PDA

View Full Version : Ashcroft and the Senate Judiciary Cmte.



Ally_Kat
06-10-2004, 12:21 PM
I'm still trying to get back on track from my vaca, but I didn't see anyone mention anythign about this, and it someone struck me as odd. Again, I'm sketchy on this, so if anyone can fill in the name :)

So JA's answering questions and this one Senator tells in, in a very asshole-ly way, that "that's why we have treaties. So that when American Troops, like my son, get captured, they are not tortured." (or something very close)

First off, he's glad he wasn't questioning me or I might have decked him.

Second off, is it just me, or do the treaties not matter to Muslim extremists? Seriously. We see this as war and, even in war, there are certain agreements we abide by so that our boys don't get slapped around and/or killed if they get caught.

Muslim extremists appear to me more like the bank robber/plane hijacker (no 9/11 reference meant. Think more what that term meant on 9/10) where they control an area, take hostages, and then will do anything with hostages to get what they want.

They don't care about treaties. Is that clear to only me? Wave a treaty in front of them and say, "you cannot slash my throat and continue to cut my head off because it violates sanction VIII of blahblahblah. The last thing you'll see a bunch of Muslim extremists laughing their asses off at you.

They don't care.

I could see if we were at war with on of the European Countries or something. Ya know, a country where they give a shit about these type of thigs. But these guys? These guys capture hostages to videotape them denouncing their country of origin and then film their demise. It's the same pattern over and over again. And yet, we believe that some treaties are going to prevent this? That an incident has fucked us over now for the future? That a story of abuse in a prison brought this treatment of our boys and our allies on? Even if that story didn't break, even if it didn't happen, do people still think that those who where captured wouldn't have been killed? That they would have been saved? And if so, I'd like to live in their world.

I'm not saying we should abandon the treaties. Nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is realize the truth. I just hope that the good senator realizes it. It gives him good face in front of his supporters to yell in such a fashion to Mr. Ashcroft, and I'm sure that's why he did it. But, how strongly does he believe that following the treaties to a T will save Americans from Muslim extremists while we are over in Iraq? I have some news for Mr. Senator -- Godforbid his son was to ever be picked up by them, his son would be dead shortly and no treaty can save his life.

knuckleboner
06-10-2004, 03:23 PM
just because some other group does a wrong does not mean that we should.

if it IS wrong, then sobeit. we will (should) be the bigger nation.

if we do something wrong, even if it is in response to someone else doing something wrong, it's certainly possible that that will piss off OTHER people. who then do something wrong to us.

sure, some of the extremists will torture and brutalize our people no matter what. but what we don't want to do is give further "proof" to that area that America is evil and deserves what it gets.