Cartoons - US cartoonists

[fdt]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/kelley.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/kirk.jpg

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/cole.jpg

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/britt.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/breen.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/koterba.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/arial.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/priggee.jpg

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/powell.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/horsey.jpg

[Raistlin]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/kelley.gif
That's the best one.

[Tengu]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/kelley.gif
That's the best one.haha i agree

[Deuterium]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/britt.gif

Way too skinny for Bill's pick of women.

[UkrainianAmerican]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/britt.gif

Way too skinny for Bill's pick of women.
Hahahahha, true dat!

[RavenW]

Is it only me, who find this cartoons offensive in so many ways?

I mean comparing orthodox Jew of 1940 with a Arab terrorists from Abu Graib prison?
I mean we got a completely innocent religious man on the left, and a bloody murderer who has his hand full of innocent blood on the right...

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/kirk.jpg


This is a typical perversion of liberal press...

[AFACadet]

I thought the same thing about that one :\

[Midav]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/kirk.jpg

I realize we have freedom of speech and expression. Here's mine: This is hands down, the dumbest and most narrow minded cartoon I have seen in a long, long time.

I do realize there will be those that will challenge me as to why I think so. You know, if those people honestly need explanation, then it's just not worth my time.

Sad how past happenings are thrown about so freely anymore....

[Alphabet76]

Is it only me, who find this cartoons offensive in so many ways?

I mean comparing orthodox Jew of 1940 with a Arab terrorists from Abu Graib prison?
I mean we got a completely innocent religious man on the left, and a bloody murderer who has his hand full of innocent blood on the right...

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/kirk.jpg


This is a typical perversion of liberal press...

What makes you think he is a terrorist? All the detainees in the Abu Gharib were
terrorists? Does US Army make no mistakes? Are they some kind of superhuman?
In my opinion the question if somebody is guilty or not shoud be solved be the court
not by the prison guards, don't you think? Thats the difference between us, on the
picture above I see a human, you see a terrorist.
Probably if you asked some german teenager in 1944 he woud see nothing wrong with
the first picture. "What human? Just some *****, ***** jew"

[VorpalDoom]

actually, all the prisoners at that prison were non-uniform combatants... in other words... TERRORIST... go figure. Also, acording to the geneva convention, non-uniform combatants have no rights... none, we could have executed them if we felt like it. 'sides... trying to defend the terrorists at the prison (regardless of what happened to them) is only asking to get flamed with countless videos and images of iraqis being tortured and murdered by saddam's regime.... :|

[Alphabet76]

actually, all the prisoners at that prison were non-uniform combatants
How can you know that? Who decided it? Those who arrested them?
Do you think US soldiers are some god-like creatures who are never wrong
and never make mistakes? Have you heard about courts? Right to defence?
Presumed innocence?


actually, all the prisoners at that prison were non-uniform combatants... in other words... TERRORIST... go figure.
The terrorism is:
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations):

"...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or
coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of
political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

"premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."

the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or
intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political,
religious, or ideological."

"Terrorism is the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to produce goals
that are political or ideological in nature."
(taken from Wikipedia) Note: I cite only definitions used by your government. None
of them says anything about wearing a uniform, or not wearing one. Terrorism is not
about being in civil clothes, it's about something completly different.


Also, acording to the geneva convention, non-uniform combatants have no rights... none, we could have executed them if we felt like it.
Do you think what the mob did to Blackwater employees in Fallujah was right? I don't.
They (PMC) were non-uniformed, so according to you the enemy could do anything
he want, right? Well, I dare to disagree. period.


'sides... trying to defend the terrorists at the prison

My god. Once again. Saying that torture and humiliation is wrong makes me a terrorist supporter, right?


(regardless of what happened to them) is only asking to get flamed with countless videos and images of iraqis being tortured and murdered by saddam's regime....
Did you just try to say "But they (Abu Gharib guards) are better than Saddam thugs"?
So is 99% of world's crimminals. So what?

[Raistlin]

Terrorism is not about being in civil clothes, it's about something completly different.
That's actually correct. Maybe people forget these days that terrorists and guerilla militants are 2 different things. Heck, a terrorist doesn't even have to have a weapon.

[Alphabet76]

BTW. Fantastic cartoons fdt. As usual.
The 1st if probably the best.

[henksmoeder]

Excellent post Alphabet76! woot

[RavenW]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040616/kirk.jpg



What makes you think he is a terrorist? All the detainees in the Abu Gharib were
terrorists? Does US Army make no mistakes? Are they some kind of superhuman?
In my opinion the question if somebody is guilty or not shoud be solved be the court
not by the prison guards, don't you think? Thats the difference between us, on the
picture above I see a human, you see a terrorist.
Probably if you asked some german teenager in 1944 he woud see nothing wrong with
the first picture. "What human? Just some *****, ***** jew"


Well, if you interested to know, not all prisoners were abused in Abu Graib.
A husband of my friend just returned from Iraq. He was there from March 2003 - to April 2004.
He is a police offficer in my local town, and he served as military police in Abu Graib.

There are several seperate sectors in Abu Graib prison.
Those for common criminals were not abused at all.

However, the guy that you so eloquently pointed to is a terrorit.
They stay in a seperate department. Secort "1C" if I am not mistaken - seperate from other Iraqi inmates.
They were caught actually during terror bombing, and they are most violent terrorists that were captured in Iraq.

In other words, we are talking about not some innocent Iraqi soldiers, we are talking about the most dangerous and high profile individuals that were caught fighting with coalition forces during terror attacks and usually murdered some American soldiers not in regular fighting, but in terrorists operations.

Furthermore, they are as prisoners of Alcatraz usually so violent, they could not even be with regular criminal type.
Usually, they commited horrible horrible crimes after they were 'captured' -- e.g. raped fellow inmates, murdered a guard, systematically abused other inmates etc.

So we are talking about the worst type of criminals, who were caught during the process of terror attack and who also have their hands full of blood of Iraqis as well as Americans.

Comparing them to innocent religous Jew - an orthodox Jew, who doesn't even serve in the army is just flatly wrong.

And if you don't understand the difference... well, SHAME ON YOU!

[Secret Squirrel]

actually, all the prisoners at that prison were non-uniform combatants... in other words... TERRORIST... go figure. Also, acording to the geneva convention, non-uniform combatants have no rights... none, we could have executed them if we felt like it. 'sides... trying to defend the terrorists at the prison (regardless of what happened to them) is only asking to get flamed with countless videos and images of iraqis being tortured and murdered by saddam's regime.... :|

Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146).

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.

[RavenW]

Who told you that they are "etitled" for the status "prisoner of war"?

They simply are not.

P.S. In any way, I support the re-writing of Geneva Convention, since it is obviously became a loophole for terrorist evildoers and needs to be changed.

I think it is wrong to abandon it, but it definitely needs an amendment. The kind of war we are fighting right now was not simply anticipated in 1949.

Plus, in 1949 if someone would target civilians on purpose and then celebrate on the streets yelling "Allah Akbar", the people would see nothing wrong in simply nuking them.

But today, I don't see Gaza been nuked by neutron small tactical device.