The Whining About "24" Has Started

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Posted by Robin Boyd on January 16, 2007 - 11:33. Last night I predicted that CAIR would be demanding an apology from FOX for the depiction of Muslims in "24" within 24 hours. Well it's not CAIR but ABC has started the ball rolling...
Sut Jhally, co-producer and co-director of the film "Hijacking Catastrophe," says the dramatic action in the show creates a dangerous climate in which the public loses some of its perspective on what's real and what's not. Of course that may be a minority opinion given the show's enormous popularity.
Television shows like '24' also reinforce stereotypes about Arabs, he said, and in this episode connections are drawn between terrorism, Arabs and nuclear war. With the U.S. wrestling with Iran over its nuclear capabilities, these associations are dangerous, he said.
"This television show is very political, and it's no accident that it's on Fox," said Jhally, who directs the Media and Education Foundation and is professor of communications at University of Massachusetts. "Given their propaganda system, it doesn't surprise me."

How many times do we have to tell the MSM that if they want to be taken seriously, they need to reveal the background of their "experts"? Giving the complete title of a movie wound be a great place to start...
A new documentary "Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire" examines how the Bush administration used Sept. 11 to transform American foreign policy and enter a phase of so-called preemptive warfare while rolling back civil liberties and social programs at home.
The film is produced by the Media Education Foundation and features former government officials combined with many of the leading scholars and thinkers of our time including Noam Chomsky, Norman Mailer, Chalmers Johnson, Daniel Ellsberg, Tariq Ali and more. The film is narrated by Julian Bond.
Nah - no bias here.... Move along now...


http://newsbusters.org/node/10194

http://newsbusters.org/ :

There are also 2 or 3 other articles on how Keith Olberman thinks that "24" is a conspiracy between the Bush Administration and FOX...........

[mi35d]

Give it a break. "They're making the muslims look like bad guys!" Awwww! Shed a tear, wipe a tear.

Its a TV show. During the cold war how many Russians and Eastern Europeans were potrayed as "evil villians"? How many Italians are constantly shown as mafioso? Let's not forget the heavy accented evil IRA terrorists as well.

Its a TV show - get over it.

[WarriorMonk]

Give it a break. "They're making the muslims look like bad guys!" Awwww! Shed a tear, wipe a tear.

Its a TV show. During the cold war how many Russians and Eastern Europeans were potrayed as "evil villians"? How many Italians are constantly shown as mafioso? Let's not forget the heavy accented evil IRA terrorists as well.

Its a TV show - get over it.

but mi35d, some people are simply incapable of doing such things! think of the poor people! "get over it" is just another term used by you bible-thumping right-wing rednex out there!

*sarcasm*

It's frikkin Hollywood, people, for crying out loud.

[Geezah]

Death by a thousand cuts..........

[alfigel]

What I object to "24" is the message that torture is OK as long as lives can be saved with that information gathered from torturing. It kind of tries to legitimize torture, which is very objectionable.

I'm already expecting the flames and the bashing...

[BadKarma26]

What I object to "24" is the message that torture is OK as long as lives can be saved with that information gathered from torturing. It kind of tries to legitimize torture, which is very objectionable.

I'm already expecting the flames and the bashing...

the majority of Republicans are of that belief.

[Saranof]

I agree. I mean, they should harden the **** up. It's not like jews would object to be portrayed as money-grabbers with big noses and funny hats in a serious show.


:roll:

[vinny_121_ND]

Oh Right, whatever, everybody is stereotyped in this show. Jews in syrian tv are depicted as bloodsucking monsters. Did we care as much? no.

It's just a tv show, and iran wants nuclear bombs, now egypt wants em. So why not put two and two together and get it over with. It's no secret that the iranian government wants to nuke israel off the face of the earth.

[sir-chimp]

I dont know how anyone could be so bigoted as to imply there are arabs and muslims involved in terrorism.

the horror of it all

Thank God they changed the bad guys to safe neo nazi bad guys in Sum of All Fears and protected me.

[Resurrection]

I agree. I mean, they should harden the **** up. It's not like jews would object to be portrayed as money-grabbers with big noses and funny hats in a serious show.


:roll:

Is sarcasm the only method of arguing you're capable of nowadays?

Begå självkritik.

[Doublethinker]

I agree. I mean, they should harden the **** up. It's not like jews would object to be portrayed as money-grabbers with big noses and funny hats in a serious show.


:roll:

That's because even they can't deny the obvious truth.

;)

[aj-0311]

What I object to "24" is the message that torture is OK as long as lives can be saved with that information gathered from torturing. It kind of tries to legitimize torture, which is very objectionable.

I'm already expecting the flames and the bashing...

Would it change your mind if it were your family members being saved?

[b33f]

What I object to "24" is the message that torture is OK as long as lives can be saved with that information gathered from torturing. It kind of tries to legitimize torture, which is very objectionable.

I'm already expecting the flames and the bashing...
That's one of the few things i LIKE about "24".

[California Joe]

If anyone actually had the kind of "days" that Jack Bauer has had for the last 5 their frigging head would explode from stress. I say let him torture and kill anyone he wants.

[Miles.]

You would have to ignore the reality that Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to civilization right now.

[LaoSexMachine]

CJ, there has been numorus times at the job site that I wanted to beat a couple of sub contractors and laborers senseless.

[CMNot]

So Islamic terrorism is a threat to global civilization?

Pull my other leg, its got bells on it.

[annihilation]

What I object to "24" is the message that torture is OK as long as lives can be saved with that information gathered from torturing. It kind of tries to legitimize torture, which is very objectionable.

I'm already expecting the flames and the bashing...

I agree with that.

I also object to another message from 24. That if your family is taken hostage and the terrorist say they if you bring this package or do this thing, we will release your family and you and all of you can walk away.

[BadKarma26]

If anyone actually had the kind of "days" that Jack Bauer has had for the last 5 their frigging head would explode from stress. I say let him torture and kill anyone he wants.

he doesnt even eat or go to the bathroom

[dangerclose]

After seeing some of the highlights of the Golden Globes which aired opposite of 24 ... the downside of a nuke going off in L.A. would be???

[Jobu]

After seeing some of the highlights of the Golden Globes which aired opposite of 24 ... the downside of a nuke going off in L.A. would be???

It would vaporize all of those idiots and thus literally infect the air with faggotry.

[dangerclose]

It would vaporize all of those idiots and thus literally infect the air with faggotry.

Only a danger if you lived downwind.

[Miles.]

So Islamic terrorism is a threat to global civilization?

Pull my other leg, its got bells on it.

*Eastern Europe and beyond not included in civilization.

[nagant_m44]

http://newsbusters.org/node/10194

http://newsbusters.org/ :

There are also 2 or 3 other articles on how Keith Olberman thinks that "24" is a conspiracy between the Bush Administration and FOX...........

according to keith, anything that makes the Bush administration look even slightly good is totally wrong and should be destroyed.

[Indiana Jones]

nevermind.....

[annihilation]

according to keith, anything that makes the Bush administration look even slightly good is totally wrong and should be destroyed.

Im not sure how the show would make bush look good? If anything he is more like the president from the last season that got arrested.

[Anthony91]

Im not sure how the show would make bush look good? If anything he is more like the president from the last season that got arrested.

How dare you compare President Bush to (fictional) President Logan.

[Geezah]

Im not sure how the show would make bush look good? If anything he is more like the president from the last season that got arrested.

How's that then????????

[usm2b]

yo know... I recently went to one of my professors speeches on Iraq, and he is kind of a moonbat. But, I was really shocked to see in the audience the hostility towards the government. Some people...a lot of people's hate for Bush has driven them to wanting the US to get hit by terrorism and to lose in Iraq. I don't care if you don't like the President or if you don't support the war, but don't ever be a shiitty American and want the US to fail or ****talk 24. Simple as that.

[Anthony91]

yo know... I recently went to one of my professors speeches on Iraq, and he is kind of a moonbat. But, I was really shocked to see in the audience the hostility towards the government. Some people...a lot of people's hate for Bush has driven them to wanting the US to get hit by terrorism and to lose in Iraq. I don't care if you don't like the President or if you don't support the war, but don't ever be a shiitty American and want the US to fail or ****talk 24. Simple as that.

Give the CIA a list of where these people live, tell them they were participating in "Terrorist Activities". :D

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Give the CIA a list of where these people live, tell them they were participating in "Terrorist Activities". :D


I just heard the Democrats and the ACLU are going to find your address and stage protest and harass you at your house.....p-)

[Anthony91]

I just heard the Democrats and the ACLU are going to find your address and stage protest and harass you at your house.....p-)

Well, i've got my friends 5.56, 7.62, 9mm, .45, and 12-gauge at my house. :D

[alfigel]

the majority of Republicans are of that belief.

The majority (not only of the Republicans) would also support lynchmobs. That's why we have important things such as the rule of law, separation of powers, philosophy of law and the Geneva Conventions (the list is incomplete, but these are prominent examples).

[dangerclose]

The majority (not only of the Republicans) would also support lynchmobs. That's why we have important things such as the rule of law, separation of powers, philosophy of law and the Geneva Conventions (the list is incomplete, but these are prominent examples).


blah blah blah


The next time we see americans jumping out of smoldering buildings and thousands are killed, the american public can take comfort in knowing that gitmo detainees are being afforded their Geneva Convention rights, that we're not creating more terrorists in Iraq because we've redeployed, that we're no longer monitoring the phone calls between Achmed and his buddy in Pakistan, and most importantly - we once again have the goodwill of "the world" on our side.

[alfigel]

Would it change your mind if it were your family members being saved?

From an emotional point of view: yes, very likely. From a humanistic point of view: no, absolutely not. Nobody deserves to get tortured or get some degrading or humiliating treatment. Call me a dreamer, but it is my firm belief that all people shall be treated equally (good, not bad), and I find it to be on of the most basic principles of Western values.

Oh, BTW, Geneva Conventions I-IV, Article 3 in each of them: all of them explicitly condemn torturing people in any way, no matter what their legal status is, be it combatant, noncombatant, illegal combatant or whatever the US calls its imprisoned terrorists these days. And Article 3 is there for a reason: to prevent such "what if" questions, to prevent such "but lives can be saved" justifications. Asking such questions, or using such justifications in favor of torture degrades the person being tortured an object, a lesser human, because he doesn't get the same humane treatment.

But of course, these days, satisfying the thirst for revenge and the war on terror is more important than equally humane treatment to everybody, thus deceiving Western values.

[alfigel]

blah blah blah

Do you have any arguments? If not, then please close the door. From outside.

[fantomas]

havent seen the show, but regarding the issue of portraying muslims as terrorists, let me just say that I havent seen budhist monks blow people up, nor hare krishnas, and last I heard, the jews were not bent on a worldwide jihadist network with support of 'charities'.

theres a difference between intentional, unbased and solicited stereotyping and creating a show based on real every day events. let them complain, just more publicity for the show.

[fantomas]

what is torture? is sleep deprivation and loud music torture? (obviosly playing britney spears over and over would be torture, but how about other music?)


From an emotional point of view: yes, very likely. From a humanistic point of view: no, absolutely not. Nobody deserves to get tortured or get some degrading or humiliating treatment. Call me a dreamer, but it is my firm belief that all people shall be treated equally (good, not bad), and I find it to be on of the most basic principles of Western values.

Oh, BTW, Geneva Conventions I-IV, Article 3 in each of them: all of them explicitly condemn torturing people in any way, no matter what their legal status is, be it combatant, noncombatant, illegal combatant or whatever the US calls its imprisoned terrorists these days. And Article 3 is there for a reason: to prevent such "what if" questions, to prevent such "but lives can be saved" justifications. Asking such questions, or using such justifications in favor of torture degrades the person being tortured an object, a lesser human, because he doesn't get the same humane treatment.

But of course, these days, satisfying the thirst for revenge and the war on terror is more important than equally humane treatment to everybody, thus deceiving Western values.

[Nikohlas]

I guarantee if my family and loved ones were DIRECTLY threatened with death and pain, and I had an opportunity to prevent it, I would do whatever I could to make sure that didn't happen. If I had to torture someone to get information that would save them...I sure would. I wouldn't sit there like a little cry baby and say, "PLEASE dont take away their civil liberties. We just want to live in peace with you and your people." I guess that it takes a DIRECT threat to someone to make them understand that sometimes you have to protect what you care about by any means necessary...

Funny, I guess that's the way terrorists think. Only on a EXTREMIST point of view. They feel that their way of life is being threatened by the US, Israel, and modern western ideas of thinking. Their 13th centrury notions of a male dominated society existing under religious rule is in serious danger of vanishing forever. So they react in the only way they know how..and the only way that has EVER been effective for them...through violence. Shows like 24 are just a way to display terrorism as we perceive it to be. Violence instigated by Islamist extermists through suicide bombings, flying planes into buildings, and covert development of weapons of mass destruction is what we believe terrorism to be. It plays on our fears and our feelings in order to generate ratings and to tell a story. It is no different than as was stated earlier about "EVIL COMMUNISTS" and related TV shows and movies.

And like my parents always told me...if you don't like it...you can always turn the channel.

[alfigel]

what is torture? is sleep deprivation and loud music torture? (obviosly playing britney spears over and over would be torture, but how about other music?)

Ah, that question... :-)

First of all: many things from which the US government claims that they are not torture (like waterboarding; at least **** Cheney says so) are in fact torture. If you want so see waterboarding, watch this video (http://www.current.tv/video/?id=13462474). Scary, isn't it? (for those who don't know, waterboarding is a "simulated drowning", which was very commons amongst the Khmer Rouge: http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php)

Now to your question: sleep deprivation and loud music are a grey area. If you look at the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture (which was ratified by US Congress, BTW), then all interrogation under stress are clearly forbidden. I would call such methods questionable, but not inherently torture. But what is definitely torture is anything that creates physical or mental pain or suffering to get an information or a confession, and any person with some common sense would agree (well, this forum is an exception).

Oh, one more thing: torture makes tortured persons give out information or confessions sooner or later, but to an intelligence service, not the information itself is important, but whether that information is credible and believable, and with information from torture, that is hardly ever the case, simply because people say anything just to make the torture stop, even if they don't know shіt.

[charliepage]

I believe the actual actors and producers said that the show is not to be taken 100% real however there is no denying that this is basically a look at the worst case scenario of the situation in the future.

One would think that with the presidents sister and the head of that Islam organization (in the show) where it does show racism and xenophobia and extreme measures, would be something good but they just have to see that Arabs are terrorists in the show so that's evil.

Sad. :(

[Light Fighter]

F*uck the geneva convention. How many extremists have we captured and you get to watch their beheadings on fox/cnn/msn? Please, tell me? You want to give rights to combatants that would not give our own soldiers those same rights. How many contractors have we watched be killed over the net for these peoples "cause"? How many reports do we need to hear about of terrorists kidnapping, torturing and then murdering a bus load of other civilians just because they were going to go to work in the green zone? You can not give "conventional" rights to an enemy that is still stuck in the 13th century. The geneva convention was created to bring some civility to war. To keep intact the dignity of the captured enemy.Do those extremists show our captured soldiers/contractors any dignity? A couple of prisoners at GITMO get a little fat from the tax payer funded food we give them, and the ACLU is ready to sue anyone they can, but yet when 2 soldiers get abducted from a checkpoint and their bodies are found stripped and killed execution style, those same people who scream about equal rights and the geneva convention have nothing to say about that situation.

By giving those extremists rights under the geneva convention you are acknowledging that they are a civilized enemy, and that is a luaghable concept.

And please, I have seen more raceism and stereotyping in an hour of watching MTV then I have ever seen in 5 seasons of 24.

[vinny_121_ND]

F*uck the geneva convention. How many extremists have we captured and you get to watch their beheadings on fox/cnn/msn? Please, tell me? You want to give rights to combatants that would not give our own soldiers those same rights. How many contractors have we watched be killed over the net for these peoples "cause"? How many reports do we need to hear about of terrorists kidnapping, torturing and then murdering a bus load of other civilians just because they were going to go to work in the green zone? You can not give "conventional" rights to an enemy that is still stuck in the 13th century. The geneva convention was created to bring some civility to war. To keep intact the dignity of the captured enemy.Do those extremists show our captured soldiers/contractors any dignity? A couple of prisoners at GITMO get a little fat from the tax payer funded food we give them, and the ACLU is ready to sue anyone they can, but yet when 2 soldiers get abducted from a checkpoint and their bodies are found stripped and killed execution style, those same people who scream about equal rights and the geneva convention have nothing to say about that situation.

By giving those extremists rights under the geneva convention you are acknowledging that they are a civilized enemy, and that is a luaghable concept.

And please, I have seen more raceism and stereotyping in an hour of watching MTV then I have ever seen in 5 seasons of 24.

x2, totally agree.

[ctcboy]

I think with the inclusion of the characters that Light fighter mentioned 24 is trying to show two sides of the Arab/muslim community and it appears that the show is taking on the important issue of how as a society we are going to deal with this community in this time of war. In short I think 24 may actually be doing some good with regards to the way we view these communities.

[Kilgor]

You would have to ignore the reality that Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to civilization right now.

I would say thats a little too far. However, it surely is the leading form of terrorist based activity in many countries.

[Doublethinker]

Ah, that question... :-)

First of all: many things from which the US government claims that they are not torture (like waterboarding; at least **** Cheney says so) are in fact torture. If you want so see waterboarding, watch this video (http://www.current.tv/video/?id=13462474). Scary, isn't it? (for those who don't know, waterboarding is a "simulated drowning", which was very commons amongst the Khmer Rouge: http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php)

Now to your question: sleep deprivation and loud music are a grey area. If you look at the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture (which was ratified by US Congress, BTW),

Geneva convention on land warfare doesn't apply to terrorists/criminals - only to combatants and partisans. Have you actually read it?
In fact, the US have every right to execute these guys on sight if it deems necessary.

[alfigel]

F*uck the geneva convention. How many extremists have we captured and you get to watch their beheadings on fox/cnn/msn? Please, tell me? You want to give rights to combatants that would not give our own soldiers those same rights. How many contractors have we watched be killed over the net for these peoples "cause"? How many reports do we need to hear about of terrorists kidnapping, torturing and then murdering a bus load of other civilians just because they were going to go to work in the green zone? You can not give "conventional" rights to an enemy that is still stuck in the 13th century. The geneva convention was created to bring some civility to war. To keep intact the dignity of the captured enemy.Do those extremists show our captured soldiers/contractors any dignity? A couple of prisoners at GITMO get a little fat from the tax payer funded food we give them, and the ACLU is ready to sue anyone they can, but yet when 2 soldiers get abducted from a checkpoint and their bodies are found stripped and killed execution style, those same people who scream about equal rights and the geneva convention have nothing to say about that situation.

The thing is: the Geneva Convention is to be adhered to unconditionally. Just because the enemy is cruel and inhumane doesn't mean we should get down to their level, and be so, too.


By giving those extremists rights under the geneva convention you are acknowledging that they are a civilized enemy, and that is a luaghable concept.

No. The one who adheres to the Geneva Conventions is the one on the moral high ground. By giving extremists right under the Geneva Convention, you are showing that _you_ are the one who is civilized.

[alfigel]

Geneva convention on land warfare doesn't apply to terrorists/criminals - only to combatants and partisans. Have you actually read it?
In fact, the US have every right to execute these guys on sight if it deems necessary.

You know, there is not one Geneva Conventions, there are four. I've read all of them. Look at Article 3 of each of them. They contain basically the same things, and if you read them exactly, you will see that they apply to _everyone_, civilians, combatants, noncombatants, terrorists and criminals. And if you read them in detail, you will see that "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment ****ounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" is prohibited, i.e. summary executions as described by you are forbidden through the Geneva Conventions.

So, please stop pulling your crude and wrong interpretations of the Geneva Conventions out of your shiny ass, when the Geneva Conventions contains literally the contrary of your claims.

[Light Fighter]

There is no morale high ground with these extremists. They want to kill and maim as many people as they can for their "cuase". Why should we be the only ones held to the geneva convention? You take the "morale high road" with these extremists and all they will do is plant an IED under you. How do you try and fight an enemy when you cant fight at their level? A terrorist is a terrorist. They made their choice, now they must deal with the consequences. They blow up a convoy of unarmed truck drivers and they celebrate. They kill contractors and hang them from a bridge, and then celebrate some more. These are inhuman acts done by a group of animals. If it takes waterboarding 10 extremists to save the life of one coalition soldiers or innocent iraqi civilian, then o well. If it takes not letting some extremist go to sleep for 4 days and listening to loud music to stop another attack on America, then so be it. I learned all I needed to learn about the extremists on 9/11. You sit and cry for the rights of extremists under this magic geneva convention, but I will never shed a tear for some extremists bastard that got caught.

[alfigel]

There is no morale high ground with these extremists. They want to kill and maim as many people as they can for their "cuase". Why should we be the only ones held to the geneva convention? You take the "morale high road" with these extremists and all they will do is plant an IED under you. How do you try and fight an enemy when you cant fight at their level? A terrorist is a terrorist. They made their choice, now they must deal with the consequences. They blow up a convoy of unarmed truck drivers and they celebrate. They kill contractors and hang them from a bridge, and then celebrate some more. These are inhuman acts done by a group of animals. If it takes waterboarding 10 extremists to save the life of one coalition soldiers or innocent iraqi civilian, then o well. If it takes not letting some extremist go to sleep for 4 days and listening to loud music to stop another attack on America, then so be it. I learned all I needed to learn about the extremists on 9/11. You sit and cry for the rights of extremists under this magic geneva convention, but I will never shed a tear for some extremists bastard that got caught.

Well, if you really believe what you write, then I pity you.

[BloodyTalon]

Let's look at the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, shall we. In particular, Article 4 where they list who counts as a prisoner of war:


Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. 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, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

So basically, the terrorists and insurgents fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention...if they didn't deliberately blend in with the civilian population and have such wonderful tactics as suicide bombings, beheadings, targeting the families of soldiers and cops, etc.

And, the sad truth in war is that your country's civilians > your country's soldiers > the other country's civilians > the other country's soldiers. If you're willing to let A and B die so D will keep his dignity, I hope you never have a high position in the military or politics or else Austria is fvcked.

[alfigel]

Let's look at the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, shall we. In particular, Article 4 where they list who counts as a prisoner of war:

To, say it again, there is not a "Geneva Convention", but there are four Geneva Conventions. Read all of them before making any claims. And the first and second Protocol, too.

Oh, maybe that's the reason why I have such a different understanding of international law than most of you (assuming that "you" mostly consists of US Americans)... the USA signed the First Protocol, but never ratified it. The first Protocol is now considered customary law by most parties, but the US object to several articles in it, such as Article 44.


And, the sad truth in war is that your country's civilians > your country's soldiers > the other country's civilians > the other country's soldiers. If you're willing to let A and B die so D will keep his dignity, I hope you never have a high position in the military or politics or else Austria is fvcked.

Yes, Austria is probably "fvcked" (whatever you mean with that), I had an intense training about the Geneva Conventions during my combat medic course in the Austrian Army where I learned just that.

[BloodyTalon]

To, say it again, there is not a "Geneva Convention", but there are four Geneva Conventions. Read all of them before making any claims. And the first and second Protocol, too.

Oh, maybe that's the reason why I have such a different understanding of international law than most of you (assuming that "you" mostly consists of US Americans)... the USA signed the First Protocol, but never ratified it. The first Protocol is now considered customary law by most parties, but the US object to several articles in it, such as Article 44.
Yes, because that article grants the likes of Al Qaeda with the same rights of a regular soldier regardless of the circumstances. Even if the detainee somehow fails to meet Article 44 they still "shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol."

And I do know that there are four Conventions and three protocols, hence why I refered to the Third Convention by its official name.

[alfigel]

Yes, because that article grants the likes of Al Qaeda with the same rights of a regular soldier regardless of the circumstances. Even if the detainee somehow fails to meet Article 44 they still "shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol."

And the question is: what's the problem with it? Imprisoned people, no matter whether they are regular combatants, and thus have a status as POW, or whether they are "terrorists", pose no threat to anybody.

[Thor]

You know, there is not one Geneva Conventions, there are four. I've read all of them. Look at Article 3 of each of them. They contain basically the same things, and if you read them exactly, you will see that they apply to _everyone_, civilians, combatants, noncombatants, terrorists and criminals. And if you read them in detail, you will see that "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment ****ounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" is prohibited, i.e. summary executions as described by you are forbidden through the Geneva Conventions.

So, please stop pulling your crude and wrong interpretations of the Geneva Conventions out of your shiny ass, when the Geneva Conventions contains literally the contrary of your claims.
No no no, you're so full of ****. Combatants in an armed conflict have rights according to the Geneva convention only if they comply with a number of basic rules. Unless they do so they are unlawful/illegal combatants who do enjoy only very limited rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

[Doublethinker]

You know, there is not one Geneva Conventions, there are four. I've read all of them. Look at Article 3 of each of them. They contain basically the same things, and if you read them exactly, you will see that they apply to _everyone_, civilians, combatants, noncombatants, terrorists and criminals. And if you read them in detail, you will see that "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment ****ounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" is prohibited, i.e. summary executions as described by you are forbidden through the Geneva Conventions.

So, please stop pulling your crude and wrong interpretations of the Geneva Conventions out of your shiny ass, when the Geneva Conventions contains literally the contrary of your claims.

Here's article 3. I've read the relevent Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war before posting, and I'm not pulling anything out of my ass:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, ***, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.


Thus what's stated in article 3 applies to civilians (noncombatants) and MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES who for some reason have laid down their weapons.

Terrorists according to classification given can be classified as neither.

The basic thing is - they are surely no civilians, and to enjoy these rules as combatants they need to:
a) bear arms in the open (something they don't do)
b) bear some insignia which allows to tell them from civilians

But were they to follow these requirements, they wouldn't be terrorists, eh?

[alfigel]

Here's article 3. I've read the main one too - on treatment of prisoners of war - before posting, and I'm not pulling anything out of my ass:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, ***, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.


Thus what's stated in article 3 applies to civilians (noncombatants) and MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES who for some reason have laid down their weapons.

Terrorists according to classification given can be classified as neither.

First Protocol, Article 44. 'nuff said. Same applies to Thor.

[Doublethinker]

alfigel,

what? I didn't get it.

Article 44 is as follows:

Article 44
Officers and prisoners of equivalent status shall be treated with the regard due to their rank and age.
In order to ensure service in officers' camps, other ranks of the same armed forces who, as far as possible, speak the same language, shall be assigned in sufficient numbers, account being taken of the rank of officers and prisoners of equivalent status. Such orderlies shall not be required to perform any other work.
Supervision of the mess by the officers themselves shall be facilitated in every way.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Thor]

First Protocol, Article 44. 'nuff said. Same applies to Thor.
There's nothing there that supports your case.

It's also obvious that you have no background in law since you believe that a layman's interpretation of individual paragraphs is of some kind of value.

[alfigel]

alfigel,

what? I didn't get it.

Article 44 is as follows:

Article 44
Officers and prisoners of equivalent status shall be treated with the regard due to their rank and age.
In order to ensure service in officers' camps, other ranks of the same armed forces who, as far as possible, speak the same language, shall be assigned in sufficient numbers, account being taken of the rank of officers and prisoners of equivalent status. Such orderlies shall not be required to perform any other work.
Supervision of the mess by the officers themselves shall be facilitated in every way.

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm referring to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I#Article_44._-Combatants_and_prisoners_of_war

[budgie]

Give it a break. "They're making the muslims look like bad guys!" Awwww! Shed a tear, wipe a tear.

Its a TV show. During the cold war how many Russians and Eastern Europeans were potrayed as "evil villians"? How many Italians are constantly shown as mafioso? Let's not forget the heavy accented evil IRA terrorists as well.

Its a TV show - get over it.

And for that matter why haven't the English banned Mel Gibson from their shores yet?

[alfigel]

There's nothing there that supports your case.

It's also obvious that you have no background in law since you believe that a layman's interpretation of individual paragraphs is of some kind of value.

The words in the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, Article 44, are pretty clear. There is basically nothing to be interpreted about it.

[Thor]

The words in the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, Article 44, are pretty clear. There is basically nothing to be interpreted about it.
That sentence alone proves my point. You don't interpret individual paragraphs, you interpret law.

[alfigel]

That sentence alone proves my point. You don't interpret individual paragraphs, you interpret law.

Stop your word games, that's silly.

Again: mentioned article is clear in its words, and considered part of international customary law by the countries who ratified it. That even more so counts for the Common Article 3.

An article you may want to consider reading before making any more nonsense statements: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hamdan-common-article-3-and-true.php

[Doublethinker]

I'm referring to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I#Article_44._-Combatants_and_prisoners_of_war

Indeed, you were correct.

[Thor]

Stop your word games, that's silly.

Again: mentioned article is clear in its words, and considered part of international customary law by the countries who ratified it. That even more so counts for the Common Article 3.

An article you may want to consider reading before making any more nonsense statements:
No, you simplify things because of ignorance. Law is not about looking up individual paragraphs, read what you want into them, and claiming to have found ultimate truths in five seconds. Things are far more complex than so. If that wasn't the case scholars would not have to spend 50 years of their lives in law professions before serving as justices in supreme courts.

You don't even know what to look for and where to find it. Verdicts are not made by having 23-year-olds "copy and paste" text from Wikipedia.

[alfigel]

No, you simplify things because of ignorance. Law is not about looking up individual paragraphs, read what you want into them, and claiming to have found ultimate truths in five seconds. Things are far more complex than so. If that wasn't the case scholars would not have to spend 50 years of their lives in law professions before serving as justices in supreme courts.

You don't even know what to look for and where to find it.

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld proves my case (at least reg. Common Article 3).

Oh, BTW, could you please start disproving my statements instead of using cheap ad-hominem attacks?

[Thor]

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld proves my case (at least reg. Common Article 3).
No, you don't even have a case for starters. Go back to school, get a degree, and then present your case in a 100-page report.

[alfigel]

No, you don't even have a case for starters. Go back to school, get a degree, and then present your case in a 100-page report.

Yes, sir. Your polemics convinced me that I am not worthy and do not know what I'm talking about.

Seriously: I know what I'm talking about. As mentioned before, as combat medics we got a special training regarding International Humanitarian Law, the Geneva Conventions and related topics, and our teacher in that subject was a Col. who had studied law and later specialized in international law.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Give it a break. "They're making the muslims look like bad guys!" Awwww! Shed a tear, wipe a tear.

Its a TV show. During the cold war how many Russians and Eastern Europeans were potrayed as "evil villians"? How many Italians are constantly shown as mafioso? Let's not forget the heavy accented evil IRA terrorists as well.

Its a TV show - get over it.

For that matter how many Hollywood productions show American police as corrupt, military leaders as crazed or blood-thirsty and American government employees, whether CIA, NSA, FBI or whatever as puppets serving some evil cause vaguely identified as big business or power politics?

Muslim groups would be best served by reigning in those elements of their religious profile that create such negative stereotypes. They need to police themselves if they don't want the world doing it for them.

[LtVacan]

From an emotional point of view: yes, very likely. From a humanistic point of view: no, absolutely not. Nobody deserves to get tortured or get some degrading or humiliating treatment. Call me a dreamer, but it is my firm belief that all people shall be treated equally (good, not bad), and I find it to be on of the most basic principles of Western values.

Oh, BTW, Geneva Conventions I-IV, Article 3 in each of them: all of them explicitly condemn torturing people in any way, no matter what their legal status is, be it combatant, noncombatant, illegal combatant or whatever the US calls its imprisoned terrorists these days. And Article 3 is there for a reason: to prevent such "what if" questions, to prevent such "but lives can be saved" justifications. Asking such questions, or using such justifications in favor of torture degrades the person being tortured an object, a lesser human, because he doesn't get the same humane treatment.

But of course, these days, satisfying the thirst for revenge and the war on terror is more important than equally humane treatment to everybody, thus deceiving Western values.


Of course, the Geneva conventions only apply between nation states that are signatories of those conventions. Furthermore, "illegal combatants" can be summarily shot to death without violating the Geneva convention. I think I would rather endure some "degrading treatment" or even torture than being killed.

[alfigel]

Of course, the Geneva conventions only apply between nation states that are signatories of those conventions.

That is a misinterpretation. The Geneva Conventions apply to every country that signed it, and it doesn't matter whether the enemy. The Geneva Conventions are unconditional, i.e. when you're in war, they are to be followed.

Why are the Conventions unconditional? To avoid situations like when party A commits a war crime, then party B could say: "oh, you don't stick to the rules, so we won't stick to it either". And such kind of situations could be easily exploited by faking evidence of war crimes to justify abandoning the Conventions.

The spirit of the Geneva Conventions is that pain and suffering shall be minimized in an armed conflict. Of course, everybody know that every war has its war crimes, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try to fulfill that goal, even if we know that abandoning the Conventions would probably make everything so much easier.


Furthermore, "illegal combatants" can be summarily shot to death without violating the Geneva convention. I think I would rather endure some "degrading treatment" or even torture than being killed.

Being shot to death by the United States of America: maybe yes, maybe no. From what the Supreme Court says, it would be a definitive no (every captive has to be heard before his status is determined), but from what the Attorney General says, it would be a definitive yes (Gonzalez also says that Courts have no idea about National Security and should shut up, but that's another topic).
Being shot to death by the countries who ratified the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions: no.

[Light Fighter]

I dont need your pitty. You can not sit here and tell me that the hanging of bodies off a bridge is done by a group of reasonable people. Where were those contractors rights under the geneva convention? Where are the rights of the hundreads of civilians that have been killed because someone blows themselves up in a market place? And yes, the extremists are animals (never did I say Isalam or muslims in general are) They are a group of peope that would like nothing more than to destroy modern society because they have some wacked out interpretation of to Koran(sp) They are a group of people who think that by killing an "infidel" they will go to heaven. Sorry, never in my years of attending catholic school did they ever teach me that the way into heaven was by blowing up a mosque or by killing as many of a religon as I could. The extremists wont respect our soldiers, our contractors, or even their own countries civilians, why should we treat them any better? Will treating them with kid gloves stop the next convoy attack? Will respecting their "rights" stop them from walking into a market place and blowing themselves up? The extremists have been indoctrinated to hate anything that is not their own culture, and nothing will change their minds. Gone are the days of the WW11/Cold War style battles. The enemies hated each other, but their was still a mutual respect for one another. The extremists are a different enemy, and although it may take a bit of time to figure out how to fight them, it will be done. Until the world recognizes how evil the extremists are, there will be people like you who scream for their protection, but wont bat an eye when the reports of a slain and tortured coalition soldier appear on the news.

[Thor]

Yes, sir. Your polemics convinced me that I am not worthy and do not know what I'm talking about.

Seriously: I know what I'm talking about. As mentioned before, as combat medics we got a special training regarding International Humanitarian Law, the Geneva Conventions and related topics, and our teacher in that subject was a Col. who had studied law and later specialized in international law.
And who didn't? :D You're so out of that touch with reality that you don't realise that you share that with a few hundred others on mp.net. The difference is that you're the only one that considers puting it on your resume and applying for a judge's or attorney's position. :)

You just keep showing that don't even have a basic understanding of law. You just pick out random pieces that suits your interests and read whatever you want into them.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

And who didn't? :Drofl You're so out of that touch with reality that you don't realise that you share that with a few hundred others on mp.net. The difference is that you're the only one that considers puting it on your resume and applying for a judge's or attorney's position. :D

You just keep showing that don't even have a basic understanding of law. You just pick out random pieces that suits your interests and read in whatever you want in them.


I believe it is called "cherry picking".:)

[Jobu]

When the "moral high ground" starts costing you a chance to win the war you're in, it's time to get dirty.

[alfigel]

And who didn't? :D You're so out of that touch with reality that you don't realise that you share that with a few hundred others on mp.net. The difference is that you're the only one that considers puting it on your resume and applying for a judge's or attorney's position. :)

You just keep showing that don't even have a basic understanding of law. You just pick out random pieces that suits your interests and read whatever you want into them.

Thor, you have yet to disprove me. No, cheap polemics and ad-hominem attacks, which seem to be your preferred things you produce, aren't a proper way to disprove somebody.

[Indiana Jones]

When the "moral high ground" starts costing you a chance to win the war you're in, it's time to get dirty.
The perceived moral high ground is absolutely quintessential to success in COIN-in fact, it is the single most important criterion in such an undertaking. It is painfully obvious that the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and Astan has no prospect whatsoever of militarily beating the coalition. This entertaining little hassle will be decided in the ubiquitious "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis as well as in the Western media.

[LRPV]

This story is from our news.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/) network Source: AFP
Muslims take aim at hit series 24

<LI class=byline>From correspondents in Los Angeles
January 19, 2007
THE hit US television show 24 has come under fire from a Muslim group which has accused the program's makers of fuelling anti-Muslim prejudice with its latest storyline.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said 24's season premiere, in which Islamic terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb near Los Angeles, risked stoking racial hatred.
The criticism was swiftly rejected by the show's network Fox Broadcasting, which said the series did not single out ethnic groups to be villains.
"The raw emotional impact of fictional scenes that include widespread death and destruction in America may adversely affect the public's attitude toward civil liberties, religious freedom and interfaith relations," CAIR said.
"The program's repeated association of acts of terrorism with Islam will only serve to increase anti-Muslim prejudice in our society."
Representatives of the award-winning series responded by pointing out that during the show's five seasons villains have included Americans, Baltic Europeans, Germans, Russians, Islamic fundamentalists and the fictional president of the US.
"The producers are sensitive to the fact that over the course of the series no ethnic group be singled out for persecution or blame," Fox said.
"In fact, the show has made a concerted effort to show ethnic, religious and political groups as multi-dimensional, and political issues are debated from multiple viewpoints."
CAIR has raised similar concerns about 24 storylines in the past.
In response to the complaint two years ago, Fox aired a public service announcement featuring 24's star Kiefer Sutherland, urging viewers to avoid stereotyping Muslims.

Some people have no sense of humour.

[astro]

*slaps forehead*

[Aerosoul]

http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102746

[GoSka37]

http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102746

Party pooper. :roll:

[playtym]

If anyone actually had the kind of "days" that Jack Bauer has had for the last 5 their frigging head would explode from stress. I say let him torture and kill anyone he wants.

And all without even taking time out to take a dump either! :)

[Jobu]

The perceived moral high ground is absolutely quintessential to success in COIN-in fact, it is the single most important criterion in such an undertaking. It is painfully obvious that the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and Astan has no prospect whatsoever of militarily beating the coalition. This entertaining little hassle will be decided in the ubiquitious "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis as well as in the Western media.

#1. There is no chance to win over the Western media.
#2. The insurgents don't need to militarily defeat the coalition, they just need to show that the coalition cannot provide adequate security for the country.

I think the COIN doctrines have failed.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

I am going to order a big block of colby cheddar and some swiss so these sensitive people can (snif) have some cheese with their whine......WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

[8thidpathfinderpower]

And all without even taking time out to take a dump either! :)


Man o man o man....I would hate to be in the same restroom when he does cut loose.....you think Cherynobol or Three Mile Island was bad........Peeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!:oops: :oops:

[Litti]

*Sigh*

I´m not a conservative but this is just starting to be too stupid. How is Fox pushing any agenda with this show??

The best president in 24 was David Palmer, a black Democrat. The worst by far was Logan who was a Republican. Funny how some people completely managed to forget this detail.

Some people really need a reality check, I dont believe anyone starts to hate a particular group by watching good entertainment like 24.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

*Sigh*

I´m not a conservative but this is just starting to be too stupid. How is Fox pushing any agenda with this show??

The best president in 24 was David Palmer, a black Democrat. The worst by far was Logan who was a Republican. Funny how some people completely managed to forget this detail.

Some people really need a reality check, I dont believe anyone starts to hate a particular group by watching good entertainment like 24.

On a serious note, I have to agree with you. See it is like this...and what I am going to mention goes for everyone who can manlipulate the media...some have either political or social agendas they would like to push.(kinda like the kid who goes out and slays 100 midgits because he listened to a song about killer dwarfs) And, this trash always has a way of stiring up trouble, to pull faith to their cause. But, I just take their hyped up garbage as just what it really is...a few misrable pigs trying to make something out of nothing.:bash: :bash: :bash:

Besides...I like the Jack just goes from one situation to another without even as a blink of one eye....THAT is so cool!!!!

And, I have a whole bunch of fun on a monday night getting my 24 fix....I wonder if prison break, that guy Michael will hopefully do the dew with that sexy prison doc........hmmmmmm.......

[Indiana Jones]

#1. There is no chance to win over the Western media.
#2. The insurgents don't need to militarily defeat the coalition, they just need to show that the coalition cannot provide adequate security for the country.

I think the COIN doctrines have failed.
I think the COIN doctrines have never been really applied. As somebody once stated, COIN is armed social work. The coalitions effort in Iraq is substantially hampered by several fundamentally misguided policies, such as constantly rotating units in and out of theater etc. and is further undermined by lack of cultural awareness and orientalist expertise, lack of manpower and excessive use of artillery and airpower assets. That said, it is perhaps still not too late to save the day, but frankly I am of the opinion that the American military does not possess the flexibility to adapt itself to a large-scale asymetric campaign. Of even greater fatality however is the lack of political will and public support to commit sufficient manpower and resources to positively resolve the confrontation. The aftermath of the next elections will bring clarity.

[Calanen]

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said 24's season premiere, in which Islamic terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb near Los Angeles, risked stoking racial hatred.

Realistically, who else would it be - rampaging Buddhists?

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Realistically, who else would it be - rampaging Buddhists?

No...the real culprets are the holli krishnas....you know the ones you see in the airports....handing out flowers and sing holli krishna, krispy kream or what else no one really knows......p-)

[Zoomie]

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2299/070121stranerthanx2rn.gif

[turska]

I liked the first few seasons of 24 better than last two.

Now 24 is moving so close to 80's action movies starring Stallone or Arnold. You know: shoot first, ask questions later with pretty stupid plot. And its ok to torture even if he actually might not know anything. Like on that season 5(?) where the secretary of defence(?) whom Bauer worked for. I giggled when the secretary ordered his son to be tortured as he might know something about terrorist because he is a environmental greenie-hippie. :)

[Belrick]

the majority of Republicans are of that belief.

So were the majority of the Nazi party.

[seraosha]

So were the majority of the Nazi party.
ding*ding*ding

Goodwins law party foul,
No soup for you.

[alfigel]

ding*ding*ding

Goodwins law party foul,
No soup for you.

Alfigel's Addendum to Godwin's Law: you may only invoke Godwin's Law when you're able to spell "Godwin" correctly.