- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: >>> Damn lucky, to be honest. >>> >> No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. > > Oh but it is. > Ah? Why? >> Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a >> court of law. You remember, "Justice" the thing the US supposely is >> standing for? > > Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, > that > it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its > actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other > countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the "good guys" than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the "best bang for the buck" but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. > What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. > >> Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very >> moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the >> US Government (and thus the US Military). >> >> Two wrongs still don't make a right. > > What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him > a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. > > Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow > are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? > No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Nomen Nescio 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim, sorry it was unclear from my post whom I was referring to. It was "James A. Donald". I did put his message id in a reply-to header. Jim Dixon wrote: > Hitler, you mean? Or did you have Milosevic in mind? No what I meant was what IF somehow Bush or Blaire or some other high ranking coalition politician were captured by Iraq during the war and was treated in the same way. I can only presume you would support Saddam's soldiers checking Bush for lice then. You are also utterly missing the point and you are one pretty good example of how "the mob" are thinking. EVERYONE, including Saddam, Pol Pot or whattever should be treated in accordance with the laws by us who call ourselves the free democratic part of the world. Then they shall stand trial. A fair trial and being represented by lawyers. What would be more satisfying for the critics of U.S. than to see U.S. not being able to get its act together and instead conducting itself in a manner inconsistent with international law during this rather criticl phase of the Iraqi campaign. Mark my words, U.S. will be in regret later. Jim Dixon, you also wrote some half trouths on the subject of Palestinians and the support they received. You should read up on this subject. Saddam also has a history of building up edicational institutions and so on. He recived awards by U.N. earlier on for his wellfare programs and the development Iraq was gaining. Anyone can check this up, just call U.N. in NY and you'll receive a few references I'm sure. What I mean by this is not to defend him in any way but I feel that this rewriting of history and propaganda is serving noone in the long run. If you believe that 100% of the arab world in their harts and minds hate Saddam you're wring. Very wrong. Steve Schear: thanks for your interesting post! Some people need to learn more of that. I also noticed on the news that CIA was conducting the questioning of Saddam. (Did anyone expect anything else?!) I guess this also means that U.S. now will join all dicatators and awful beasts in performing various forms of abuse and torture on him. Iraq formally removed the death penalty just a few weeks ago. Regardless of what you feel about that in general, I think it's embarrasing once again to see U.S. almost "lobbying" against the Iraqis to have them not honouring their own laws to satisfy Bush on this specific issue! Remember there's only one reason for Bush wanting to see Saddam dead and that he does. And that is the fact that "Saddam tried to kill my papa" as Bush put it, I've seen it in interviews myself. Jim Dixon, going through your post again I see yet another half trough, you write > The people on this list are less.. public humiliation and hanging of Americans.. And you seem to forget that U.S. was in bed with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war era and that there was a friendly tone then. U.S. officials met with Iraqi, I think that Tareq Azis met with Reagan even? Your whole post is based on the feeling that we're gonna do what they did to us. In doing so you have manifested what has been written here about "gasing into the abyss" and so on. You have become what you hunt. Be ware. It is my opinion that we shall distinguish ourselves from these bastards by not committing their deeds ourselves. You seem not to agree on that. And that is a major mistake.

7 12

Re: Don't worry...it's just one of Saddam's doubles
by Tyler Durden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"If I don't remember incorrectly, they said something about identifying him by DNA testing." Well, of course "Saddam" is going to test positive...he's apparently an actual CLONE. Actually, from what I understand this is the 'original' Saddam (note how much older he seems than the Saddams we've been seeing in the press over the last few years), but he hasn't actually controlled things for a couple of decades. The Saddam we're really looking for is approximately Saddam #3, and he's still at large, and directing the insurgency. -TD >From: Thomas Shaddack <shaddack(a)ns.arachne.cz> >To: Tyler Durden <camera_lumina(a)hotmail.com> >CC: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: Don't worry...it's just one of Saddam's doubles >Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:33:53 +0100 (CET) > > >On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: > > > Spread the word. The adminstration got desparate. In a few weeks they'll > > announce this isn't the real Saddam, but that rounding up all of the >clones > > is necessary progress in the fight to get the real Saddam. > >If I don't remember incorrectly, they said something about identifying him >by DNA testing. But it wasn't widely quoted in the mainstream news. So >even if it really is him - they may still claim he isn't the real McCoy if >the insurgency won't stop. > >The timing is definitely weird. Too soon before the Elections. > >But there is still the backup, the Lost TV Star, also known as Ossama; >whether They intend to announce capturing him, or whether he will be >claimed responsible for Something Scary in a psyops attempt to make the >voters more susceptible to the beat of the Homeland Security drums. _________________________________________________________________ Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer? Find out. Run the FREE McAfee online computer scan! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

3 2

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Tyler Durden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools." A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. For them it's almost certainly going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and fucked them over all these years. They're not going to respect our "Power", they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first place. They're just going to get angrier. Look for bin Laden to grow in status until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. Look then for more bombings and 9/11s here in the US. That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will soon be nearly irrelevant. -Tyler Durden >From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon(a)pobox.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:57 +0200 > >You wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:19:43PM -0500: > > Jim Dixon wrote: > > > > > > > >I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and > > >getting a haircut. :-| > > > > > > > > > > And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and > > get a haircut with the whole world watching? > >If I had record like Saddam's on me? > >Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly >tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. >Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. > >Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut >in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about >millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in >unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel >haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. > >-- >avva _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx

2 1

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Tyler Durden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided." At least here in NYC local news, it's common to hear newsmaggots issuing leadins such as, "Will the CIA be able to make Saddam talk?" and so on. I think this implies the "obvious", but it's an obvious that should be stated: The US public basically now generally knows that some forms of extreme measures are being applied to prisoners and detainees, and we're willing to look the other way. After all, 9/11 proves "they" (picture a cluster of darkish-skinned turbanned men wearing fatigues and huddling in caves) are out to take away our freedoms. so why shouldn't we do the same thing to them? >From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? >Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:43 -0800 (PST) > >Natt writes: > > > You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on > > a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific > > question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention.? > >Rumsfeld also revealed that the CIA has taken over the Saddam >interrogation, and pundits are speculating that they will use the same >torture techniques that are being used on the "detainees." > >Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be >subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of >interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get >any rest until answers are provided. > >Bill Bennett said just a few minutes ago, that Saddam's capture made >America safer, because the world has learned that "If you mess with >America, you wind up in a hole." > >A friend of mine, when asked what he wanted from Santa for Christmas, >replied, "A crater the size of DC." > >Clearly, the world's leaders are looking closely at Saddam's treatment, >and realizing how easily pissing off the Bush family could result in them >being shown on International TV unbathed, unshaven, checked for fleas, and >bent over for a rectal probe. > >Of course, all of this is provoking a new arms race of astronomical >proportions, as the other nations of the world realize international law >means nothing, and that the US and Israel think they can judge everyone >else on the planet, no one can judge them, and they can act with impunity. > >This will, in a few years, result in the usual "force meets force plus >brains" low level format of the arrogant, and after a few hangings, and a >big round of applause, life on the planet will move on. > >-- >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ >O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division >"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize

2 1

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Freematt357＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 12/17/2003 1:00:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, jamesd(a)echeque.com writes: > Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: How so? > we will > cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of > innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders > waded to the holy sepulchre. > I obtained the below quote from your website located at: http://www.jim.com/liberquo.htm "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams Regards, Matt-

1 0

TSA/FBI No-Fly Nexus
by J.A. Terranson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Terrorism: The New Aviation Threat http://www.c-spanstore.com/172153.html Since I started loading this video stream I am now watching several hours ago, I no longer remember where I saw the link I clicked on that has allowed me to watch this without buying it :-( But the regular purchase link is above. This presentation by an FBI Counterintel agent (Art Cummings) is mostly a standard promo for the bureau, a bunch of rah-rah, we're great, terrorists suck, etc., but he opens with a firm statement that the TSA no-fly list is a direct product of the FBI itself ("we feed the information to TSA"). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the FBI stated several times (and in several places) that TSA's list is their own, and that FBI has nothing to do with it? Does this data provide anything for John's suit? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm

2 2

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Freematt357＠aol.com 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, timcmay(a)got.net writes: > There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a > prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of > Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. > > Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention. His answer was that some things are more important, that it was necessary to show to the world that Saddam was in custody and he wasn't going to be back in power, etc. He added that Saddam is being treated humanly, and he takes offense to anyone who suggests otherwise. Regards, Matt-

3 2

Saddam drugged says daughter.
by Harmon Seaver 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324021.stm And probably they're using drugs to "interview" Saddam, which explains the quick following busts. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

1 0

[fc-announce] FC'04: Call for Participation
by R. A. Hettinga 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text

1 0