Jon Stewart lays the smack down on Obama and exposes all the promises he hasn't kept

[Joe234]

John Stewart is the man:

Yea. He told Bill O' Reilly tonight he would still vote for Obama over
McCain if he had it to do over again.

[CoderGuy]

Yea. He told Bill O' Reilly tonight he would still vote for Obama over
McCain if he had it to do over again.

I don't think that is because he likes Obama more, I think it was because he didn't like Palin. He likes McCain but "couldn't" vote for him.

[truthwolf1]

good yucks!

[sgreger1]

As the most powerful country in the world, we should take the honorable route and minimize civilian casualties and mistreatment of POWs. That gives us the moral upper hand. What you've managed to do is downplay torture to making enemy POWs "uncomfortable" when obviously that's not what's happening, while taking a stance against waterboarding being torture, and then justify the whole charade because "our enemy fights unconventional war, therefore geneva conventions don't apply to us, boo hoo let's kill more plebs/torture ununiformed jihadists". The same sort of logic where people get their panties in a knot because they know someone (possibly) exploits a system so it's ok that they do too.

As the most powerfull country in the world, we do make the greatest attempt out of any nation to reduce civilian casualties, and have been amazingly, historically successfull. This war has been fought with the lowest casualty rates for out troops, and the lowest civilian deaths we've seen for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time, despite being one of the longest running wars of the last century. I can't explain to you how much the army goes out of the way to not hurt civilians. As for POW's, we abide by all international laws and treat our POW's better than most any POW's in any war ever.


We have taken the moral high ground as high as we can, but we are not willing to accept defeat just to take the high ground. If a man had your daughter with a gun to her head, would you take the moral high ground and not resort to beating him up or possibly killing him in order to save her? Would you let your own die to take the moral high ground? This is the situation we are in. American lives mean nothing to you, and the only thing you care about are the very people who would kill you before you had a chance to complain about the geneva conventions. It's nice to sit behind a computer and talk about "the moral high ground", but when you spend all day in the ****ing desert getting shot at and blown up for 15 straight ****ing months, you start to not give a **** about the moral high ground, because reality hits you in the face with the fact that these people WILL kill you, and they WILL NOT feel bad about it. It's survival, plain and simple. If human intel gets shut off because we decide to take the moral high ground, people ****ing die. And seeing as this is a war, the object of the exercise is to make the other side die, not to sit their with your hands tied and wait for someone to come slaughter you so that you can go to heaven and say "Yay for me, I took the high ground!"


I don't agree with this war at all but if we are going to be there we need to be looking after our own, and trying to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible since they didn't sign up for the fight. But in war people die, i'm no too worried about a little water.


And I say "uncomfortable" because people like you have changed the definition of torture to the stupid bullshit we see today. Leaving the lights on at night time is "torture" now, being in too cold a room is "torture" now, having smoke blown in your face is "torture".

Sit back, stfu, and let people who have some idea of how the world works handle this. Everything is not like it is in your comfortable house. Out there in the desert people will die if intel is not constantly being collected. It's not about moral high ground, being the bigger man, or any other bullshit. It's about staying alive.

[sgreger1]

Yea. He told Bill O' Reilly tonight he would still vote for Obama over
McCain if he had it to do over again.

I would vote for Obama over Mccain if I had to do it over again too. No joke, I don't like Obama, but truthfully he is a better candidate than Mccain. Mccain is a fake republican, more left than Obama on some issues, and changes his mind to whichever way the wind blows. Obama was the better choice unfortunately.

[raptor]

raptor should move to france.



/justsayin

Oh man, if I'm not goose-stepping to the right-wing drum of this board surely I don't belong here!

[raptor]

And I say "uncomfortable" because people like you have changed the definition of torture to the stupid bullshit we see today. Leaving the lights on at night time is "torture" now, being in too cold a room is "torture" now, having smoke blown in your face is "torture".

Torture in your mind is using medieval devices like the rack. Small, inconsequential things can still be tortuous.

Sit back, stfu, and let people who have some idea of how the world works handle this. Everything is not like it is in your comfortable house. Out there in the desert people will die if intel is not constantly being collected. It's not about moral high ground, being the bigger man, or any other bullshit. It's about staying alive.

Torturing people for intel doesn't work. There's no way you can get reliable information out of them when saying what you want to hear will get them out of the torture.

[truthwolf1]

Abu pretty much showed to the world that the USA tortures just like any other oppressive regime.
Women and children were also raped under our watch. I have not looked into this in awhile but do remember that they use to rape family members in front of family members. Torture boys by gripping their testicles with pliers in front of their fathers etc..

According to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report from last May, between 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees held in these prisons were arrested “by mistake.” That means they were innocent.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/children...at-abu-ghraib/

[tom502]

We can't win these wars, because we are using an army to fight an ideology, yet we refuse to acknowledge the ideology. Fail.

[sgreger1]

Torturing people for intel doesn't work. There's no way you can get reliable information out of them when saying what you want to hear will get them out of the torture.

^^^ This is the biggest myth of all time. People have been doing this for tens of thousands of years because it works. We get good intel, consistenly, and that is why we continue to do it. Not everyone cracks, but some do. Things like waterboarding are only spared for a very select few. Our intel guys that my unit dealt with are trained to extract the information in much more subtle ways, usually playing nice guy or exploiting misconceptions the Iraqi's have about America to our advantage. Only if these things do not work, and only if we think you know something of the utmost important will it be upgraded to gitmo status.

Also, gitmo and the belief that we torture serves an important role in the "nice guy" intel world. They are nice to detainees, they give them a smoke, they tell them "Hey I understand, your poor and these insurgents offered you money. I would have done the same thing to feed my family, but look man if you don't give me somethign I can relay back to top they are going to throw your ass in gitmo, and you KNOW what happens there. Think about it brother, is it worth the struggle, is it worth the price you will pay for helping them? Help us instead, we will feed your family in return for information." Etc etc.

The existence or belief in the existence of a secret facility where no rules apply and they pull out all the stops is what gets good men to talk. Just like the horrors of jail keep honest men honest.



But brother, the information they get can be very reliable. It all depends on the person. Some crack and some don't. But if it did not work, we would not be doing it, and neither would the rest of the world.

[sgreger1]

According to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report from last May, between 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees held in these prisons were arrested “by mistake.” That means they were innocent.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/children...at-abu-ghraib/

Just like x% of people accused of murder don't get convicted due to lack of evidence. Doesn't mean they weren't guilty. These things happen in war, it's hard to tell who's the badguy when no one wears a uniform. And it is unfortunate. The problem is that we'll bust a facility that has a high value individual in it, and all of his guards, and the kid who just delivered the bread looks just like they do so he gets swept up with it. It is difficult to get around this. When I was in they were using these retina/face scanner cameras that helped a lot. After detaining everyone, you scan their retina and it will give you every bit of information about the indiviual, from past history to reports on him, to civilian infractions etc. Sometimes it was about judgement, and sometimes you are just told to go round up everyone around around a high value target, because if they are in the room with an alquaida leader, how innocent can they be?

[truthwolf1]

Just like x% of people accused of murder don't get convicted due to lack of evidence. Doesn't mean they weren't guilty. These things happen in war, it's hard to tell who's the badguy when no one wears a uniform. And it is unfortunate. The problem is that we'll bust a facility that has a high value individual in it, and all of his guards, and the kid who just delivered the bread looks just like they do so he gets swept up with it. It is difficult to get around this. When I was in they were using these retina/face scanner cameras that helped a lot. After detaining everyone, you scan their retina and it will give you every bit of information about the indiviual, from past history to reports on him, to civilian infractions etc. Sometimes it was about judgement, and sometimes you are just told to go round up everyone around around a high value target, because if they are in the room with an alquaida leader, how innocent can they be?

Cmon! You dont agree that things went very wrong at Abu Gharib?

[truthwolf1]

The fact that we have strayed from being a humane society is worrisome. Will we ever go back to what we were? or is it all downhill from here on?
It is however expected if we allow rape and violence in our own prisons and how that mentality transferred to treatment of prisoners of war.

This article deals with the "Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War", which was published in Geneva on July 27, 1929, and further amended in 1949.

Commonly referred to as the "Geneva Convention", the 1929 treaty included the following fundamental POW rights:

•Prisoners of war are in the custody of the hostile Government, not of the individuals which captured them.
•(POWs) shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden.
•Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and honour. Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
•The detaining Power is required to provide for the maintenance of prisoners of war in its charge.
•Differences of treatment between prisoners are permissible only if such differences are based on the military rank, the state of physical or mental health, the professional abilities, or the sex of those who benefit from them.
•Every prisoner of war is required to declare, if he is interrogated on the subject, his true names and rank, or his regimental number. If he infringes this rule, he exposes himself to a restriction of the privileges accorded to prisoners of his category.
•No pressure shall be exercised on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.
•Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress or other place, and may be required not to go beyond certain fixed limits. They may also be interned in fenced camps; they shall not be confined or imprisoned except as a measure indispensable for safety or health, and only so long as circumstances exist which necessitate such a measure.
•Belligerents may employ as workmen prisoners of war who are physically fit, other than officers and persons of equivalent statue, according to their rink and their ability.... It is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units.

[sgreger1]

Cmon! You dont agree that things went very wrong at Abu Gharib?

I never said that. What they did in Abu Gharib was terrible and I think we should be above that. Furthermore it was not condoned and was just a rogue staff thinking they were God's. A huge blow to America and what we stand for. But that's not what I was addressing, I was addressing your statement that just about everyone in foreign military prisons/detention centers are "innocent". I was just pointing out that they probably got scooped up during a raid because they were in a facility that was targeted, or there was not enough evidence on them to continue holding them so they were released. Certainly doesn't mean they weren't guilty, but rather that we had no basis on which to keep them.

[sgreger1]

The fact that we have strayed from being a humane society is worrisome. Will we ever go back to what we were? or is it all downhill from here on?
It is however expected if we allow rape and violence in our own prisons and how that mentality transferred to treatment of prisoners of war.

This article deals with the "Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War", which was published in Geneva on July 27, 1929, and further amended in 1949.

Commonly referred to as the "Geneva Convention", the 1929 treaty included the following fundamental POW rights:

•Prisoners of war are in the custody of the hostile Government, not of the individuals which captured them.
•(POWs) shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden.
•Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and honour. Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
•The detaining Power is required to provide for the maintenance of prisoners of war in its charge.
•Differences of treatment between prisoners are permissible only if such differences are based on the military rank, the state of physical or mental health, the professional abilities, or the sex of those who benefit from them.
•Every prisoner of war is required to declare, if he is interrogated on the subject, his true names and rank, or his regimental number. If he infringes this rule, he exposes himself to a restriction of the privileges accorded to prisoners of his category.
•No pressure shall be exercised on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.
•Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress or other place, and may be required not to go beyond certain fixed limits. They may also be interned in fenced camps; they shall not be confined or imprisoned except as a measure indispensable for safety or health, and only so long as circumstances exist which necessitate such a measure.
•Belligerents may employ as workmen prisoners of war who are physically fit, other than officers and persons of equivalent statue, according to their rink and their ability.... It is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units.

Yah, like all other strongly worded UN documents, no one pays attention to them. After years of dealing with our guys being horribly tortured and brutally treated as POW's, we decided we weren't going to be the only suckers playing by the rules. Additionally, the rules you posted do not apply to insurgents, but rathered to soldiers of another nation in a declared war.

•No pressure shall be exercised on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.

LOL @ that. no pressure shall be put on anyone to give information regarding their situation or the situation of the armed forces for which they represent? Again, this document is worthless and no one in any country follows it.







EDIT:


Why insurgents are not included in the geneva conventions:



According to Article IV of the Geneva Convention,(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) prisoners of war are:

Armed forces etc, including members of militias or volunteer corps. This is the important part:

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:"

1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
3. That of carrying arms openly;
4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They do not follow the rules and do not meet the criteria for protection. Again, we are operating completely within the law and people need to not selectively chery pick certain portions of the rules, yet ommit the parts saying that the group in question is exempt from said rules.



I'm nto in favor of torture and always believe we should take the moral high ground so long as it does not affect our combat rediness. There is no reason for brutal torture because there are better, more humane methods. Waterboarding is certainly stretching the limit, and should only be used as a last resort, like it currently is. But taking things completely off the table is a bad idea. The fact that they believe torture may be an option if they don't comply breaks a lot of the ones that don't have an ideological reason for fighting against us, but rather were just doing it for money. They think to themselves, "shit, it's not worth it".