You're saying because Bush possibly knew about it, he was involved?
last I heard, the President is still the Commander In Chief.
Are you saying he condoned such behavior?
if he knew about it and allowed it to continue without taking action, what would that be? what is saying that it's an "isolated few" when you know otherwise be?
Are you saying he ordered such behavior?
we don't know as of yet, but it's certainly a possibility.
It's amazing to me that you could castigate JT for making a broad term like saying "those people" . Yet you have no trouble whatsoever castigating otherr entire groups, Christians etc.
The pictures themselves being broadcast violate the Geneva convention, is that o.k ?
Yet you have no trouble whatsoever castigating otherr entire groups, Christians etc.
Christians are a specific group of people who believe a very specific book. I don't castigate them. I refer to them only when I refer to those whom believe in what Christians claim to believe in.
if they didn't broadcast them, how would the President ever have seen them?
Well Gee Crabs I think the Prez might just be able to look at them as classified docs. Broadcasting them to the general public is against the Geneva convention. So answer the question, is that o.k ?
Christians are a specific group of people who believe a very specific book. I don't castigate them.
what exactly is it against the Geneva Convention to broadcast?
Here you go slippery C. Read this really slow, so maybe you'll get it. It's a violation of the Geneva convention to publicly broadcast pictures of POW's So is that o.k or do you want to answer a question with 3 more questions. It's simple Crabs. Is it o.k to publicly broadcast those pictures ?
Well, the abuses were called "Torture" by many people in the news and in the hearings, in fact they were asked that very question: "Do you think this is considered Torture", to which they have answered "YES", in every instance I have watched.
I think everyone knows what would have happened if they had said "no it is only harassment."
I think it's a bad idea to use civilians on warships. The only exception i'd make would maybe be the mess staff or a few other small functions like janitorial but that's still iffy.
the problem is you don't think Clinton should have been punished for a crime that he personally committed but you want Bush punished for something others did.
the problem is you don't think Clinton should have been punished for a crime that he personally committed but you want Bush punished for something others did.
I think Clinton should have (and was) punished for his "crime" (lying to avoid telling the world about your sex life is not what I consider a capital offense).
But had he been Commander of an Army that was practicing grievious violations of human rights, I would have wanted a bit stiffer penalty. Damn right.
And quite frankly, if Bush is getting a blow job and he lies about it to me, good for him...I'm not gonna worry about it.
I think Clinton should have (and was) punished for his "crime" (lying to avoid telling the world about your sex life is not what I consider a capital offense).
Twist it all you want crabs but you don't think he should have been punished for the crime of perjury, obstruction of justice and suborning perjury. He did all of these things and he was not punished.
But had he been Commander of an Army that was practicing grievous violations of human rights, I would have wanted a bit stiffer penalty. Damn right.
Bush has nothing to do with those acts.
And quite frankly, if Bush is getting a blow job and he lies about it to me, good for him...I'm not gonna worry about it. You would have he lied about it under oath. And you can lie about that, too, but everyone that has read your posts would know it is a lie. The real truth here is that you are nothing but a liar. You lie to us and you lie to yourself.
The justice system is often not just. if you think Clinton was treated as any other citizen then you are once again deluding yourself.
Clinton wasn't treated like any other citizen...no other citizen in our history has ever been subjected to a $40 million dollar, multi-year fishing expedition of an investigation.
not one.
He got special treatment alright.
But it wasn't about justice. It was about payback for taking Bush's second term from him.
not according to the Geneva Convention or pretty much the entire free world.
It was wrong. That's all that matters to me.
Now the woman in the pictures is claiming she was ordered to do so.
That may be, but that doesn't explain the smile on her face.
not according to the Geneva Convention or pretty much the entire free world.
An expert on the Geneva convention, too?
"isolated"?
"a few"?
I have heard that the pictures have been cropped to not show that there were other guards watching.
so, you are saying these behaviors comply with the Geneva Convention?
I have heard that the pictures have been cropped to not show that there were other guards watching.
What's your point? I agree with you. Anyone & everyone involved should be punished.
Bush said it was "isolated" and just a few.
It's becoming obvious that not only is that not true, but that he had been told that it wasn't the case several months ago.
Like I said, I agree with you.
so, you think Bush should be punished for it?
he was aware of it several months ago...aware of the reports that it wasn't (as he has claimed) isolated incidents by a few.
Answer the question Crabby.
the question here is just who all is included in your "anyone and everyone involved"
You're saying because Bush possibly knew about it, he was involved?
Are you saying he condoned such behavior?
Are you saying he ordered such behavior?
Are you saying he partook in such behavior?
If that's that case, yes, he should be punished.
last I heard, the President is still the Commander In Chief.
if he knew about it and allowed it to continue without taking action, what would that be? what is saying that it's an "isolated few" when you know otherwise be?
we don't know as of yet, but it's certainly a possibility.
last I heard, the President is still the Commander In Chief.
Yes, and he knows everything that every soldier does, and he's responsible for each and every one of their actions.
if he knew about it and allowed it to continue without taking action, what would that be?
Are you saying when he found out he took no action? If he did take no action, he's as much to blame as those that did it.
what is saying that it's an "isolated few" when you know otherwise be?
We still don't know that. That's not what I read yesterday regarding the senate testimony.
systemic and widespread...reports coming from as long ago as last year.
so why did the President state that it was an isolated few if he didn't know that was the case?
The last you heard, crabs, we nuked Tokyo...remember?
The libs love to throw out the Geneva Convention, when in fact, it hasn't been properly observed by anyone for decades.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Crabs,
It's amazing to me that you could castigate JT for making a broad term like saying "those people" . Yet you have no trouble whatsoever castigating otherr entire groups, Christians etc.
The pictures themselves being broadcast violate the Geneva convention, is that o.k ?
if they didn't broadcast them, how would the President ever have seen them?
what an idiot.
Christians are a specific group of people who believe a very specific book. I don't castigate them. I refer to them only when I refer to those whom believe in what Christians claim to believe in.
the President is an idiot because he didn't see the pictures sooner?
okay.
Well Gee Crabs I think the Prez might just be able to look at them as classified docs. Broadcasting them to the general public is against the Geneva convention. So answer the question, is that o.k ?
B.S
why is that?
Broadcasting them to the general public is against the Geneva convention.
Becasue it is. I didn't write it.
So answer the question, is that o.k ?
because what is?
write what exactly?
what exactly is it against the Geneva Convention to broadcast?
Notice how crabs demands answers, but refuses to give them himself.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Becasue it is. I didn't write it.
Here you go slippery C. Read this really slow, so maybe you'll get it. It's a violation of the Geneva convention to publicly broadcast pictures of POW's So is that o.k or do you want to answer a question with 3 more questions. It's simple Crabs. Is it o.k to publicly broadcast those pictures ?
What is an answer ? What does refuse mean ? ;)
Hey that's alot of fun. Remember the answer a question with a question thread. Crabs would love it.
it's a violation simply to film them at all.
obviously this is troublesome, since it requires breaking this rule in order to show that other rules are being broken.
one must look at the reason for the rules, which is to protect the POWs rights...obviously that is not the case here.
it's an interesting Catch-22.
have you stopped beating your wife yet?
ZZZZZZZZ
crabs: last I heard, the President is still the Commander In Chief.
Clinton was the Commander in Chief when he committed perjury but you don't give a damn about that do you?
Well, the abuses were called "Torture" by many people in the news and in the hearings, in fact they were asked that very question: "Do you think this is considered Torture", to which they have answered "YES", in every instance I have watched.
I think everyone knows what would have happened if they had said "no it is only harassment."
Bill,
I think it's a bad idea to use civilians on warships. The only exception i'd make would maybe be the mess staff or a few other small functions like janitorial but that's still iffy.
and that has what exactly to do with Bush's responsibility for the actions of the Army?
We are talking about something that is happening right now.
and so you blame Bill for something entirely unrelated to what we are talking about?
that's pretty damn lame, bodine.
Crabs, you do it all the time. Last night we were talking aout the guilty being punished for their acts. You brought up Ken lay. Pot meet kettle.
I'm sure there are at least a few people who had their life savings stolen who might think it's about the guilty being punished.
the problem is you don't think Clinton should have been punished for a crime that he personally committed but you want Bush punished for something others did.
I think Clinton should have (and was) punished for his "crime" (lying to avoid telling the world about your sex life is not what I consider a capital offense).
But had he been Commander of an Army that was practicing grievious violations of human rights, I would have wanted a bit stiffer penalty. Damn right.
And quite frankly, if Bush is getting a blow job and he lies about it to me, good for him...I'm not gonna worry about it.
I think Clinton should have (and was) punished for his "crime" (lying to avoid telling the world about your sex life is not what I consider a capital offense).
Twist it all you want crabs but you don't think he should have been punished for the crime of perjury, obstruction of justice and suborning perjury. He did all of these things and he was not punished.
But had he been Commander of an Army that was practicing grievous violations of human rights, I would have wanted a bit stiffer penalty. Damn right.
Bush has nothing to do with those acts.
And quite frankly, if Bush is getting a blow job and he lies about it to me, good for him...I'm not gonna worry about it. You would have he lied about it under oath. And you can lie about that, too, but everyone that has read your posts would know it is a lie. The real truth here is that you are nothing but a liar. You lie to us and you lie to yourself.
I think he was punished.
and he didn't obstruct any justice...what happened to him had nothing to do with justice.
You don't know that.
He was in command of those people and those people are saying they were told to do these things.
that much we know.
you can say this all you like, it doesn't make it true.
It most certainly did.
uh...so, you know more than the justice system now?
Justice for whom exactly? Paula Jones?
Give me a break!
I know this has been happening...I know he's in charge of these people.
You sure want to pass the buck for him pretty badly.
uh...I'm talking to you, aren't I?
Yes. so, you know more than the justice system now?
Clinton wasn't treated like any other citizen...no other citizen in our history has ever been subjected to a $40 million dollar, multi-year fishing expedition of an investigation.
not one.
He got special treatment alright.
But it wasn't about justice. It was about payback for taking Bush's second term from him.