Enemy in the White House: OBAMA WILL RELEASE PICS OF US SOLDIERS "ABUSING" TERRORISTS

[BloodEclipse]

I was gone for a few hours and now have made my way through this thread.

Finity, while you want to hold every member of our military to standards that our enemies (in the war on terror) have never given anyone they have ever captured, I think it comes down to what INRanger has said.

I know many people here who will gladly carry concealed in places where such an act is illegal. Why would they do that and risk arrest and prosecution? Because being alive is better than the alternative.

When you are in the field and all of the LEGAL methods are not working, human nature is to do whatever it takes to survive. We are not a gentle species, under the right circumstances we will eat our own to survive. Is it right? That would be debatable. After all your life is all you ever really own, so what would you be willing to do to save it?

It's easy to bad mouth and condemn others, but get your ass out there and see if maybe you're survival instincts don't take over just a little bit.

It's amazing how many are so happy that the Obama administration is being so transparent with documents from the former administration, but yet we have not seen his SEALED birth certificate or school transcripts. I guess transparency is just selective.

 

[Fletch]

It's amazing how many are so happy that the Obama administration is being so transparent with documents from the former administration, but yet we have not seen his SEALED birth certificate or school transcripts. I guess transparency is just selective.

Don't include me in that. I want transparency from everybody, and I give it at least a decent chance that Obama's records aren't on the up-and-up. I say burn it all, let nothing stand. Democrats and Republicans? A pox on both their houses, says I.

 

[SavageEagle]

Don't include me in that. I want transparency from everybody, and I give it at least a decent chance that Obama's records aren't on the up-and-up. I say burn it all, let nothing stand. Democrats and Republicans? A pox on both their houses, says I.

I pretty much agree with you here. I just don't think the military should have to adhere to the same standards as long as they, domesticlly and during peacetime, observe the laws of the land. On foriegn soil, during war, getting shot at, being beheaded, give em hell, turn em to glass.

Now the FBI and CIA and ATF and DHS, that's another story all together. I don't want criminals to know all their secrets, but they don't need secret programs either. Show me the money, so to speak. I want to know where my money is going to so I know it's a good cause or not. They work for the government, and therefore, us.

 

[Fletch]

I said something that someone could agree with? I guess the sun even shines on a dog's ass, some days.

 

[SavageEagle]

I said something that someone could agree with? I guess the sun even shines on a dog's ass, some days.

Well, when the dog buries it's head in the sand.... JUST KIDDING! SERIOUSLY!

I love you man! What would we do without someone to argue with?!?!?!

 

[finity]

Finity-

Wow. Apparently you think it's ok to allow terrorists to be captured, serve a few years, and let go huh?

No. Try them, convict them, sentence them. If you don't have the evidence to try them then under our American values they aren't guilty. Sorry you can't have justice for some without justice for all.

Geneva Convention? Applies to those who are at war yes. They don't apply to combatants who know where the "bomb" is located and when it's about to go off.

I think you need to stop watching 24. Its clouding your sense of reality.

It does apply to prisoners of war, but the limitations aren't as strict as you think. Waterboarding is NOT torture. Please go back to the Waterboarding thread and not debate that here. My point is that these "abuses" were not abuses. The were well deserved ASS KICKINGS as they should have been strung up on the field of combat. But that's just me. Screw the GC. Common Criminals are not POWs. They fall under the law.

Good we both agree on that then. The soldiers who are in charge of their security have laws under the UCMJ dealing with the proper treatment of prisoners that they are supposed to follow. Try them IAW the law. Torture & abuse are outside of that law.

While the military follows USCMJ and ROE, the law doesn't apply to those shooting at the troops of using IEDs against them or civilians.

No matter how many times you try to change the terms of the debate it won't succeed. We aren't talking about the urgency of survival during the midst of people "shooting at the troops of using IEDs against them or civilians". We are talking about detainees, either convicted or not yet unconvicted (you know innocent) or outright innocent & at the wrong place at the wrong time under the direct care & control of our people.

I have one ? for you. Who the Hell on the other side follows these Rules????

What difference does that make? We follow rules. Thats what gives us the moral high ground. If we fail to follow our own rules or those we try to impose on others we lose that & we become just like them. We may win a battle or even a war but we give up a bit of our national soul every time we do it. WE BECOME JUST LIKE THEM. That's not something I'm willing to do without at least a huge amount of evidence to prove that its necessary.

Thats the whole problem. We can fight a war to win anymore. Someones feeling might get hurt. It's called war for a reason. Its the ugliest thing man can do, but it is also a necessary evil. If you get into a fight, do you yell time out when you get kicked in the nuts? NO, you do whatever is necessary to end the conflict, so that YOU are the one who walks away.

You need to take a step back, and decide who you want to win, because their will definately be a loser!!

Its not one or the other. Thats a false dichotomy. We can win & we can be honorable. One does not preclude the other.

As a matter of fact the things we are talking about here make it even more difficult to win. Again we aren't talking about the necesseties for survival in a combat situation. We are talking about abuse & torture of people after the fact in the "comfort" of our own foreign prisons.

Why else would all of you be so scared of releasing the pictures if you didn't think it would affect our chances of "winning". You understand the effect that those kinds of abuses have on a peoples will to resist. But do you really think the people who are there, who are resisting, don't already know about the abuse & torture? You think they need pictures of it to be released to know that its already happening. They are already resisting more because of it. Why was the Iraq war considered by most intelligent people as a huge recruiting tool for the extremists? Obama may have been a great gun salesman but Bush was a great terrorist recruiter.

The need to show our public is so that we as a people know what is being done in our name. So we have a say in it through our representatives in charge of the military.

Wait a minute. Why not? Didn't you just say that nothing good comes from covering things up? Why then would you want to cover up the comination to you safe or the pin to your ATM card?

There's a big difference between someone safeguarding personal individual information & letting people know what is being done in our names that has the effect of tarnishing our reputations. But you already knew that, huh?

What other employment field has the following code:
..
..
..
6) I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

And that sentence right there says it all. That each soldier is individually responsible for his actions & to the principles that made us free. What exactly do you think those principles are?

Military service is not like other careers. What it means in the US is that one has to be willing to put one's buddies, one's country, and all the people like you ahead of one's own life.

You said it yourself. You have to put the needs of your country & countrymen ahead of your own life. You can't use the excuse that "I had to do it to save my own life" if it violates the rules of law & the principles that make us free. You freely gave up your life when you signed on the dotted line & raised your right hand. So did I.

The rules were made for a reason. Those rules were made, not on a whim by a bunch of people who had no idea what war was all about, but, by people who had hundreds of years of history & tradition & values to call upon. We are nothing without the rule of law & our military is a direct representative of that fact when they are fighting our battles for us.

We have a military of about 1.4 million people on active duty and about 800 thousand reserve and guard. Of course there are bad apples. Nobody has ever suggested otherwise.

That's why there are groups like the Inspector Generals offices, CID (Army), OSI (AF--don't know what it is in the Navy and Marine Corps). That's why we have a Chain of Command so that everyone has someone they are responsible to. That's why we have the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Courts Martial.

People like to bring up Abu Ghraib as some sort of failure on the military's part. Actually, it's an example of the system working. Some bad apples, which you'll have in any large organization, crossed the line. They were identified, investigated, tried, convicted, and punished. The. System. Worked.

The System worked eventually. Only after one soldier was brave enough to send his concerns up the chain of command. Even then the system only worked when those pictures were made public & there was such an outcry that we forced them to take action. Until then there was pretty good evidence of a cover up. Thats the problem with secrecy.

And when all was said & done the only people who were held ultimately accountable were the people on the ground who were doing the bidding & following the orders of the chicken shits up the chain of command who threw them under the bus instead of coming forward & admitting that it was their fault.

I will also point out that people who invoke the Geneva Conventions in these discussions rarely understand what's in them.

For example:
- The Geneva Conventions explicitly state that Signatories of them are not bound by them when in conflict with nations that do not adhere to them.
- The Geneva (and Hague--between the two of them comprising most of the recognized "laws of war") Conventions explicitly allow for reprisals for the other side "breaking" them. "Reprisals" are thing that would otherwise be a war crime but which are permitted in direct retaliation for war crimes committed by the other side.
- The Geneva Conventions recognize two classes of "protected" persons--non-combatants and lawful combatants. Both of those have specific criteria that must be met for to fall into one of those categories. When someone meets neither set of criteria, they are an "unlawful combatant." In previous wars they were calles "spies" and "saboteurs" and were often shot out of hand. Some people make a big fuss about the conventions saying nothing about "unlawful" or "illegal" combatants, but that's for the simple reason that those individuals are not covered, are not protected, by the Geneva conventions. They only have the rights that we choose to extend them, at our sufferance.

OK lets even agree for the sake of argument that the GC don't apply. How about our own national & military laws?

Like the UCMJ:

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 93—Cruelty and maltreatment
Text.

"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."
Elements.
(1) That a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused; and

(2) That the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated that person.
Explanation.
(1) Nature of victim. "Any person subject to his orders" means not only those persons under the direct or immediate command of the accused but extends to all persons, subject to the code or not, who by reason of some duty are required to obey the lawful orders of the accused, regardless whether the accused is in the direct chain of command over the person.

(2) Nature of act. The cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment, although not necessarily physical, must be measured by an objective standard. Assault, improper punishment, and sexual harassment may constitute this offense. Sexual harassment includes influencing, offering to influence, or threatening the career, pay, or job of another person in exchange for sexual favors, and deliberate or repeated offensive comments or gestures of a sexual nature. The imposition of necessary or proper duties and the exaction of their performance does not constitute this offense even though the duties are arduous or hazardous or both.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 134—General article

“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

Or even federal law:

U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT)

In 1994, the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
CAT requires parties to take measures to prevent torture from occurring within any
territory under their respective jurisdictions, regardless of the existence of
“exceptional circumstances,” such as a war or threat of war, internal political
instability or other public emergency. CAT defines torture as
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a
third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or
coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any
kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with
the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity.”

Torture does not include “pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.” Nor does it include conduct that unintentionally causes severe pain and suffering.

CAT obligates its parties to proscribe and punish acts of torture under their
criminal laws, including any attempt to commit torture or any act that constitutes
complicity to torture. Additionally, member States are to make the crime of torture
an extraditable offense under their domestic laws, if necessary under their laws
pertaining to extradition. States parties also undertake to provide necessary training
to prevent torture and “other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment which do not amount to torture” to “law enforcement personnel, civil or
military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved
in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of
arrest, detention or imprisonment,” and to “keep under systematic review
interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for
the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or
imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any
cases of torture.” Statements induced by torture are not to be admitted as evidence
in a criminal proceeding against the victim. Victims have a right, under the CAT,
to have their allegations investigated by impartial officers and to pursue means of
redress that afford fair and adequate compensation to the victim or the victim’s
heirs.

U.S. Implementation of CAT.

Congress passed legislation in 1994 to
implement the requirements of the CAT (18 U.S.C.§ 2340 et seq.). Section 2340,
along the lines of the CAT, defines torture in subsection (1) as “an act committed by
a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” “Severe
mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting
from the infliction or threat to inflict severe physical pain or suffering; the use or
threat to use “mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt
profoundly the senses or the personality”; threats of imminent death; and threats to
inflict the above forms of abuse on third persons. (18 U.S.C. § 2340). Violators are
subject to fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, and if death
results, violators may receive up to life in prison or the death penalty. (18 U.S.C. §
2340A). Those convicted of conspiracy to commit torture may be punished to the
same extent as violators themselves, except that they are not eligible to receive the
death penalty. (18 U.S.C. § 2340A(c)).

Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).

In 1990, Congress enacted the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA)41 to provide an avenue of redress for victims of torture overseas. The TVPA created a cause of action for any person to seek recovery for acts of torture committed overseas from an individual responsible forthe acts who can be “found” within the United States for the purpose of serving process.42 Only individuals with a certain level of personal responsibility may be
sued under the TVPA; other entities are not amenable to suit. It may also be possible
for abused prisoners to bring suit under the Alien Tort Statute.

Accountability for Violations

It was established during the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II that
persons who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity may be held individually
accountable, whether they are members of the military or civilians.

Military Personnel

Members of the armed forces are directly subject to the laws of war and may be
tried by international or national tribunals for violations. Military personnel stationed
overseas are also subject to the domestic law of the country where they are stationed,
ordinarily under the terms of a status of forces agreement (SOFA) with the host
country. As long as the United States remains an occupying power in Iraq, service
members are not subject to the Iraqi courts.45




International Law.

Members of the armed forces of a party to an
international armed conflict may be held individually liable for breaches of the law
of war, including for maltreatment of prisoners under their control, whether such
prisoners are under their immediate control or indirect control through the chain of
command. It is not a defense against a charge of any grave breach of the Geneva
Conventions that an accused was merely following orders,46 although such circumstances may mitigate liability. Commanders may be held vicariously liable
for abuses committed by persons under their command even where no orders were
issued, if it can be proven that the commander knew or should have known that such abuses were taking place.

Everyone will have a difference of opinion when it come to what abuse is and what torture is.
To me the Abuse we have subjected these "TERRORIST SCUM" to is nothing more than humiliation.
Torture to me is physical that is permanent. Removing limbs, cutting off body parts, pouring acid, busting skulls, ripping out fingernails.

So when you see in the 8A about the prohibition of “cruel & unusual punishment” you wouldn’t feel that it prevents the police from torturing you to extract information as long as it’s not “permanent. Removing limbs, cutting off body parts, pouring acid, busting skulls, ripping out fingernails”? Anything less than that is OK to you under the Bill of rights? Remember before you say that they aren’t afforded protections under our laws that the Declaration of Independence states “unalienable rights” as in rights that every person has no matter where they live. Weren’t we in Iraq to give them the freedoms that we have? Also that military personel are subject to the laws of the United States while serving either domestically or abroad. There is no wartime exception.

Don't include me in that. I want transparency from everybody, and I give it at least a decent chance that Obama's records aren't on the up-and-up. I say burn it all, let nothing stand. Democrats and Republicans? A pox on both their houses, says I.

+1

I pretty much agree with you here. I just don't think the military should have to adhere to the same standards as long as they, domesticlly and during peacetime, observe the laws of the land. On foriegn soil, during war, getting shot at, being beheaded, give em hell, turn em to glass.

So I guess it would be safe to assume that you felt that the Germans & Japanese were completely justified in WWII in doing the things that they did because they were being shot at, etc. I mean why should they have been held up to war crimes trials for their atrocities? Weren’t they just doing what had to be done to win? “Give em hell, turn em to glass”

 

[SavageEagle]

You truly are a misinformed, sad man. You take my words and make what you want to out of them. That is sad. When these people are willing to torture us just for the fun of it, planning attacks here and on our bases, troops, and allies, we are justified in doing the SAME THING back to them. You're reality is shoved up obamatard and Congresses ass. You might want to pull it out for some sunshine once in a while.

 

[finity]

You truly are a misinformed, sad man. You take my words and make what you want to out of them. That is sad. When these people are willing to torture us just for the fun of it, planning attacks here and on our bases, troops, and allies, we are justified in doing the SAME THING back to them. You're reality is shoved up obamatard and Congresses ass. You might want to pull it out for some sunshine once in a while.

I take your words to their logical conclusion.

It's not my fault that you don't like your own logic.

How does it feel to be just like them?

 

[SavageEagle]

I take your words to their logical conclusion.

It's not my fault that you don't like your own logic.

How does it feel to be just like them?

I'm not like you. Sorry. Thanks for the laugh though! Your logic is not my logic. I live in the real world were **** doesn't add up. You seem to think it's all hunky doory to cuddle up to these terrorists, give them wine and cheese and the right to a fair trial when they deserve to be hanged, chopped, and skewred. The Geneva Convention does NOT apply to those who do not abide by it. It grants the Good guys the ability to fight fire with fire when necessary. GET OVER IT.

 

[VN Vet]

Well Heck! While we're at it let's just open all our files to Our Enemies. They may just learn to like us more. You think? BS!

 

[Prometheus]

I don't know exactly what pictures will be "officially" released, but I can guess they will mostly be the same ones we've seen of the scarecrow guy and the naked terrorist pile... I SERIOUSLY doubt we will see much, if anything new of different.

Its often not a matter of "will this save countless lives in the future?" Its a matter of " Will this save MY ass today?" Until you have crossed a point where theory gives way to practice you simply aren't qualified to judge.

Please explain to us how this:

is going to "save [their] ass today"? Looks to me like another unintended consequence of clintons "don't ask don't tell" policy. Perhaps thyey should change it to "don't ask, don't tell, don't take pictures"

In a jury of their peers keep in mind you are NOT a peer. All this does is feed an anti US military propaganda machine that sickeningly enough it seems our current administration is becoming a part.

Sweet so next time someone files a malpractice suit against someone in my profession we can DEMAND a jury of Physicians and Nurses... because no one else would understand right?

Exactly what are you afraid of? Whatever photos are released are not going to subject anyone in them to a civil/criminal trial. However being able to actually document abuse CAN and SHOULD be used to hold those policy makers and upper echelon scumbags responsible.

In this thread the same people complain about obama abusing the Constitution (which he is) are the same people who ignore G W Bushes abuses. Stop the double standards and stop mentioning the Constitution when you advocate the silencing of peoples voices just because you don't agree with them.

Admit it, your egos are too fail to admit you reelected an idiot and a traitor. Get over it. It's going to happen again if you don't start holding BOTH SIDES equally accountable.

I'll stand by my previous statements from many months ago: If these idiots didn't want this crap out in the public venue they shouldn't have taken the pictures... let alone started emailing them around the globe!

It's the same whining used by Paris Hilton... "I had no idea he was going to put it on the internet" Boo- F'ing- Hoo. They made their bed. Now they get to lay in it.

We are the morally superior country. Blind rage and blood lust. We are a God fearing country. I refuse to let the terrorists win on that front as well. Your fascist b.s. will not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

 

[MoparMan]

I think the abuse is great. What do you think covert operations are doing right now? It's been going on forever. Do you really think that the pieces of s### are really going to tell us what we want to know. NO! Not till we violate the only things they care about. With this day and age with everybody having a camera phone its hard to keep this practice though so maybe it should have been done by professionals secretly like always not the national guard or reserve(no offense). Watch 24-Jack Bauer-it works for him! LOL.

 

[SavageEagle]

I think the abuse is great. What do you think covert operations are doing right now? It's been going on forever. Do you really think that the pieces of s### are really going to tell us what we want to know. NO! Not till we violate the only things they care about. With this day and age with everybody having a camera phone its hard to keep this practice though so maybe it should have been done by professionals secretly like always not the national guard or reserve(no offense). Watch 24-Jack Bauer-it works for him! LOL.

Oh God, you compared to a tv show. Enter finity's jacked up comments...

 

[dburkhead]

I don't know exactly what pictures will be "officially" released, but I can guess they will mostly be the same ones we've seen of the scarecrow guy and the naked terrorist pile... I SERIOUSLY doubt we will see much, if anything new of different.

Please explain to us how this:

is going to "save [their] ass today"? Looks to me like another unintended consequence of clintons "don't ask don't tell" policy. Perhaps thyey should change it to "don't ask, don't tell, don't take pictures"

And in the above, the individuals involved were investigated, tried, convicted, and punished. Example of the system working.

Sweet so next time someone files a malpractice suit against someone in my profession we can DEMAND a jury of Physicians and Nurses... because no one else would understand right?

Last time I looked malpractice was not a criminal matter. Courts Martial are not civil suits.

And, incidentally, Courts Martial are limited to violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Commit robbery in the local community in the US and you'll face civilian courts too. The robbery will likely also involve violations of the UCMJ, which means the military courts will want their cut too--and the military penalties for the criminal are often harsher than the civilian penalties.

Last time I looked, there was no specific set of laws, equivalent to the UCMJ, that Physicians and Nurses had to adhere to. If there is, perhaps you can point me to them?

Exactly what are you afraid of? Whatever photos are released are not going to subject anyone in them to a civil/criminal trial. However being able to actually document abuse CAN and SHOULD be used to hold those policy makers and upper echelon scumbags responsible.

What is the purpose of their release? It does not serve the interest of justice. Do you also call for the release of pictures of a rape victim's bleeding vagina? How about a murder victim's blood-stained corpse?

The only purpose of this release is to inflame public opinion in a particular direction. That's it. It's the mark of a witch hunt, not an "investigation" or even a "trial."

In this thread the same people complain about obama abusing the Constitution (which he is) are the same people who ignore G W Bushes abuses. Stop the double standards and stop mentioning the Constitution when you advocate the silencing of peoples voices just because you don't agree with them.

I see. Just because we don't give equal time to petty larceny, we're supposed to keep silent about Armed Robbery.

I think you are confusing people thinking there is a difference between "bad" and "worse" with "ignoring."

Perhaps you'd like to go back over the last year or so of posts here. There has been a lot of criticism of George W. Bush here. Some of it has even been true. But then, a lot of it hasn't, which hasn't stopped people from just repeating the propaganda without bothering to dig into it any.

Admit it, your egos are too fail to admit you reelected an idiot and a traitor. Get over it. It's going to happen again if you don't start holding BOTH SIDES equally accountable.

There are a number of terms for this absolute certainty of the rightness of one's own position and the complete denigration of anyone who disagrees in any particular: "Hubris" is one. "Arrogance" is another. "Megalomania" comes to mind.

Guess what, whoever you are and whatever positions you hold, you'll find that the majority of people are going to disagree with a substantial portion of your positions. Unless you can come to some kind of middle ground where you can find an "acceptable" candidate even though you disagree, perhaps even strongly, on many matters, you will be doomed to disappointment.

Now, personally, I think one of the bigger flaws in the current Presidential election process is the primary system. A handful of States, usually the more "liberal" States determine early on who the candidate is going to be. Somebody gets an early lead (and since the early States tend to lean liberal, guess how that early lead candidate leads), and the media starts "projecting" the winner. Everyone else dogpiles on because they want to be on the "side of the winner" and the rest is history.

Now, there is a lot I didn't like about McCain, but if you don't think that Obama isn't going to be worse than McCain would have been on his worst day, well,

I'll stand by my previous statements from many months ago: If these idiots didn't want this crap out in the public venue they shouldn't have taken the pictures... let alone started emailing them around the globe!

And if the witch didn't want to be burned, she shouldn't have curdled the neighbor's milk.

The people in the pictures above have already been tried, convicted, and punished according to law. The UCMJ is law; passed by Congress and signed by the President. Courts Martial are set out by law. The procedure is set by law. The penalties (or how penaties are determined) are set by law.

If Congress wants a different result, then Congress can change. the. law. Pass a revised version of the UCMJ with new law matching what they want now. Oh, wait a minute, there's that pesky "no ex post facto laws" bit in the Constitution that gets in the way of going back and altering the outcome now.

It's the same whining used by Paris Hilton... "I had no idea he was going to put it on the internet" Boo- F'ing- Hoo. They made their bed. Now they get to lay in it.

Oh "abuse" of Prisoners. You are aware, are you not, that Pelosi and Reid (to name just two) were "in the loop" on the decisions to use things like waterboarding. They were in on the decisionmaking process from the start. And they did nothing about it until now. Do you honestly think these "investigations" will cover Pelosi and Reid?

These "investigations" are not about justice. They are "payback" pure and simple--a way to strike at the other party. And, as such, they are incredibly dangerous because what they mean is that

We are the morally superior country. Blind rage and blood lust. We are a God fearing country. I refuse to let the terrorists win on that front as well. Your fascist b.s. will not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

So, since you are a morally superior person (I'll grant you the assumption of being so), if you find yourself in a unarmed knife fight in a back alley somewhere, you'll go ahead and adhere to the Marquis of Queensbury rules? After all, you wouldn't want to fight "dirty" and allow the attackers to "win on that front as well."

As for "God fearing" you might want to read your bible a little better. David, one of the "heroes" of the Old Testament (and still honored in the New), was no stranger to killing "everyone who pisseth against the wall."

We are a morally superior country. If we really played by their rules the response to 9/11 would have been to turn Mecca and Medina into glowing glass. (I said play by their rules. We'd just be a whole lot better at it.) However, there's a reason that the Geneva and Hague conventions explicitly state that a signatory country is not bound by them when fighting an enemy that does not also follow them. The conventions also recognize and permit under certain circumstances "reprisals" (things that would be "war crimes" but are legal in response to war crimes by the other side). It's the only way to "encourage" states that do not follow the conventions to do so. International Criminal Court? What can they possibly do to someone that's worse than what people in combat (or even just in combat zones) face every day? Without the threat of punishments worse then they're already facing what possible deterrent effect can it have? "You play nice; we play nice. You break the rules; we come down on you like the wrath of God" works where debating societies in small European countries doesn't. How do you think we got those "laws of war" in the first place? Long before explicit treaties like the Hauge and Geneva conventions were made, they grew from just that kind of thing. "You keep your prisoners in good health so we can ransom them back and we'll keep our prisoners in good health so you can ransom them back. You slaughter yours, we'll slaughter yours." Agreements among nobles gradually grew to apply to armies in general. There was plenty of "backsliding" but such backsliding was paid in kind. The result is the laws of war we have today.

I see no reason to throw out a strategy that works simply because someone chooses to apply the label "fascist" to it.