and people get killed then the truth comes out and oops they made a mistake, they printed a story they did not bother to verify and upon doing so they find the story was wrong. But the President should not allow torture is their retort. But there was no torture. When it is proven the military did not torture then they claim the CIA does it in secret prisons. When it is pointed out that the CIA is also forbidden to torture then it jumps to countries outside our control meaning that the US does not torture people. The Democrats seeking to regain power don't realize that in making false claims of mistreatment they hurt their nation because just like they did in the 70's to hurt Mr. Nixon the rest of the world remembers how mean America is; not the current president the Democrats were attacking. When we get attacked like the first time they attacked the World Trade Center the Democrats wonder why they hate America. They are doing it again with Mr. Bush and when they regain the power they will ask the same questions when we are attacked again. When Mr. Clinton attacked the aspirin factory Republicans did not attack the President as a group in the press, they supported him to an extent not seen when Republicans are in power. The President is the representitive of the United States to the world. Attacking him is attacking America and no matter how much the current President is disliked you don't attack him by calling him a murderer because you call all Americans murderers. This is what I mean by hate speech.

Twists of facts like that, and the above are why I've stopped debating or discussing. I wasn't interested in libeling you though clearly you are of me and my words. So I'm not adding anything more to your debate.

For the record I did not twist what Mr. Greene said I mearly took his statements to their logical conclusion. He did not like where they went because it did not end up where he thought they would so he cries foul. Mr. Greene failed to come up with something the President said was a lie to get us into a war. Mr. Greene came up with options to fight a war that the current administration has been using as proof the administration could do better. Mr. Greene could not come up with anyone who was tortured but cries that the torture must stop and that laws should be put in place to stop torture. When I pointed out that there are laws in place since 1953 and anyone who tortures is in violation of those laws goes to jail. Mr. Greene changes the circumstance of the torture. All I did was answer Mr. Greenes' incorrect beliefs with facts. When I am proven wrong I accept it and learn from it. I welcome learning even if it goes against what I believed to be true. Mr. Greene can be correct at times. Rare as that is I have agreed with him.

Silent wrote: There was the treatment at places like Abu Grhaib.

That was not torture by the government it was a few people that lost it, disobeyed their orders and the UCMJ, they were caught, and punished, I believe they are all serving jail time.

How about those terrorists we've tortured in order to gain information?

Interrogation is not torture. Police use most of the same methods though intelligence people are given a little wider area to work in. The only so called torture that was used was waterboarding which is used on U.S. troops in training. Are you suggesting that all of our troops in Special Operations Command are tortured because they all get the same treatment? Interrogation is a slow process that takes months and sometimes years. The little training I have had on the topic of torture is that after four days any "hot" information is old news so if anyone is going to be tortured it won't last more than three days. We have held these people for years that means that we are not tortureing them. If we were they would have talked or died by the fourth day.

How about Qur'an desecration, that's also torture.

This is very true! The only problem with your example is that it did not happen. The Time Magazine reporter after people were killed around the world in protest to the article was forced to retract it because he found out it did not happen. Oops, the person he interviewed made it up, instead of checking it out he ran with it. Too bad for the people killed in anger because of it but not to worry he says he is not at fault or responsible for their deaths.

Granted, as far as I know the AG debacle was dealt with and justice has been served. Still, I've heard precious little about that anymore. Has anyone taken a look at the policies involving torture,etc...? i.e. when to use it, etc...

You might have missed my post on the Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ. After the Korean Conflict around 1953 Congress set up the UCMJ so there were clear guidelines for the conduct of the military. It is a set of laws for the military and federal employees in war zones. Look it up, pay attention to article 93 and keep in mind that it can be punished by death. The results of the Church Commission put in place laws that prohibit torture by the CIA this was in 1975. The debacle was that the Democrats wanted a political soap box to stand on and since the President wanted to know how far can we legally go in interrogation to make sure no laws were broken the Democrats screamed as one voice that the President wanted to torture people. The reason you have not heard about it any more is the election is over. The policies involving torture have been in place for fifty-three years and have not changed.

Can we really justify using torture? I don't think we can, that's my opinion on it.

The short answer is NO! We don't even try to justify it we have outlawed it.

1. Germany had an agreement with Japan, and Italy. RE: Triparitite Treaty (Link below)

Thank you for knowing basic history and where to find it. Japan attacked America not Germany. Hitler believed that if he declared war on America Japan would help him fight the Soviet Union. Japan was too busy to play over there and Germany lost the war because of it. You see back then Mr. Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany but the peace movement at the time said that Germany did not attack us only Japan did so we should only fight Japan.

2. Where does it say so in the constitution?

It is called seperation of powers. The President handles international affairs with Congressional over sight. The Congress handles domestic affairs with Presidential over sight. The judiciary splits the tie during food fights using the constitution as the yardstick. I believe it is section two under the heading of presidential duties making him the commander and chief of the military and the one that meets with ambasodors, or it may be section three.

3. I'm saying (and I apologize, i didn't frame my point the way i intended/meant to), is: Be compassionate. I mean, can we in good conscience - knowing that there are people being murdered/slaughtered, etc.... - just because if we step in, it will not be in our best interests? Specifically, do we take it up, or not, based on morals?

Please remember that back then America wanted to be left alone. There was a very strong peace movement that attacked President Roosevelt because he wanted to help the Europeans and the mood of the nation was it was Europes problems not ours. Very few in America at the time cared how many people were slaughtered around the world as long as it was not Americans. If we go to war Americans will die.

4. Japan was intended on attacking the US even before we pulled resources. We were the biggest threat to their dream of a pacific empire. They'd already man handled most, if not all of the powers in the pacific, others were busy with hitler/mussolini in europe. i.e. Next stop: USA.

Acturally they pulled that plan out of their butts. America was seen as weak and lazy with no moral or spiritual strength. An easy win in their eyes. Keep in mind that after WWI we drew down our forces to almost nothing. There was no money in the budget to train with live ammunition so we had to train with cardboard cutouts of machineguns and used trucks to simulate tanks. The Air Corps dropped sacks of flour to simulate bombing runs. According to documents after WWII it was seen by both Germany and Japan that America would not have the ability to gear up for war in less than five years. America was not seen as a military threat at all. The whole Pearl Harbor attack was to get rid of the Aircraft carriers because with them gone there was no way America could hurt Japan. The thinking was that America would sue for peace and leave Japan alone in the Pacific. The serious planning for Pearl Harbor did not start until 1940 and we stopped shipping raw materials to them in 1938 or 39.

When did I ever attack you? You just attacked me - you insulted me.

I am sorry that you took it as an insult it was not my intention to insult you or Mr. Greene. All I know of you or Mr. Greene is what you both have written and that is how you come off to me. If I am wrong please accept my apology.