Fringe site: U.S. prepares to face U.N. on torture as Amnesty report blasts 'war cri

[heyholetsgogrant]

Sorry, but I think our own media does as much to damage our image in the court of public opinion as anything the UN could do. Anyone that lends any credibilty to what that organization has to say at this point is ....(I don't want to offend anyone that still gives the UN any credibility)

I dont understand why you are discounting them?

-Grant

[Teller]

This thread should be closed.

1) Violates accurate title rule.

2) Violates rule against false/misleading news stories.

[Redskins Diehard]

I dont understand why you are discounting them?

-Grant

Are you serious? Or is that another joke?

[Slateman]

Why don't you sanction me with your army? Oh that's right, you don't have an army. Shut the **** UP!!!, SHUT THE **** UP!!!

http://www.badtree.com/Chappelles_Show.php?FN=Black_Bush.wmv

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

Oh . . .help me . . . I can't . . .breath . . . :rotflmao:

[Crazyhorse1]

First of all, your title is false. Please change it to comply with forum rules. There is a committee at the UN INVESTIGATING possible war crimes. The US has not been CHARGED with anything.

Your story is also false. Please provide a different link to comply with forum rules regarding FAKE or MISLEADING news stories. I have a close friend who is doing eight years at Leavenworth for supposed torture. (His name is Ivan "Chip" Frederick, if you care to look it up.) That proves the US has prosecuted and obtained convictions on our troops for this garbage. Your story states that the US has not prosecuted ANYONE.

Thanks for your typical WANTONLY false information. Provide truthful stories, legitimate sources, and accurate titles, or kindly go away.

You are wrong. My title is not false. Amnesty International has filed a report charging that the U.S. is guilty of war crimes.

My story is not false or misleading. I provided a link to a story that reported on Amnesty International's report. If you wish to take the issue up with Amnesty International's report, please do so. I don't know why Amnesty International is not counting the prosecution of your friend-- perhaps because of a technicality with the charge.

My post is not false, the story I cited is true, the source is legitimate, and the title is as accurate as available space allowed.

If you think the source is flawed, you are free to arge that point.

If you think Amnesty International is filing a false report, you are free to make that argument.

Please do argue your points. I would like to hear them.

Nevertheless, there are elements of your post that disturb me. Your confusing the use of the word "charges" in the sense that a prosecutor makes formal charges in a court of law with "charges" that are level against someone in a report in the U.N. seems a bit put on to me. In other words, I don't believe you do.

Accusing me of providing wantonly false information is beyond the pale. Your idea of titling the posting UN INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE WAR CRIMES would represent a horrendous misrepresentation of the article. I think you know that as well.

Therefore, it seems to me that you are trying to manufacture some sort of case against me. Why?

[Crazyhorse1]

Well, strictly speaking, the Amnesty International official's quote may well be correct. Mr. Frederick was charged with 5 counts of various natures, but none of them seem to involve a death. The quote states that no more than 5 months have been sentenced for a death.

I agree about the title, though. "Filing a report" is not the same as "Filing charges".

Ok. Formal charges, as in a court case, are not filed at the U.N. The report "charged" that....

[Crazyhorse1]

As of now, the U.S. has yet to prosecute a single official, military officer or private contractor for "torture" or "war crimes" related to its occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the "war on terror."

Not to be a prick, but here's the quote from the "story."

Nowhere does it say "involving a death."

I reiterate that this statement, which is the entire paragraph, is blatantly false.

The story describes the beating to death of a prisoner. As to the sentence you refer to, I too was surprised to see it in the story since I know that convictions have been obtained. Unlike you, however, when reading the story, I assumed the convictions must have been technically for something other than "war crimes, or torture."

[Teller]

You are wrong. My title is not false. Amnesty International has filed a report charging that the U.S. is guilty of war crimes.

My story is not false or misleading. I provided a link to a story that reported on Amnesty International's report. If you wish to take the issue up with Amnesty International's report, please do so. I don't know why Amnesty International is not counting the prosecution of your friend-- perhaps because of a technicality with the charge.

My post is not false, the story I cited is true, the source is legitimate, and the title is as accurate as available space allowed.

If you think the source is flawed, you are free to arge that point.

If you think Amnesty International is filing a false report, you are free to make that argument.

Please do argue your points. I would like to hear them.

Nevertheless, there are elements of your post that disturb me. Your confusing the use of the word "charges" in the sense that a prosecutor makes formal charges in a court of law with "charges" that are level against someone in a report in the U.N. seems a bit put on to me. In other words, I don't believe you do.

Accusing me of providing wantonly false information is beyond the pale. Your idea of titling the posting UN INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE WAR CRIMES would represent a horrendous misrepresentation of the article. I think you know that as well.

Therefore, it seems to me that you are trying to manufacture some sort of case against me. Why?

OK, so Amnesty International = The U.N. in your opinion. Amnesty International filed this report. It was not the Security Council, it was not a joint resolution by member nations. THEREFORE, it was NOT the UN.

There is a difference between "Duke players charged with rape" and "Stripper charges Duke players are guilty of rape." You meant the latter. You posted the former. Clearly, it is YOU sir, who does not understand the difference.

The Raw Story is not a reliable source. Reliable source = mainstream media outlet without a proven agenda for or against the president (i.e. CBS). Use CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, Post, Times, whoever you want. Just not a liberal blog opinion column. That is, if you want your argument to have ANY credibility whatsoever.

Technicality, schmecnicality. My point is fact. Your liberal opnion column states a bold-face lie. We HAVE prosecuted Americans for alleged war crimes. They directly state we have not. I can provided legitimate sources that verify this. You cannot provide sources to the contrary. Your source and their alleged story are BOTH false. Period.

I am not "manufacturting a case against you," as you sickeningly allege. You are semantically incorrect with your title. It is NOT a misinterpretation on my part. You can exchange the words Duke and US, and rape and war crimes in my first example, and it proves my point.

The points in the "story" are factually incorrect, and you're standing beside them. Yet you jump all over people who support the war in spite of the fact that no WMDs were found. Can you say hypocritical? :laugh:

[zoony]

OK, so Amnesty International = The U.N. in your opinion. Amnesty International filed this report. It was not the Security Council, it was not a joint resolution by member nations. THEREFORE, it was NOT the UN.

There is a difference between "Duke players charged with rape" and "Stripper charges Duke players are guilty of rape." You meant the latter. You posted the former. Clearly, it is YOU sir, who does not understand the difference.

The Raw Story is not a reliable source. Reliable source = mainstream media outlet without a proven agenda for or against the president (i.e. CBS). Use CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, Post, Times, whoever you want. Just not a liberal blog opinion column. That is, if you want your argument to have ANY credibility whatsoever.

Technicality, schmecnicality. My point is fact. Your liberal opnion column states a bold-face lie. We HAVE prosecuted Americans for alleged war crimes. They directly state we have not. I can provided legitimate sources that verify this. You cannot provide sources to the contrary. Your source and their alleged story are BOTH false. Period.

I am not "manufacturting a case against you," as you sickeningly allege. You are semantically incorrect with your title. It is NOT a misinterpretation on my part. You can exchange the words Duke and US, and rape and war crimes in my first example, and it proves my point.

The points in the "story" are factually incorrect, and you're standing beside them. Yet you jump all over people who support the war in spite of the fact that no WMDs were found. Can you say hypocritical? :laugh:

It is amazing to me that after taking numerous beatings such as this, that Crazyhorse even shows his face around here.

Seriously, he must be a glutton for punishment.

"Hit me again, Ike! But this time put some STANK on it!!!" :doh:

[Sarge]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/As_U.S._prepares_to_face_U.N._0428.html

Amnesty Internation is charging the U.S. with war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Charges include torture, murder, beating a pregnant woman, and the usual unsavory list. Those who think the U.S. is free to re-write or re-interpret Geneva Conventions and international law would do well to follow the case.

Well, we must be doing something right

[Crazyhorse1]

OK, so Amnesty International = The U.N. in your opinion. Amnesty International filed this report. It was not the Security Council, it was not a joint resolution by member nations. THEREFORE, it was NOT the UN.

There is a difference between "Duke players charged with rape" and "Stripper charges Duke players are guilty of rape." You meant the latter. You posted the former. Clearly, it is YOU sir, who does not understand the difference.

The Raw Story is not a reliable source. Reliable source = mainstream media outlet without a proven agenda for or against the president (i.e. CBS). Use CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, Post, Times, whoever you want. Just not a liberal blog opinion column. That is, if you want your argument to have ANY credibility whatsoever.

Technicality, schmecnicality. My point is fact. Your liberal opnion column states a bold-face lie. We HAVE prosecuted Americans for alleged war crimes. They directly state we have not. I can provided legitimate sources that verify this. You cannot provide sources to the contrary. Your source and their alleged story are BOTH false. Period.

I am not "manufacturting a case against you," as you sickeningly allege. You are semantically incorrect with your title. It is NOT a misinterpretation on my part. You can exchange the words Duke and US, and rape and war crimes in my first example, and it proves my point.

The points in the "story" are factually incorrect, and you're standing beside them. Yet you jump all over people who support the war in spite of the fact that no WMDs were found. Can you say hypocritical? :laugh:

I didn't say the UN charged anybody with anything. You are wrong.

You call Fox a reputable source-- its a national joke

Raw Story features stories it picks up from other sources. It's meant to be the liberal equivalent of the conservative Drudge report. Both Raw Story and the Drudge report are reliable sources; for the most part, they don't generate their own copy, and often pick up material from the mainstream press.

The material I cited was factual material...factual news...not someone's opinion. Raw Story is not an opinion blog, though editorials are featured. The material consists primarily of news stories of interest to democrats. It quite often includes negative material about democrats.

I didn't say I stood behind Amnesty International's points. My post concerned the fact that Amnesty International made charges...and I proved it with a link.

What is your dog in this fight. I don't get it. Do you believe that the U.S. is not guilty of war crimes, that they were isolated instances, that they were justified? What? That anyone who wants to end torture and war crimes in the world is a traitor?

[Crazyhorse1]

It is amazing to me that after taking numerous beatings such as this, that Crazyhorse even shows his face around here.

Seriously, he must be a glutton for punishment.

"Hit me again, Ike! But this time put some STANK on it!!!" :doh:

The world's wingnuts, luckily, have no talent for dialectic, let alone the talent for judging it. You, Zoony, have as much right to be judge of a debate as a jackass has to conduct an orchestra.

[portisizzle]

The world's wingnuts, luckily, have no talent for dialectic, let alone the talent for judging it. You, Zoony, have as much right to be judge of a debate as a jackass has to conduct an orchestra.

Spoken with true 62 year old wisdom..... :doh:

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Spoken with true 62 year old wisdom..... :doh:

Wisdom? No, he's just been indoctrinated and brainwashed his entire life.

[Sarge]

Spoken with true 62 year old wisdom..... :doh:

See what the lingering effects of drugs can do to ya? Even from 40 years ago

[kramdizzle]

whatever, what is teh UN without us? its just a bunch of countries squabeling amoung themselves, who needs them anyways. we have done what we want when we want and the Un doesnt have teh balls to do anything about it

[SkinsHokieFan]

The U.N is a damn joke

[herrmag]

We should be removed from the UN. That way, they can accomplish what they set forth.....Which is nothing. It'd work out well.

[Teller]

I didn't say the UN charged anybody with anything. You are wrong.

You call Fox a reputable source-- its a national joke

Raw Story features stories it picks up from other sources. It's meant to be the liberal equivalent of the conservative Drudge report. Both Raw Story and the Drudge report are reliable sources; for the most part, they don't generate their own copy, and often pick up material from the mainstream press.

The material I cited was factual material...factual news...not someone's opinion. Raw Story is not an opinion blog, though editorials are featured. The material consists primarily of news stories of interest to democrats. It quite often includes negative material about democrats.

I didn't say I stood behind Amnesty International's points. My post concerned the fact that Amnesty International made charges...and I proved it with a link.

What is your dog in this fight. I don't get it. Do you believe that the U.S. is not guilty of war crimes, that they were isolated instances, that they were justified? What? That anyone who wants to end torture and war crimes in the world is a traitor?

I know fabrication of stories and supporting them with lies is your game, so it's easy to see why you view FOX as the "national joke" as opposed to CBS. Show me one instance where FOX has criticized a Democrat or supported a Republican without factual basis. I provided an example of how CBS did just that (fake documents used to accuse the president of failing to complete guard commitment). Please have the courtesy to do the same...if you can.

This is idiocy: "U.S. charged with war crimes at U.N." -- Crazyhorse1

"I didn't say the U.N. charged anyone with anything. You are wrong." -- Crazyhorse1

I demonstrated clearly enough for a third grader to understand how your title is semantically incorrect. It does not surprise me that you still do not follow the logic -- or any logic for that matter.

You also said, "Raw Story features stories it picks up from other sources." If that is true in this case, they are plagurists. Directly under the title in big red letters are the words RAW STORY. There is absolutely NO credit to any other person or news agency. If this was acquired from another source as you suggest, they should be prosecuted criminally. I hope you realize you have further discredited your "source."

And just for the record, their is no such thing as a reliable source "for the most part." You are reputable or you are not. Raw Story is not, if only for the reasons I have cited surrounding this "story."

I refuse to base "my dog in this fight" on lies, plagurism and an uniformed individual attempting to stir the pot. When you can provide a reliable source and argue in fact, only then can we discuss the actual issue.

Needless to say, this being my third request, I'm not holding my breath.

[Crazyhorse1]

I know fabrication of stories and supporting them with lies is your game, so it's easy to see why you view FOX as the "national joke" as opposed to CBS. Show me one instance where FOX has criticized a Democrat or supported a Republican without factual basis. I provided an example of how CBS did just that (fake documents used to accuse the president of failing to complete guard commitment). Please have the courtesy to do the same...if you can.

This is idiocy: "U.S. charged with war crimes at U.N." -- Crazyhorse1

"I didn't say the U.N. charged anyone with anything. You are wrong." -- Crazyhorse1

I demonstrated clearly enough for a third grader to understand how your title is semantically incorrect. It does not surprise me that you still do not follow the logic -- or any logic for that matter.

You also said, "Raw Story features stories it picks up from other sources." If that is true in this case, they are plagurists. Directly under the title in big red letters are the words RAW STORY. There is absolutely NO credit to any other person or news agency. If this was acquired from another source as you suggest, they should be prosecuted criminally. I hope you realize you have further discredited your "source."

And just for the record, their is no such thing as a reliable source "for the most part." You are reputable or you are not. Raw Story is not, if only for the reasons I have cited surrounding this "story."

I refuse to base "my dog in this fight" on lies, plagurism and an uniformed individual attempting to stir the pot. When you can provide a reliable source and argue in fact, only then can we discuss the actual issue.

Needless to say, this being my third request, I'm not holding my breath.

Alright, let's try this report directly from Amnesty International.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510512006?open&of=ENG-313

I won't bother trying to tell you that what the difference is between saying someone is charged with something at the UN and the UN has charged someone with something; or the difference between reprinting articles from other sources legally and plagurism or even that I didn't say Raw Story didn't generate some of its stories; or even try to set you straight that there has never been a determination by any organized investigative body that the CBS documents were fake (only that they couldn't be authenicated).

Let's see how well you do with the report cited above. Is Amnest International a liar and producer of false reports. Is it wrong about what constitutes war crimes and who is guilty of them?

[webnarc]

It is scary that many here whitewash the torture that is going on over there and think nothing of it.

You all KNOW the US forces have tortured people over there, not because that is their nature but because that is the nature of war. Grow-up and enjoy your Saturday. Crazyhorse will engage and refute each of you because that's what he does. You'll try to win the battle by accusing him of breaking the rules instead of engaging him. It's pretty weak because you can't believe what you are saying.

[Johnny Punani2]

Alright, let's try this report directly from Amnesty International.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510512006?open&of=ENG-313

I won't bother trying to tell you that what the difference is between saying someone is charged with something at the UN and the UN has charged someone with something; or the difference between reprinting articles from other sources legally and plagurism or even that I didn't say Raw Story didn't generate some of its stories; or even try to set you straight that there has never been a determination by any organized investigative body that the CBS documents were fake (only that they couldn't be authenicated).

Let's see how well you do with the report cited above. Is Amnest International a liar and producer of false reports. Is it wrong about what constitutes war crimes and who is guilty of them?

Does Amnesty International have an agenda? Yes...

[Teller]

Alright, let's try this report directly from Amnesty International.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510512006?open&of=ENG-313

I won't bother trying to tell you that what the difference is between saying someone is charged with something at the UN and the UN has charged someone with something; or the difference between reprinting articles from other sources legally and plagurism or even that I didn't say Raw Story didn't generate some of its stories; or even try to set you straight that there has never been a determination by any organized investigative body that the CBS documents were fake (only that they couldn't be authenicated).

Let's see how well you do with the report cited above. Is Amnest International a liar and producer of false reports. Is it wrong about what constitutes war crimes and who is guilty of them?

Obviously, I'm not going to read that entire novella nor, do I assume, have you. However, in skimming the material there does not appear to be anything new in it. We've known about the "dark sites" in Europe since that information was leaked by a huge donor to the democratic party who happens to also be a member of the CIA. We've known about the aggressive, some say illegal, interrogation tactics being used by US troops since Abu Ghraib (if not before). We've known that the world community is anti-American since God knows when.

I know what you're going to say. Calling the world community anti-American is right-wing rhetoric. If that's the case, why isn't Amnesty International or anyone else pursuing the terrorists organizations that kidnap and decapitate American civilians? What's worse, smacking the soles of someone's feet, or cutting their head off?

I'm not saying TRUE torture is OK. Aggressive interrogation is, IMO. If knocking around a terrorist saves as much as one American life, I have no problem with it. You do not get intelligence information by coddling prisoners. And the intelligence you can get out of them is some of the most valuable available.

Truthfully, I miss the days when we didn't know the strategic details of how our wars are fought. Now, the media, American public, world press, and everyone else have our operational plans ahead of time. Now they know the details of how we obtain information. They claim it's in the interest of humanitarian work, but all it does in reality is make the war tougher for our troops on the ground.

If Amnesty International is not pursuing the terrorists who are slaughtering our civilians with the same or more aggression than they are alleged U.S. "atrocities" they're a joke. If the world community wants to accuse us of war crimes, we should just start decapitating our EPWs, since that is apparently OK.

We may not be perfect, but I'd feel much better being captured by American troops, than kidnapped by those jihadist idiots. And so would you.

And where was Amnesty International, the UN or anyone else when 3000 of my countrymen died on my soil? I'd love to see how the UN would do without our membership and billion dollars a year in funding. What do they do for us?

[ashburnskinsfan]

We've known that the world community is anti-American since God knows when.

I know what you're going to say. Calling the world community anti-American is right-wing rhetoric. If that's the case, why isn't Amnesty International or anyone else pursuing the terrorists organizations that kidnap and decapitate American civilians?

If Amnesty International is not pursuing the terrorists who are slaughtering our civilians with the same or more aggression than they are alleged U.S. "atrocities" they're a joke. If the world community wants to accuse us of war crimes, we should just start decapitating our EPWs, since that is apparently OK.

We may not be perfect, but I'd feel much better being captured by American troops, than kidnapped by those jihadist idiots. And so would you.

And where was Amnesty International, the UN or anyone else when 3000 of my countrymen died on my soil?

In this rant you are essentially defending highly questionable behaviour by the current administration by arguing that they're not as bad as murdering psychopathic terrorists. Is this the standard you think they should be held to?

The world, and Amnesty International, is not Anti-American but hopes for higher standards of behavior from any nation state, and especially a democracy. Amnesty and others do not expect terrorist organizations to show even basic standards of decency or to be accountable to what the world community thinks, and so do not pursue them.

Take a look at the Amnesty International website, www.amnesty.org, and the cases they are highlighting. Who knows, you may even want to support their work.

[Teller]

In this rant you are essentially defending highly questionable behaviour by the current administration by arguing that they're not as bad as murdering psychopathic terrorists. Is this the standard you think they should be held to?

The world, and Amnesty International, is not Anti-American but hopes for higher standards of behavior from any nation state, and especially a democracy. Amnesty and others do not expect terrorist organizations to show even basic standards of decency or to be accountable to what the world community thinks, and so do not pursue them.

Take a look at the Amnesty International website, www.amnesty.org, and the cases they are highlighting. Who knows, you may even want to support their work.

:laugh: So using your theory, we need to lower AI's expectations. :laugh:

Hypothetical:

You have the ability to stop 9-11, but it requires you to torture a terror suspect to get the information out of him. What do you do?