At least we have moral clarity.

[Plane]

<<Well then lets see if the Al Queda can treat a prisoner according to the golden rule , supposeing that they ever have the ability to capture someone that is not unarmed.>>

I think you have forgotten that after a 14-year-old girl was raped and, together with her family, murdered, by U.S. troops, the local Resistance fighters captured and executed two members of the unit that had committed the crimes.

You are very much mistaken if you think that the Resistance forces are unable to capture Americans.  Right now that's not in their plans, so it is not happening very much.  But they are not incapable of doing so just because it is not their priority.  I would think that capturing prisoners is not as difficult as holding them.  They'd need a large expanse of safe territory for that.

I think you are busy makeing my point.

The guys that might actually be guilty of that particular crime are going to be put on trial.
The guys that captured some Americans almost certainly abused prisoners that were innocent .

If any American will do for revenge , whjy not any Arab?

[sirs]

The guys that might actually be guilty of that particular crime are going to be put on trial.
The guys that captured some Americans almost certainly abused prisoners that were innocent

BINGO.  Now, will Tee or Lanya catch on to this concept, yet?

[sirs]

So don't call it torture.  Call it "Presidentially-authorized treatment of prisoners."  You gonna answer the question or not?

Perhaps after you start accurately applying the terms

[Michael Tee]

<<Your standards are unbeleiveably unequal.

<<One captured soilder is treated well and this is proof of good disapline?

<<So if I can find a single example of an Al Quieda fighter being treated well my case is made about American disapline?>>

The number of captives held by each side is different.  Very few Americans in captivity and lots of Arabs.  So in the case of Americans in captivity, there is very little data to go on.  For Saddam's army, we actually know of several in captivity.  NONE abused, ALL well treated.  You have no basis whatsoever on that scorecard to predict that Saddam's army will mistreat Americans.  For the Hezbollah, we know they hold two Israeli prisoners.  Again, NONE abused, all well treated.  No evidence to suspect any mistreatment in future.

In the US Army, many prisoners abused, many held.  There is every likelihood more prisoners have been abused.  One abused prisoner is one too many.  Two abused is twice as bad.  There isn't any real excuse for even two or three abused prisoners, when the toll is in the hundreds or even thousands, it's absolutely scandalous.

You don't rate an army by how many prisoners it DOESN'T abuse, which would be absurd.  Kind of like rating mass murderers by how many people they didn't kill.  "Well, Ted Bundy didn't kill EVERYBODY he knew, Your Honour.  It's absurd to call the guy a mass murderer  because there are at least thirty young women living in a two block radius of him that he DIDN'T torture, rape or kill."

How come you still won't answer my simple question?

[Michael Tee]

<<The guys that might actually be guilty of that particular crime are going to be put on trial.
The guys that captured some Americans almost certainly abused prisoners that were innocent .

<<If any American will do for revenge , whjy not any Arab?>>

Any Arab WILL do for revenge.  What do you think the massacre of Falluja was all about anyway?  800 civilians massacred to avenge 4 US mercenaries.

[Michael Tee]

Tee:  So don't call it torture.  Call it "Presidentially-authorized treatment of prisoners."  You gonna answer the question or not?

sirs:  Perhaps after you start accurately applying the terms

==============================================================

Didn't think you would.  There isn't one supporter of the "President's" policies on treatent of prisoners that will answer this question.  It's hilarious.

[BT]

My simple answer would be to take no prisoners. No prisoners, no problems.

[Lanya]

::And in what part of this do you construe disrespect?

When there is evidence against a soldier who IS an American he is liable to be tried and sentanced for the crime , this includes recent cases of prisoner abuse which has always been against our rules.

For Al Queda it is just not against the rules at all to torture a prisoner , or humiliate him , or make him convert to Islam at gunpoint.


If we fight North Korea they might respect the Geneva conventions just as much as they did last time.

Whoever we fight , I would indeed like to see them proscicute any soldier who mistreats American Prisoners , just as we do.::

What is your point here? We'll only abide by the Geneva Accord that WE ratified, unanimously, if THEY do? And if they abuse prisoners then that's the signal that we will abuse their people?

I ask you, what country are you from?  An American does not have to be led by others, is not dependent on what others do to set his moral compass for him .  An American knows right from wrong, or should.  We do not have common ancestry, nor common language, nor a king.  All we have to tie us together are our ideals, and our laws.  And this you trample when you say, "Not going to abide by those stupid Geneva things, not this time.  We have  an evil enemy and we're gonna slice him." 
Like Hitler wasn't evil?  Never mind.  You want torture, there are plenty of people who are willing to torture.  I don't want them living in the same country, though.

[BT]

All we have to tie us together are our ideals, and our laws.  And this you trample when you say, "Not going to abide by those stupid Geneva things, not this time.  We have  an evil enemy and we're gonna slice him." 
Like Hitler wasn't evil?  Never mind.  You want torture, there are plenty of people who are willing to torture.  I don't want them living in the same country, though.

Americans are some of the most violent people on earth. Where is all this oprah outrage coming from. What gives you the idea that our ideals are not to hit the guy until he goes down and hit him again if he tries to get up. That's our nature. Deal with it.

[sirs]

The "hillarious" part is how you keep trying to lay claim of how abusive Bush and our military is, trying to compare them to the terrorists, all in polar opposite of the facts.  Suffice to say, if I were President, we'd be a whole hell of a lot harder on interrogating prisoners, stopping short at the infliction of fractures, dislocations, & dismemberment

[sirs]

If we fight North Korea they might respect the Geneva conventions just as much as they did last time

Say what???       Oh wait, I caught the qualifier, "just as much".