Wacka Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 No, bigfoot is a myth. Batboy is real though. I see him in the paper every week!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Has the Bush administration denied the existance of Hobbits? No need to, they're alive and well and occasionally post here. Which way to Middle Earth? Straight up the NYS Thruway from NYC about two or two and a half hours...
Reuben Gant Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 They also haven't denied the existence of bigfoot... 342596[/snapback] how could they. OSI and Bionic man were running into that thing all the time. Eventually, even Oscar Goldman believed.
SilverNRed Posted May 23, 2005 Author Posted May 23, 2005 Has the Bush Administration commented on the TSW rumor that Urkel died? Where are we on that one? Newsweak? Anyone?
Campy Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 That is because Bigfoot exists. It was reported in all the papers. The National Enquirer had a big story on it. I think the Weekly World News also had a multi-part piece on it. Seriously, Tom. You really need to start reading more. 342605[/snapback] Kinda' like WMDs then?
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 ...are you people naive enough to think that this was made up? You're kidding right? This is a classic example of why this place grew to bore me. Some so blind with political idolatry. Think about this. If prisoners HAD copies of the Koran, who do you suppose gave them to them? Hmmm...?
Alaska Darin Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 ...are you people naive enough to think that this was made up? 342972[/snapback] No, we simply don't care and neither should anyone else. As far as giving them religious materials, of course we do. We're nice captors.
Campy Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 As far as giving them religious materials, of course we do. We're nice captors. 342977[/snapback] Article 5, provision 1(d) of the Geneva Convention requires they be allowed to freely practice their religion. To practice my religion I need a Bible, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to let them have their Quaran.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 Article 5, provision 1(d) of the Geneva Convention requires they be allowed to freely practice their religion. To practice my religion I need a Bible, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to let them have their Quaran. 342988[/snapback] To practice my religion, all I need is my faith.
Alaska Darin Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 Article 5, provision 1(d) of the Geneva Convention requires they be allowed to freely practice their religion. To practice my religion I need a Bible, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to let them have their Quaran. 342988[/snapback] Well, 'cept the captives in Gitmo don't actually fall under the Geneva Convention.
Campy Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 Well, 'cept the captives in Gitmo don't actually fall under the Geneva Convention. 342994[/snapback] According to whom, the majority of the planet or the White House Counsel's opine? I perceive them to be "people whose liberty has been detained" and that "all the persons who have been deprived of their liberty or whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to such conflict, as well as those deprived of their liberty or whose liberty is restricted after the conflict for the same reasons, shall enjoy the protection of Articles 5 and 6 until the end of such deprivation or restriction of liberty.." As the signatory of the Geneva Convention, the United States has agreed that "in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity." Regardless, it's a pretty sad time when the US of frickin' A chooses to not meet minimal humanitarian standards.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 According to whom, the majority of the planet or the White House Counsel's opine? I perceive them to be "people whose liberty has been detained" and that "all the persons who have been deprived of their liberty or whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to such conflict, as well as those deprived of their liberty or whose liberty is restricted after the conflict for the same reasons, shall enjoy the protection of Articles 5 and 6 until the end of such deprivation or restriction of liberty.." As the signatory of the Geneva Convention, the United States has agreed that "in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity." Regardless, it's a pretty sad time when the US of frickin' A chooses to not meet minimal humanitarian standards. 343003[/snapback] Too bad.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 According to whom, the majority of the planet or the White House Counsel's opine? I perceive them to be "people whose liberty has been detained" and that "all the persons who have been deprived of their liberty or whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to such conflict, as well as those deprived of their liberty or whose liberty is restricted after the conflict for the same reasons, shall enjoy the protection of Articles 5 and 6 until the end of such deprivation or restriction of liberty.." As the signatory of the Geneva Convention, the United States has agreed that "in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity." Regardless, it's a pretty sad time when the US of frickin' A chooses to not meet minimal humanitarian standards. 343003[/snapback] According to the convention. Non-signatories of the convention - such as trans-national terrorist groups not openly armed - aren't protected by it. The convention's definition of who's coverd is very broad but very specific, and terrorist groups aren't in there. As far as the convention's concerned, such people can be subject to torture and execution. And if you read the Convention...the prisoners at Gitmo are provided a surprising amount of right within the Covention, and not denied all that many. What they're denied is principally the freedom to communicate with the outside, for what I think are obvious reasons.
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 I like how the left is more concerned with whether Habib who prior to his capture was slitting westerners throats or plotting dirty bomb attacks on our cities, gets his Koran than the poor hapless victims of radical Islam be it Westerner or Muslim. Mosque blown up by terrorists - who cares Mosque blown up by troops - BAD AMERICA, BAD! Innocent civilians intentionally killed by terrorists - who cares Innocent civilians inadvertantly killed by troops - BAD AMERICA, BAD! AMERICA BAD! BUSH BAD! GENEVA CONVENTION! KYOTO PROTOCOLS! HALLIBURTON! FLIGHT SUIT! NOSE PICK! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! TOM DELAY BAD! UNDERWEAR PICTURE! ABU GHRAIB! BAD BAD BAD!
Pac_Man Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 I believe the government should treat any prisoner with a respect for human rights, because to do otherwise sets a bad precedent. Torture, desecration of religious artifacts, rape by other inmates, etc. are unacceptable. Having said this, Newsweek was far too quick to cry wolf. The evidence for liberal bias in the mainstream press is irrefutable. It's been well documented by Bernard Goldberg in his book Bias. As for why the Bush administration hasn't denied the stories; it's possible they are a little scared about what happened in Abu Grahib. If there's even a 1% chance that some overzealous interregator somewhere took liberties with the Koran, the Bush administration doesn't want to fall on its face later by denying such things happened. There's a difference between exercising reasonable caution in the face of the complexities of running a large organization--which is what the Bush administration appears to be doing--and blackening America's name throughout the Middle East based on an unsubstantiated report from an anonymous source.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 According to the convention. Non-signatories of the convention - such as trans-national terrorist groups not openly armed - aren't protected by it. The convention's definition of who's coverd is very broad but very specific, and terrorist groups aren't in there. As far as the convention's concerned, such people can be subject to torture and execution. And if you read the Convention...the prisoners at Gitmo are provided a surprising amount of right within the Covention, and not denied all that many. What they're denied is principally the freedom to communicate with the outside, for what I think are obvious reasons. 343048[/snapback] *stands and applauds* You know what, Tom, sometimes your egg-headedness is a good thing.
Terry Tate Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 According to the convention. Non-signatories of the convention - such as trans-national terrorist groups not openly armed - aren't protected by it. The convention's definition of who's coverd is very broad but very specific, and terrorist groups aren't in there. As far as the convention's concerned, such people can be subject to torture and execution. And if you read the Convention...the prisoners at Gitmo are provided a surprising amount of right within the Covention, and not denied all that many. What they're denied is principally the freedom to communicate with the outside, for what I think are obvious reasons. 343048[/snapback] The "Hate America First" parade will be moved to another thread due to rain.
Campy Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 I believe the government should treat any prisoner with a respect for human rights, because to do otherwise sets a bad precedent. Torture, desecration of religious artifacts, rape by other inmates, etc. are unacceptable. 343102[/snapback] Now that's something that you and I agree on.
Campy Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 The convention's definition of who's coverd is very broad but very specific, and terrorist groups aren't in there. As far as the convention's concerned, such people can be subject to torture and execution. 343048[/snapback] I've read it, but I don't believe that all of the people who are detained there were members of an unorganized force that the Convention claims are exempt from the protections provided within it. In any event, as a taxpayer, I don't take issue with the gov't buying Quarans for Muslim detainees, and that's where I (think I) differ from some others here who seem to make it out to be a much more charitable act that it really is.
Recommended Posts