All I can say is: Bill O'Reilly... what the fuck.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/02/why-does-bill-oreilly-hate-our-troops-and-american-values/">http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/0 ... an-values/</a><!-- m -->
Judging from her Wikipedia entry; any person who associates herself with Cindy Sheehan raises a few eyebrows. I don't like the way O' Reilly treated her during the interview, but where does she get off saying that any examination of the Britain/Iran showdown must be examined in light of Guantanamo?
VioletlightHeron Wrote:...but where does she get off saying that any examination of the Britain/Iran showdown must be examined in light of Guantanamo?
Because, when the United States started holding 'emeny combatants' in contravention of the Geneva Convention (that 'quaint' document that polices how warring countries must treat the captured combatants of their enemies) in Guantanamo, it opened a whole can of worms around the question of what conventions other countries would follow if/when they captured enemy combatants.
In other words, the US (and, as her ally, Britain) lost the moral high-ground when they swept the Geneva Convention under the rug at Guantanamo. That puts the captured sailors in Iran in a very precarious position.
Oh, by the way, what does association with Cindy Sheehan have to do with it? I know Sheehan protested the war in Iraq but why does that taint people associated with her? Personally, I think the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a criminal act and that Wright was completely correct in supporting Sheehan attempt to get people at least discussing what was happening in their name.
Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, is a pathetic man who has done more to damage his country than a grieving mother protesting an illegal and immoral war or a retired Army colonel who
served her country and resigned her position when her country compromised its principles.
That's why O'Reilly thinks she doesn't love her country - its the principles thing. Bill wouldn't recognize a principle if it rubbed his genitals with a felafel.
History will show Cindy Sheehan to be a true hero. History will also show Bill-O to be the propagandist that he is. I have joined Cindy in her fight to end this illegal war. I have stood with her in the street as SUV's passed by spewing hate and spit at her. Casey Sheehan was a warrior who pledged to protect his country. His life was spent so a small group of people could profit. Those people and all who stand with them will be held to account. Join the peace movement and stop this illegal war.
The Geneva Convention applies to soldiers of another country that is in a declared state of war with another country. Most of the enemy combatants, who by the way, were captured in combat against American forces, are accused of being members of Al-Qaeda and as suspected members of a stateless organization, is not covered by the Geneva Convention. You might note that the United States is not parading these suspects around before a camera and coercing them to confess to crimes in letters to their families, like Iran is doing with the detained British soldiers. The United States is adhering to most of the principles of the Geneva Convention, with the exception of allowing them a U.S style trial.
In my opinion, Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war media creation who knows absolutely nothing about international law or foreign policy and is being used by leftist organizations like ANSWER to put a sympathetic face on their policy aims.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:You might note that the United States is not parading these suspects around before a camera and coercing them to confess to crimes in letters to their families, like Iran is doing with the detained British soldiers. The United States is adhering to most of the principles of the Geneva Convention, with the exception of allowing them a U.S style trial.
Are you kidding? Does Abu Ghraib ring a bell?
Billy Wrote:VioletlightHeron Wrote:You might note that the United States is not parading these suspects around before a camera and coercing them to confess to crimes in letters to their families, like Iran is doing with the detained British soldiers. The United States is adhering to most of the principles of the Geneva Convention, with the exception of allowing them a U.S style trial.
Are you kidding? Does Abu Ghraib ring a bell?
Indeed it does. You might also recall that the soldiers who were accused of perpetrating those heinous acts were tried and convicted according to the USMJ (US military justice) legal code. The commanding general of that unit was demoted and eventually forced out of the Army. We have prosecuted those of our soldiers who have violated the Geneva Convention, whereas I doubt the mullahs will prosecute the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who violated the Geneva Convention by crossing into Iraqi waters, detaining British soldiers and then claiming the British were on the wrong side of the border and tried to prove that by coercing the soldiers to say so on camera.
It is true that the US military prosecuted some low-level patsies and made a scapegoat out of a low-ranking general following Abu Ghraib. But it is also true that prosecutions only happened after the scandal broke in the press.
Any Geneva violations by the Iranians here pale in comparison to Geneva violations by the US military since the White House counsel declared Geneva "quaint" and obsolete. Abu Ghraib is only one of those.
There is no moral high ground on this one. Iran's in the wrong on this one, but O'Reilly is still a twit.
And while Cindy Sheehan is a fool, that doesn't make O'Reilly any less of a blowhard or a jackass.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:It is true that the US military prosecuted some low-level patsies and made a scapegoat out of a low-ranking general following Abu Ghraib. But it is also true that prosecutions only happened after the scandal broke in the press.
By that comparison, one could say an accused murderer is only prosecuted and convicted after the media breaks the story of the murder. If i remember correctly, the JAG division was investigating in January/Februrary and the media got wind of the scandal in late March. Which just goes to show that nobody ever went broke when betting against the mainstream media's resourcefulness and objectivity. :roll:
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Any Geneva violations by the Iranians here pale in comparison to Geneva violations by the US military since the White House counsel declared Geneva "quaint" and obsolete.
In an era when a conflict involves a state and a stateless actor such as Al-Quaeda, the Geneva Conventions can be quaint and obsolete in certain situations. They do not follow the so-called international conventions of war and therefore, in my opinion, can not be covered by the Conventions. I don't believe the United States, or any state for that matter, can or should fight an unconventional guerilla war in a manner that allows a stateless actor to take advantage and exploit international legal norms. The United States has accorded some of the legal rights to these suspected terrorists that a US citizen is granted in civilian court, but not all of them for some very good reasons. Most of the prisoners in Gitmo claim to have just been in the wrong area at the wrong time and/or claim to have been tortured; the majority of said claims having been proven to be complete bullshit. To treat these suspects like they have U.S constitutional rights when they will use them to attack and destroy our country is absolute insanity.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Iran's in the wrong on this one, but O'Reilly is still a twit.
And while Cindy Sheehan is a fool, that doesn't make O'Reilly any less of a blowhard or a jackass.
Something we can both agree with :thumb: [/b]
I guess having the power to silence the other person can help sway the argument. Or make you look like an ass...
Obviously this has been major news here, with regular updates on our governments attempts to find out where the service personnel are being detained.
The fact that the Iranian government initially produced coordinates of where the boats were detained actually in Iraqi waters, before they were 'Corrected' starts the whole thing stinking straight away.
Also, the parading of the personnel on Iranian state television, with very obviously coerced scripted statements being read, and letters from the only female crew taken to family and the Member of Parliament, using language that is identical in part to that used by the Iranian government in the past regarding the Coalition forces in Iraq, shows that this is, essentially, a crock of shit.
And the limp-wristed toned down statement from the UN shows just how much power they think they have over world politics, basically doing the equivalent of a whiny 4 year old saying 'please give me my stuff back'
I don't agree with the situation in Iraq, it should have been sorted in the first 'war' and too many service personnel are either being killed, or being injured and then thrown by the wayside by (certainly the UK, and I suspect the USA) their armed services, but I still think that there needs to be something done about what the Iranians are doing, as with this, the previous episode, and their stance on their nuclear program, they are becoming a greater and greater threat...
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:It is true that the US military prosecuted some low-level patsies and made a scapegoat out of a low-ranking general following Abu Ghraib. But it is also true that prosecutions only happened after the scandal broke in the press.
Any Geneva violations by the Iranians here pale in comparison to Geneva violations by the US military since the White House counsel declared Geneva "quaint" and obsolete. Abu Ghraib is only one of those.
There is no moral high ground on this one. Iran's in the wrong on this one, but O'Reilly is still a twit.
And while Cindy Sheehan is a fool, that doesn't make O'Reilly any less of a blowhard or a jackass.
Damn it, Skippy. I've stopped trying to peg you to some political movement. You just call it like you see it.
Well what do you know, an early easter gift. But obviously the UK are still wrong, but after declaring that the trespassers would be put on trial for espionage, they appear to have changed their tune...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 525905.stm</a><!-- m -->
D
Wow. I guess Bill O'Reilly cutting the mic of a retired Army colonel really did the trick. Or. Maybe it was British diplomacy?
It's good news.
I just hope the release is a result of the Iranians coming to their senses and not the result of a prisoner swap or ransom. Coz if it is a swap, I fear the next time Coalition forces capture Iranian agents working inside Iraq with the insurgency, the Iranians will do the same thing all over again.
Most likely the release is simply the result of the Iranians deciding that they have nothing more to gain at this point. Not "coming to their senses" or a ransom.
If you're leading Iran, facing rumoured and threatened US and Israeli strikes, and being completely intractable re international concerns over your nuclear program, why would you capture a group of British sailors out of international waters?
The goals here were likely more propaganda than anything else, i.e., rather than extracting concessions from the UK, Iran probably intended to embarrass the West in the Middle East and rally Iranians behind the flag. Having accomplished that goal, the next step is to magnanimously hand back the prisoners to show that you're the bigger man.
It's pure theatre.