Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

[evilbagpuss]

200
2000
20,000
200,000

It doesnt really matter anyway. They wear turbans and they arent white. Anything and everything is acceptable in the 'war on terror'.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 September 2003 - 11:58
Haha!  You lot really are a scream!

I worked with your lot Clocko, many times.  My first encounter with the CIA was in Morocco in 1973, if you knew what we were up to there ....... Haha!

My last outing was into Afghanistan in 1981, we had our agenda, we thought the CIA were working with us.  Of course, they were doing their thing, as always! 

If you choose to believe the crap your government tells you, that's your problem.  Just don't try telling me!

@ j2k4:  And my "Ilk", arsehole, risked, and still risk our lives protecting pricks like you.

EDIT: 

Without any idea as to the qualifications and veracity of your "sources" that assertion is unacceptable.

Where are the qualifications and veracity of your "sources"?

Billy-

Anyone who would deign to refer to me as "arsehole" wouldn't have been engaged in activity likely to be of any benefit to me.

If indeed you were associated in any way with a government agency I'm positive it would have not been in the field of intelligence-one must have some to get some (so to speak).

EBP-

Obviously you get your "info" and "history" from different places than I.

I am awestruck at comments such as yours; someone who naively proclaims the infallibility of the BBC ('cuz they are bound by "rules" to be "impartial") should keep his rocks in his pockets; you have no credibility when it comes to "sources".

Lynx, you still haven't done your reading, I see.

Others have done, so whether you do or not is of no moment.

I myself am retired CIA, FBI, IRS, FDIC, FDA, and any number of other acronymics I can name.

I was personally witness to events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Little Big Horn, the Battle of Gettysburg, AND, believe it or not, was Gutenburg's personal mechanic; I assembled his printing press with the same hands I am typing this.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4
I am awestruck at comments such as yours; someone who naively proclaims the infallibility of the BBC ('cuz they are bound by "rules" to be "impartial") should keep his rocks in his pockets; you have no credibility when it comes to "sources".

Coming from someone who watches Fox news and believes that all media stations are the same... I think your skating on very thin ice.

I seriously doubt whether you've even read one BBC report. Give it a try. Show me the bias

My comments were accurate. I've never seen you give a damn about innocent victims of US Gvt terror. I've never seen you deviate one iota from US foreign policy or Fox News propaganda. How nice it must be to have others do your thinking for you.

My... isnt it strange how OT we are now? You run a mile from the topic as soon as your inconsistencies and lies are pointed out. I find this behaviour rather encouraging as it means 'we' are on the right track.

PS I never claimed the BBC was infallible (more of your lies), just that it is far less biased than 'news' stations (propaganda machines) such as Fox.

Fox daytime anchor David Asman is formerly of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page and the conservative Manhattan Institute. The host of Fox News Sunday is Tony Snow, a conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration. Eric Breindel, previously the editorial-page editor of the right-wing New York Post, was senior vice president of Fox's parent company, News Corporation, until his death in 1998; Fox News Channel's senior vice president is John Moody, a long-time journalist known for his staunch conservative views.

"Fair and Balanced"

[sabbath]

Am I the only one here wanting to hear j2k4 telling me again that the US have been attacking countries for the past 50 years because they care?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@10 September 2003 - 13:31
[PS I never claimed the BBC was infallible (more of your lies), just that it is far less biased than 'news' stations (propaganda machines) such as Fox.

(Quote/evilbagpuss)

A non-commercial organisation that has a long history of fair reporting and who's impartiality is enshrined in UK law. Its a pretty unique organisation and one that most UK citizens are very proud of.

(Unquote)



Gee whiz, EBP-

Sounds like unabashed and unquestioning acceptance of the BBC line to me.

I have all your stuff at my fingertips.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by sabbath@10 September 2003 - 13:49
Am I the only one here wanting to hear j2k4 telling me again that the US have been attacking countries for the past 50 years because they care?

To clarify:

The U.S. has pretended to "care" what other countries thought about us and our motivations.

I believe we should cease this "caring for appearance' sake".

I did not mean to imply the U.S. actually cared about other countries; as we all know, this is simply not true.

[ilw]

it was far too quiet without you j2k4

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

A non-commercial organisation that has a long history of fair reporting and who&#39;s impartiality is enshrined in UK law. Its a pretty unique organisation and one that most UK citizens are very proud of.

[/b]

Is it non-commercial? Yes.
Does it have a history of fair reporting? Yes.
Is its impartiality enshrined in UK law? Yes.
Is it unique? Yes.

Does that mean its infallible? No.

Originally posted by j2k4@

Sounds like unabashed and unquestioning acceptance of the BBC line to me.

I have all your stuff at my fingertips.

Wow so you can use the search engine. "gee whiz"

Now the 1st line is very interesting. What is the BBC &#39;line&#39; j2k4? Enlighten us and show some evidence please

As for my comments on the history of US foreign policy.. are you denying the CIA has overthrown democractically elected Gvts and installed dictators? Are you denying this has anything to do with terrorism?

Do you really expect us to believe that you meant "caring for appearances sake" in your last post? And that this "caring for appearances sake" has led to 9/11? Cuckoo&#33; More fruitcake anyone?

I will drag you back to the topic kicking and screaming if needs be j2k4

PS Just to prove I can use the search engine too...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I get my news from everywhere; I form my own opinions and come to my own conclusions.[/quote]

Strange how these conclusions are always identical to the US Gvt/Fox News line eh?

[sabbath]

Originally posted by j2k4+10 September 2003 - 20:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 10 September 2003 - 20:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sabbath@10 September 2003 - 13:49
Am I the only one here wanting to hear j2k4 telling me again that the US have been attacking countries for the past 50 years because they care?

To clarify:

The U.S. has pretended to "care" what other countries thought about us and our motivations.

I believe we should cease this "caring for appearance&#39; sake".

I did not mean to imply the U.S. actually cared about other countries; as we all know, this is simply not true. [/b][/quote]
OK. Sorry for misinterpreting you

[Rat Faced]

Please stop flaming each other and get back to the debate?

number that died as non-direct consequences eg famine & disease due to fleeing the fighting?

ilw

Direct or In-direct........they are of consequence, and happened due to the attack.

Granted many may have died anyway, an awful lot wouldnt have.



Add to this the 1000&#39;s dying today as a consequence of the warlords, which now control a far greater area than they did prior to the invasion.



However.....


What has all this got to do with whether the people held in Cuba should be tried or not?

We&#39;ve been through all this before.

Military detention, or rather, detention in a military facility, is different than stateside, civilian detention.

Different rules, legal access, etc., more room for expedience from the authority side-

As I said, this has been discussed ad nauseum; go to search, type in "Guantanamo", and commence reading-it&#39;s all there.

j2k4

This is the 1st post of yours on this thread j2k4.

I have demonstrated that they are NOT being held in miliary detention for a Military Tribunal, as implied by yourself, and have far fewer rights than they would have if this was the case.

I have also shown that US citizens, both in THIS situation and abroad (Peru)....received CIVILIAN trials.

I have asked a simple question....

Why are US citizens deserving of more "Human Rights" than anyone else?

Isnt whats good for the Goose, good for the Gander?



By the way....

welcome home