BF2S Forums Bush admits Secret CIA prisons

oug wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

oug wrote:

You are sure the prisoners are guilty simply because they are prisoners. That is very nice.

The only way you and all those who think like you will ever learn is if you were to become targets.

Oh how I will laugh with the sheer irony of retribution when you will be crying out about your innocence and everyone will be like: Wtf? He's in there so he must be guilty. The CIA people can't be wrong!

All totalitarian regimes rely on their peoples' ignorance and naivete. That is you.

I was an infantry Marine for 4 years. I have a Purple Heart and a Combat Action ribbon. I know what it is like to be a target, do you? I didnt think so. Dont you dare sit there behind your monitor and keyboard and criticize me and all the others who fought for your right to do so like your some kind of prophet. The only way YOU will ever learn is if YOU become a target. Maybe then you might have a fucking clue.

Have you any idea what you fought for? It certainly wasn't defence! You were the aggressor and that is the reason why your country became #1 target. I on the other hand certainly am no aggressor and neither is France like someone said before. The Eiffel tower hasn't been shot down simply because France has not invaded other countries! If they do, rest asured they will be targeted as well.

And don't you dare lecture me simply because you have a purple heart and a goddamn action ribbon. Because I at least have the brains NOT to become a target.

Listen here you French coward. You just assume that I was in Iraq,  I wasn't. You assume we were the aggressors, we were not. I'm not an idiot for becoming a target. America was founded on the belief that our citizens are prepared to die for their freedom. France on the other hand would be speaking German right now if it were not for us American "idiots" who liberated your cowardly asses on more than one occasion this century.And for the record, I wasnt lecturing you, I was correcting your lude claim that I have no idea "what its like". Your not fooling anyone here. Its not that you have the brains, its that you dont have the balls.

Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2006-09-08 07:40:21)

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Listen here you French coward. You just assume that I was in Iraq,  I wasn't. You assume we were the aggressors, we were not. I'm not an idiot for becoming a target. America was founded on the belief that our citizens are prepared to die for their freedom. France on the other hand would be speaking German right now if it were not for us American "idiots" who liberated your cowardly asses on more than one occasion this century.

1. I'm not French.

2. I don't care where you fought. It's all the same if you were in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever. If its further back we can talk about that too.

3. I'm certainly NOT assuming you are the aggressors. Your government invaded Afghanistan because they were allegedly harboring terrorists and Iraq because allegedly Saddam had WMDs. In both cases they did not attack first.

4. What America was founded on has nothing to do with this conversation.

5. Who helped you get rid of England back in the day? And again, this has nothing to do with this conversation.

6. I refuse to debate with people who result in name calling so if you wanna continue this... enough with the coward shit.

Last edited by oug (2006-09-08 07:41:31)

oug wrote:

Was he drafted? Ok then. I didn't even know there was a draft. If there is,  its my bad. But I recon he had a choice (it coincides with his distorted view of the world btw). And if still after all those years and all this analysis of the alleged "war on terror" you haven't realized what it is about then I'm sincerely sorry. Hell, even by taking a look at this forum you should be able to get a grasp, no special research is necessary.

There is NO war on terror. And even though my personal opinion is even more extreme*, I'll give you an example you might relate to: What's going on in Afghanistan at the moment? I hear NATO is asking for more troops cause the Taliban are giving them hell since most of the US troops pulled out.

Why doesn't your government give a fuck? Why are they concentrating on Iraq instead? Supposedly when this "war on terror" campaign started, it was all about Afghanistan and the Taliban regime helping Al Quaeda. Again, not that I believe the latter is true, but nonetheless. Why is the alleged mastermind of this whole thing still free? Why is it that getting Osama Bin Laden became from #1 priority to "I don't know where he is, and frankly I don't care" by GWB?


*Personal opinion: Afghanistan and Al Quaeda had nothing to do with this. Osama may have wanted to pull a 9/11 but he never could. It's all an inside job the goal of which is to give the US government an excuse to extend its grasp in the Middle East. It's the implementation of the Northwoods Documents' proposal. The only thing that differs is the target (ME not Cuba).

I must respectfully disagree with you.  I do believe there is a war on terror and that the US and its allies are winning it.  The Taliban are a persistent fanatical enemy and you just gave another reason why the US needs to be in Afghanistan.  Clearly the UN can't handle the situation.  The Taliban and Al Quaeda are two heads on the same dragon.  The mastermind is still free to this day because the US regrettably let him slip through our fingers at Tora Bora. 

Our government does care.  That is why we have these "secret" prisons.  If you think that the US isn't actively searching for Bin Laden you are mistaken.  America is in Iraq because the military is capable of fighting on multiple fronts.  A Democracy in Iraq is much better for the World than Saddam was. 

Man, I respect your 9/11 opinion but wow... I think you are way off base. Bin Laden had tried before to take out the WTC with carbombs.  There is way too much evidence implicating him.  How about Moussari then?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I must respectfully disagree with you.  I do believe there is a war on terror and that the US and its allies are winning it.

It cannot be won by definition.  War is not a means of preventing terrorism, all the recent terrorism can be traced back to war at it's origin. 

DBBrinson1 wrote:

The Taliban are a persistent fanatical enemy and you just gave another reason why the US needs to be in Afghanistan.

The Taliban is a movement.  Having killed 5000 and yet not managed to stop the flow of new recruits, isn't there a chance that a different approach might be better?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Clearly the UN can't handle the situation.  The Taliban and Al Quaeda are two heads on the same dragon.  The mastermind is still free to this day because the US regrettably let him slip through our fingers at Tora Bora.

Would killing or capturing the President of the US destroy the principles which the members believe in, and make every just decide "maybe we were wrong, let's all do something else instead"?  Could the nation still function with a dead prez?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Our government does care.  That is why we have these "secret" prisons.  If you think that the US isn't actively searching for Bin Laden you are mistaken.  America is in Iraq because the military is capable of fighting on multiple fronts.  A Democracy in Iraq is much better for the World than Saddam was.

Iraq technically was a Democracy before.  Now, what does America do if another Islamic group dominates the polls and places a dictator in control?  Invade, ban that party from running and hold another set of elections? 

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Man, I respect your 9/11 opinion but wow... I think you are way off base. Bin Laden had tried before to take out the WTC with carbombs.  There is way too much evidence implicating him.  How about Moussari then?

If it was allegedly Bin Laden "feeding" people ideas, then surely it could have been anyone, including CIA informants.  Just a point, doesn't mean it was/wasn't.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-09-08 08:51:59)

Tunacommy wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

As if they haven't made mistakes and tortured civilians before.  How do you know they only do it to terrorists?  And, besides which, terrorists may kill people but they rarely torture them.

ummm....live decapitations with a kitchen knife....no, that's not torture.

He said rarely.  And the electric chair is torture, too...

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I can assure you I was not in that region under the Bush administration. I dont like him any more than you do ( less prob) but I hate terrorists and I want them all dead. Simple.

Good for you. If only more Americans would adopt that attitude, rather than the traditional - the president is always right and anyone who says otherwise is an unpatriotic commie terrorist.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

We are not detaining innocent civilians. We are detaining members of al queda.

If the government were absolutely positive they were members of Al Qaeda I would have no problem with these detention camps. They are not, at least not in the traditional sense. There needs to be some form of trial for these terror suspects, perhaps not as open as normal trials due to the sensitive nature of the offences. The right to fair trial is a vital part of legal systems across the world, the 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to terrorists just as much as anyone else. If you can't prove they are terrorists, to any degree, then they should be presumed innocent and not subjected to the ordeals they face in these camps. If they're found guilty, do what you want with them. Because it is then, and only then, that you can truely call them terrorists.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Do I think we should be in Iraq? Hell no. Never said we should but what I do support is rounding up of every single god damned terrorist piece of waste that wishes us harm and getting rid of them.

Fair enough. But give them a trial first - innocent people don't deserve that sort of shit. I don't think the US should have gone into Iraq either, the situation there was self contained and whilst unpleasant, was nothing like the terrorist breeding ground it is today. I do support the US over Afghanistan, can't have foreign governments saying 'Yeah, we've got terrorists who attacked you here and there's nothing you can do about it' (which was really quite a stupid thing to say to the US), that just takes the piss. Afghanistan was perfectly justified.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

America was founded on the belief that our citizens are prepared to die for their freedom.

You don't think that applies to the Europeans who have done a lot more dying for their freedom than Americans have over the years. Virtually every country is founded on the same doctorine. Other people just tend to go on about it less.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

France on the other hand would be speaking German right now if it were not for us American "idiots" who liberated your cowardly asses on more than one occasion this century.

That's not entirely true. The US didn't do that much in the war in Europe. It was the Russians who really saved the day. The D-Day landings were the biggest part the US played in the war in Europe and until that point they had acted like complete pussies about the whole thing. The only really important part the US played was in getting troops across into Normandy, without them it would have been a much more difficult battle - but still a winable one. I'm sick of Americans saying 'we saved your asses in WWII', because it really isn't true, the US helped out, quite a lot, but were ultimately non-essential. Had Hitler stuck to his non-aggression pact with Stalin the west would really have been fucked - and you might well have been talking Russian/German by now. If you look up the battles of WWII, you will see the US played a part in only a very few of them. I cannot recall any campaigns fought by the US alone in Europe in WWII. They were all fought by the British and the US, or by the British and the Canadians, or by the Russians. The French and Polish helped out too. The major role of the US in Europe was for the D-Day landings. That's it. I know their role has been massively overplayed in numerous US films, but that's not what quite happened, they present a very biased view.

The US did do the bulk of the work in the Pacific though - I'll certainly give them that.

I do agree with you on quite a few points. I just don't particularly like the way you have put them across. You seem to think Afghanistan was a good idea, I agree. You think Iraq was a bad idea, I agree. You think detaining terrorists in these CIA detention camps is a good idea, I don't disagree - but we do differ in our definition of what counts as a terrorist for purposes of detaining them and I believe some form of trial is the only way to do this.

oug wrote:

1. The Taliban are religious fanatics and I would hate to live in a country under their law. They are relics and should be abolished from the people of Afghanistan. The thing is no outside power should be involved (at least the way the US is). Their downfall should normally derive from the peoples' free will to change things.

2. As for Osama, maybe I'm overestimating the US, but I doubt he could hide for so long if they really wanted to catch him. I smell a cloudy deal... like back in the days when Osama was an ally against the USSR and the US were funding him. Generally I can see why my 9/11 point of view would sound completely unrealistic. I bet that's how JFK felt when he first layed eyes on this preposterous plan. I just hope that proof will continue to be gathered so we can all find out what really happened.

3. You realize of course that your government's intent - however noble - (which I seriously doubt) does not alter the fact that secret prisons where there can be no control are highly illegal. If I called them concentration camps would it ring a bell? Think about it... we're talking about places where we don't know who is being kept, by whom and on what charge. The prisoners there certainly have no lawyers, nor do they go through trial for that matter!!! Guilty and innocent, hidden from the public eye.

And not only that! Read a previous post I made and you'll hear your president say that these people are potential mass murderers who are being kept away from the streets BEFORE they are able to kill!!! Consider that for a sec... They have done nothing, but somebody decided they are wannabe terrorists and they put them away just for that!!! Is this the freedom your government is trying to spread? If so, then we should all become active fighters against this regime.

1. I agree.  It would be ideal for the country (with those type of fanatics running amok in it) to deal with it by itself.  But, since Afghanistan is unable to, here comes big brother (I hate typing that).

2. I really think it was Osama and his number two man.  Osama didn't plan it.  The number 2 guy did.  He probably brought a bunch of plans to Osama saying, "here's what we can do".  Then Osama said do it.  Osama is a rich man and easily funded the entire thing.

3.  I don't know where secret prisons are illegal.  At any rate.  They aren't secret anymore.  Those in custody unless they are an American citizen do not enjoy the same constitutional protection.  I don't know how the CIA got the names or care to.  I think that there are things that the Joe Lunch box American doesn't need to know.  Matters of national security.  When the media broadcasts things like the wiretapping issue and blows it way out of proportion, the baddies know now and change tactics.  It compromises national security. 

Those people in detention are there for a reason.  They weren't randomly put there because he may one day be a terrorist.  He did something to earn that visit from the CIA.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

oug wrote:

1. The Taliban are religious fanatics and I would hate to live in a country under their law. They are relics and should be abolished from the people of Afghanistan. The thing is no outside power should be involved (at least the way the US is). Their downfall should normally derive from the peoples' free will to change things.

2. As for Osama, maybe I'm overestimating the US, but I doubt he could hide for so long if they really wanted to catch him. I smell a cloudy deal... like back in the days when Osama was an ally against the USSR and the US were funding him. Generally I can see why my 9/11 point of view would sound completely unrealistic. I bet that's how JFK felt when he first layed eyes on this preposterous plan. I just hope that proof will continue to be gathered so we can all find out what really happened.

3. You realize of course that your government's intent - however noble - (which I seriously doubt) does not alter the fact that secret prisons where there can be no control are highly illegal. If I called them concentration camps would it ring a bell? Think about it... we're talking about places where we don't know who is being kept, by whom and on what charge. The prisoners there certainly have no lawyers, nor do they go through trial for that matter!!! Guilty and innocent, hidden from the public eye.

And not only that! Read a previous post I made and you'll hear your president say that these people are potential mass murderers who are being kept away from the streets BEFORE they are able to kill!!! Consider that for a sec... They have done nothing, but somebody decided they are wannabe terrorists and they put them away just for that!!! Is this the freedom your government is trying to spread? If so, then we should all become active fighters against this regime.

1. I agree.  It would be ideal for the country (with those type of fanatics running amok in it) to deal with it by itself.  But, since Afghanistan is unable to, here comes big brother (I hate typing that).

2. I really think it was Osama and his number two man.  Osama didn't plan it.  The number 2 guy did.  He probably brought a bunch of plans to Osama saying, "here's what we can do".  Then Osama said do it.  Osama is a rich man and easily funded the entire thing.

3.  I don't know where secret prisons are illegal.  At any rate.  They aren't secret anymore.  Those in custody unless they are an American citizen do not enjoy the same constitutional protection.  I don't know how the CIA got the names or care to.  I think that there are things that the Joe Lunch box American doesn't need to know.  Matters of national security.  When the media broadcasts things like the wiretapping issue and blows it way out of proportion, the baddies know now and change tactics.  It compromises national security. 

Those people in detention are there for a reason.  They weren't randomly put there because he may one day be a terrorist.  He did something to earn that visit from the CIA.

See here is the problem - You seem to think that American's are the only people on the planet with any right to Civil Liberties, well I'm sorry man all the European union would disagree with you for a start.  Now you presume that every detainee in these "former" secret camps are a terrorist.  Yet this is clearly not true as has already been proven by what happened to Khaled el-Masri who was an innocent victim of one of these camps - how many other cases are there the same as his? that's the problem with secret camps we don't know do we?

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-09-08 11:27:09)

IG-Calibre wrote:

LMAO - I made uo the essential international rules of humanitarian Law- you're right you're not human anymore a prerequisite of humanity is to have a brain

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&am … &meta=

Well I asked you to state a source before, and you didn't (until now) what else was I supposed to believe.  And friend exactly who has agreed to those.  We were talking about Geneva, and you went off track and didn't provide a source......thanks for the disrespect.

International HUmanitarian Law wrote:

The parties to a conflict((Lets see Geneva has ruled that unlawful combatants are not parties to a conflict)) must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked.

    * Attacks may be made solely against military objectives ((Yeah, looks like the terrorists are doing good with this one)). People who do not or can no longer take part in the hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and for their physical and mental integrity. Such people must in all circumstances be protected and treated with humanity, without any unfavorable distinction whatever. ((Terrorists have been treated relatively well unless you can provide some other sources OTHER than Abu Gharib...))

    * It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in the fighting.

    * Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.((Good job terrorists yet again))

    * The wounded and sick must be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. Medical personnel and medical establishments, transports and equipment must be spared.

    * The red cross or red crescent on a white background is the distinctive sign indicating that such persons and objects must be respected.

    * Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.

Once again, who has signed this, who has agreed to this.  And even if the U.S. has, why should terrorists and UNLAWFUL combatants be given this treatment if they do not respect it themselves....?

You were really getting off point and I don't understand why you find it neccessary to disrespect me just because we disagree.  NO need to do that, try reading all my posts, and maturely responding.  I respect your view and opinions, I think it is healthy to debate, but not when you are just being rude.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-08 11:45:16)

Tunacommy wrote:

We are taught in the U.S. from a young age that WE won WWII....it is not until you get a little older that you figure out that it is really only true for the war with Japan.  That was "our" real perceived enemy at that time.  We were happy letting most of Europe fall to Germany and were reluctant to get too involved.  Our main contribution in the war with Germany was industry.  We supplied the western front allies (Brit's) with most of their supplies, as their factories and industry was being bombed out.  I dare say, if Japan had not hit Pearl Harbor, we would have stayed out of WWII all together.  I do believe that without help from the U.S. in terms of supplies....the UK may have fallen to Germany....so give us some credit there;  even though I agree with you that in the overall picture that Germany would have been beat withouth our troop involvement.

Here is another tidbit - we Americans like to claim that we saved France from Germany in WWII....but without France, the U.S. (arguably) might not be here either.  They offered troops, weapons, leadership and supplies in the Revolutionary War with Britan.  We would probably be a British colony without France's help in that war.....something to think about.....

Can't believe I didn't mention US supplies. Sorry about that. They were very important. You're also right about the French and the revolutionary war.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

It cannot be won by definition.  War is not a means of preventing terrorism, all the recent terrorism can be traced back to war at it's origin.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

It will be won when Al Quaida is no longer attacking and harassing innocent people.

The war on terror cannot be won through strength of arms. The more military campaigns that are waged, the more terrorists will flock to the cause. Publicity is the lifeblood of terrorism, the war on terror gives terrorists more publicity than ever before. It is in it's very essence a really stupid idea.

The war on terror should be waged far more subtly, but I can't see Bush and subtlety mixing too well. The campaign should be kept, in as much as it is possible, out of the public eye and be waged by intelligence organisations. These intelligence organisations should be cooperating fully with each other. Something US intel agencies rarely seem to do and European intel agencies aren't much better at it.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Who knows  maybe the CIA has had Osama in one of their secret prisons for the past few years... I doubt it though.

I doubt it too. If they were to catch him, which I doubt they ever will, his capture would be broadcast as widely as possible and as quickly as possible - just like with Saddam. That would be the sensible thing to do, because it inspires public confidence. Diminishing public confidence is what terrorism is all about. If we just ignore them and let the intelligence services get on with their job of catching they and bringing them to justice (NOT, just detaining them without any sort of externaly moderated trial), then the terrorists struggle would be rendered meaningless. In fact the economic strain put on the global economy, particularly the US economy is the greatest damage the terrorists can really hope to inflict. Economic strain that is made worse by massive increases in military spending and panic about terrorist strikes. Some people might get blown up, but they're more likely to be murdered by a regular criminal or be killed in a car accident. The media attention is just what the terrorists want - ignore them (although behind the scenes try to catch them).
The worst thing anyone could do is start some sort of crusade against terror - that's playing right into the terrorists hands.

IG-Calibre wrote:

See here is the problem - you seem to think that American's are the only people with any right to Civil Liberties, well i'm sorry man all the European union would dissagree with you.  Now you presume that every detainee in these "former" secret camps is a terrorist.  Yet as has already been proven by the case of  Khaled el-Masri was an innocent victim of these camps - how many other cases are there the same has his? thats the pproblem with secret camps we don't know do we?

Two very good points. Americans are not the only people with any sort of civil rights. Everybody has them. It is attitudes like that which lead to bad things - both world wars for example, remember the German Jews stripped of rights by Nuremberg Race Laws?
The other point about innocent victims of these detention camps is also well made. There have been cases where detainees in these camps have been found to be innocent, after being subjected to months or years of imprisonment in horrific conditions. Trials before terror suspects are sent to these camps would make such incidents considerably less common and perhaps even eliminate them. In the UK I believe closed court sessions are held for terror suspects, without a jury but with a judge presiding (I'm not 100% sure on that though). I believe the CIA should adopt a similar system.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-08 12:34:54)

Bertster7 wrote:

Tunacommy wrote:

We are taught in the U.S. from a young age that WE won WWII....it is not until you get a little older that you figure out that it is really only true for the war with Japan.  That was "our" real perceived enemy at that time.  We were happy letting most of Europe fall to Germany and were reluctant to get too involved.  Our main contribution in the war with Germany was industry.  We supplied the western front allies (Brit's) with most of their supplies, as their factories and industry was being bombed out.  I dare say, if Japan had not hit Pearl Harbor, we would have stayed out of WWII all together.  I do believe that without help from the U.S. in terms of supplies....the UK may have fallen to Germany....so give us some credit there;  even though I agree with you that in the overall picture that Germany would have been beat withouth our troop involvement.

Here is another tidbit - we Americans like to claim that we saved France from Germany in WWII....but without France, the U.S. (arguably) might not be here either.  They offered troops, weapons, leadership and supplies in the Revolutionary War with Britan.  We would probably be a British colony without France's help in that war.....something to think about.....

Can't believe I didn't mention US supplies. Sorry about that. They were very important. You're also right about the French and the revolutionary war.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

It cannot be won by definition.  War is not a means of preventing terrorism, all the recent terrorism can be traced back to war at it's origin.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

It will be won when Al Quaida is no longer attacking and harassing innocent people.

The war on terror cannot be won through strength of arms. The more military campaigns that are waged, the more terrorists will flock to the cause. Publicity is the lifeblood of terrorism, the war on terror gives terrorists more publicity than ever before. It is in it's very essence a really stupid idea.

The war on terror should be waged far more subtly, but I can't see Bush and subtlety mixing too well. The campaign should be kept, in as much as it is possible, out of the public eye and be waged by intelligence organisations. These intelligence organisations should be cooperating fully with each other. Something US intel agencies rarely seem to do and European intel agencies aren't much better at it.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Who knows  maybe the CIA has had Osama in one of their secret prisons for the past few years... I doubt it though.

I doubt it too. If they were to catch him, which I doubt they ever will, his capture would be broadcast as widely as possible and as quickly as possible - just like with Saddam. That would be the sensible thing to do, because it inspires public confidence. Diminishing public confidence is what terrorism is all about. If we just ignore them and let the intelligence services get on with their job of catching they and bringing them to justice (NOT, just detaining them without any sort of externaly moderated trial), then the terrorists struggle would be rendered meaningless. In fact the economic strain put on the global economy, particularly the US economy is the greatest damage the terrorists can really hope to inflict. Economic strain that is made worse by massive increases in military spending and panic about terrorist strikes. Some people might get blown up, but they're more likely to be murdered by a regular criminal or be killed in a car accident. The media attention is just what the terrorists want - ignore them (although behind the scenes try to catch them).
The worst thing anyone could do is start some sort of crusade against terror - that's playing right into the terrorists hands.

IG-Calibre wrote:

See here is the problem - you seem to think that American's are the only people with any right to Civil Liberties, well i'm sorry man all the European union would dissagree with you.  Now you presume that every detainee in these "former" secret camps is a terrorist.  Yet as has already been proven by the case of  Khaled el-Masri was an innocent victim of these camps - how many other cases are there the same has his? thats the pproblem with secret camps we don't know do we?

Two very good points. Americans are not the only people with any sort of civil rights. Everybody has them. It is attitudes like that which lead to bad things - both world wars for example, remember the German Jews stripped of rights by Nuremberg Race Laws?
The other point about innocent victims of these detention camps is also well made. There have been cases where detainees in these camps have been found to be innocent, after being subjected to months or years of imprisonment in horrific conditions. Trials before terror suspects are sent to these camps would make such incidents considerably less common and perhaps even eliminate them. In the UK I believe closed court sessions are held for terror suspects, without a jury but with a judge presiding (I'm not 100% sure on that though). I believe the CIA should adopt a similar system.

Aye their called Diplock courts  used for dealing with "Teh Terrorists" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_courts

Bertster7 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I disagree.  The US was fighting hard in Europe.  Here's the proof.
http://www.historyshots.com/usarmy/backstory.cfm

Last bit you typed about France isn't entirely true.  True they did contribute, but they made just in time (at the end).  I'll find the proof and post it later.

Well you're wrong then.

Certainly about WWII in Europe. Don't look at the troop numbers, read up on the battles. The US did not participate in many of the major battles. They helped massively with the Normandy landings and also helped with supplies. That's pretty much it. The battle of the Ardenne was about the only other place they got really stuck in (known as the battle of the bulge to most Americans).

Ok Guy, here you go.

Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.
Jan 26, 1942 - First American forces arrive in Great Britain
Aug 17, 1942 - First all-American air attack in Europe.
Jan 27, 1943 - First bombing raid by Americans on Germany (at Wilhelmshaven).
Feb 14-25 - Battle of Kasserine Pass between the U.S. 1st Armored Division and German Panzers in North Africa.
July 9/10 - Allies land in Sicily.
July 22, 1943 - Americans capture Palermo, Sicily
Aug 17, 1943 - American daylight air raids on Regensburg and Schweinfurt in Germany; Allies reach Messina, Sicily
June 6, 1944 - D-Day landings.
June 27, 1944 - U.S. troops liberate Cherbourg.
July 18, 1944 - U.S. troops reach St. Lô.
July 28, 1944 - Soviet troops take Brest-Litovsk. U.S. troops take Coutances.
Aug 20, 1944 - Allies encircle Germans in the Falaise Pocket.
Sept 1-4 - Verdun, Dieppe, Artois, Rouen, Abbeville, Antwerp and Brussels liberated by Allies
Sept 13, 1944 - U.S. troops reach the Siegfried Line
Sept 17, 1944 - Operation Market Garden begins (Allied airborne assault on Holland).
Dec 16-27 - Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes.
Dec 26, 1944 - Patton relieves Bastogne.
Jan 16, 1945 - U.S. 1st and 3rd Armies link up after a month long separation during the Battle of the Bulge.
March 7, 1945 - Allies take Cologne and establish a bridge across the Rhine at Remagen.
April 1, 1945 - U.S. troops encircle Germans in the Ruhr; Allied offensive in North Italy.
April 12, 1945 - Allies liberate Buchenwald and Belsen concentration camps
April 29, 1945 - U.S. 7th Army liberates Dachau.

And this is the Army.  Not included are the major sea battles that occured in the Atlantic against the German Navy and its U-boats, not to mention the contributions of the US shipping precious troops and supplies.

Well. I think if the US hadn't been there then  -yea, y'all would be speaking German or Russian.  To try and minimize the US participation and significance in the European Theater is ridiculous.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2006-09-08 13:50:21)

sergeriver wrote:

He lied before, impeach him.  This is worse than someone getting a blow job.

Your insane! THERE WAS SECRET PRISONS UNDER CLINTON TOO ya know!!!!!

These prisons are nothing new, we have been outsourcing our prisoners for over 40 years now!! FYI!

It happend in Vietnam through today, so I dont know what the huge shock is all about. . .