for P.O.W.8/22/2005 c1 chitoryu12
Sock it to 'em, man!
Sock it to 'em, man!
7/21/2005 c1 
2chitoryu12
I actually think that how a prisoner is treated depends on what they did. If they just said that they support whatever terrorist group, that's fine. Give them a bed with a pillow, feed them a good meal daily, and let them out after a few years. If they get caught trying to detonate 200 pounds of TNT in a preschool full of children, then yeah, keep him in there for good with nothing but a hard piece of metal to sleep on, and feed him a bowl of soup a day. It all depends on what they deserve. Good job on this essay/story.
2chitoryu12I actually think that how a prisoner is treated depends on what they did. If they just said that they support whatever terrorist group, that's fine. Give them a bed with a pillow, feed them a good meal daily, and let them out after a few years. If they get caught trying to detonate 200 pounds of TNT in a preschool full of children, then yeah, keep him in there for good with nothing but a hard piece of metal to sleep on, and feed him a bowl of soup a day. It all depends on what they deserve. Good job on this essay/story.
3/20/2005 c1 1D.A. Dement
This seems ok. You really need to update another chapter for this story, so it would be more interesting. Oh, yea, would you chech out my two storys, Sokato: Green Police Officer and Sokato: The Dark Lord's Revenge? the second one is a sequel to the first one. The sequel is almost done, if your going to ask. Great story though!
1D.A. DementThis seems ok. You really need to update another chapter for this story, so it would be more interesting. Oh, yea, would you chech out my two storys, Sokato: Green Police Officer and Sokato: The Dark Lord's Revenge? the second one is a sequel to the first one. The sequel is almost done, if your going to ask. Great story though!
12/4/2004 c1 rc
Are you insane?
Are you insane?
9/11/2003 c1 James Jago
Concerning your final author's note: You wouldn't listen to a word we said anyway. And I suggest you read up on a thing called habeus corpus.
Besides, of course 'Rummy' is going to say that publically. It's a significant part of his job to defend the actions of his government- whilst they may well be doing precisely the opposite of what he's saying, for all we know. Lying to the media is a fundamental part of running a country these days.
If you want to believe whatever the current government tells you, without question, go ahead- but I rather suspect -or at least hope- that you're a bit brighter than that.
Concerning your final author's note: You wouldn't listen to a word we said anyway. And I suggest you read up on a thing called habeus corpus.
Besides, of course 'Rummy' is going to say that publically. It's a significant part of his job to defend the actions of his government- whilst they may well be doing precisely the opposite of what he's saying, for all we know. Lying to the media is a fundamental part of running a country these days.
If you want to believe whatever the current government tells you, without question, go ahead- but I rather suspect -or at least hope- that you're a bit brighter than that.
7/22/2003 c1 Mbwun
Been meaning to write a review for this for a while, so I'll get down to it. This is by far my favorite of your pieces; the contrasts are quite brilliant, and you get your political idea across quite nicely without it seeming like you're pushing a political idea. Great job!
~He Who Walks On All Fours
Been meaning to write a review for this for a while, so I'll get down to it. This is by far my favorite of your pieces; the contrasts are quite brilliant, and you get your political idea across quite nicely without it seeming like you're pushing a political idea. Great job!
~He Who Walks On All Fours
7/16/2003 c1 Pina
So, because other countries treat POWs with contempt, it gives precedent for US to do the same! This is hypocracy at its worst! I wonder how you would feel if an American citizen was held in a foreign country and treated in the same way a Camp X-Ray inmate is treated. I'm sure your response would be of deep outrage.
Stipulations outlined in the Geneva Convention in relation to the Treatment of POWs reveals the following:
Article 105 states that a prisoner of war facing trial "shall be entitled to...a defence by a...cousel of his own choice" who may "freely visit the accused and interview him in private".
Article 106 states that every prisoner of war "shall have...the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him, with a view to the quashing or revising of the sentence or the reopening of the trial".
The POWs in Camp X-Ray have NONE of these rights.
What gives the US the consent to bend the rules?
Colombia, Rwanda and China have one of the worst human rights records on the face of the earth. In Rwanda alone, in 19, 800,0 people were MURDERED in 100 days! If you compare US to such countries, you must really have NO credible evidence to convince an unbiased reader.
So, because other countries treat POWs with contempt, it gives precedent for US to do the same! This is hypocracy at its worst! I wonder how you would feel if an American citizen was held in a foreign country and treated in the same way a Camp X-Ray inmate is treated. I'm sure your response would be of deep outrage.
Stipulations outlined in the Geneva Convention in relation to the Treatment of POWs reveals the following:
Article 105 states that a prisoner of war facing trial "shall be entitled to...a defence by a...cousel of his own choice" who may "freely visit the accused and interview him in private".
Article 106 states that every prisoner of war "shall have...the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him, with a view to the quashing or revising of the sentence or the reopening of the trial".
The POWs in Camp X-Ray have NONE of these rights.
What gives the US the consent to bend the rules?
Colombia, Rwanda and China have one of the worst human rights records on the face of the earth. In Rwanda alone, in 19, 800,0 people were MURDERED in 100 days! If you compare US to such countries, you must really have NO credible evidence to convince an unbiased reader.
6/20/2003 c1 7CommandoCody
This story greatly assists those looking to maintain a proper perspective of what does and does not constitute a serious breach of human rights. Nice work ;-)
7CommandoCodyThis story greatly assists those looking to maintain a proper perspective of what does and does not constitute a serious breach of human rights. Nice work ;-)
6/1/2003 c1 8Moril
Oh, by the way, did you notice that Bush's "end of combat speech" was not a victory speech for the reason that making one would make him have to liberate his Iraqi prisoners?
For them, it will be many more long nights in the United States. And I think some "crusading liberal Europeans" would do well to tell America how to treat POW's.
8MorilOh, by the way, did you notice that Bush's "end of combat speech" was not a victory speech for the reason that making one would make him have to liberate his Iraqi prisoners?
For them, it will be many more long nights in the United States. And I think some "crusading liberal Europeans" would do well to tell America how to treat POW's.
4/29/2003 c1 27Loganberry
Liberal left-of-centre European calling... not sure about "crusading", though.
I certainly agree that people need to get a sense of proportion here, and I'm as guilty as anyone on occasion. Anyone who says they'd rather live in Saddam's Iraq than Bush's Texas is a fool.
I believe that Guantanamo is immoral in and of itself, though. Is it better and more humanely run than Saddam's prisons? Of course. Is it worthy of a country like the US? Not a chance.
I suppose that it all boils down to whether you think the supreme law should be that of nation states, or that of the international community. Over here (UK), we've had pan-European courts with binding powers for years, so even on the right, the concept of a foreign court imposing judgement on us is relatively uncontroversial. I actually rather admire the way the US stands up for its principles in that regard: I just wish they were different principles.
27LoganberryLiberal left-of-centre European calling... not sure about "crusading", though.
I certainly agree that people need to get a sense of proportion here, and I'm as guilty as anyone on occasion. Anyone who says they'd rather live in Saddam's Iraq than Bush's Texas is a fool.
I believe that Guantanamo is immoral in and of itself, though. Is it better and more humanely run than Saddam's prisons? Of course. Is it worthy of a country like the US? Not a chance.
I suppose that it all boils down to whether you think the supreme law should be that of nation states, or that of the international community. Over here (UK), we've had pan-European courts with binding powers for years, so even on the right, the concept of a foreign court imposing judgement on us is relatively uncontroversial. I actually rather admire the way the US stands up for its principles in that regard: I just wish they were different principles.