Geneva Convention Outdated?

[xrayzebra]

A speech that was made that some of you really don't
want to read. But it hits upon a topic that surely will
be faced by this nation in the coming months/years.

Do We Need a Geneva Convention for Fighting Terrorism?

By Newt Gingrich

I want to talk about the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have ever tried to deal with.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.

# #

[George Gervin's Afro]

A speech that was made that some of you really don't
want to read. But it hits upon a topic that surely will
be faced by this nation in the coming months/years.

Do We Need a Geneva Convention for Fighting Terrorism?

By Newt Gingrich

I want to talk about the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have ever tried to deal with.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.

# #

Do you mean the rules Ray? I've got one great suggestion on how to keep our cities safe. Don't start unecessary wars that help foster more hate for the USA than was previously known. Please tell me Ray how creating more terrorists is good thing Ray?

[clambake]

We have all these nukes just laying around, doing nothing.

Bush has no balls. vote for newt

[PixelPusher]

The Geneva Conventions isn't the only thing Newt thinks is "outdated"

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

Surrender the 1st Admendment, or your cities will go up in mushroom clouds. But no worries, he didn't mention the 2nd Admendment. I'm sure the government won't mess with you because you still have a semi-automatic firearm.

[boutons_]

Grinch doesn't say exactly what his Newteva Conventions for Terrorists would be.

It's more fear-mongering, just like the lies that got the US snookered into Iraq.

The rules of evidence, habeas corpus, right to legal representation .etc, etc. have served well until dubya/ head/Gonzo/Rummy decided they were worthless.

[xrayzebra]

Do you mean the rules Ray? I've got one great suggestion on how to keep our cities safe. Don't start unecessary wars that help foster more hate for the USA than was previously known. Please tell me Ray how creating more terrorists is good thing Ray?

Oh, is that why they bombed our embassies, WTC twice, the
barracks in Saudi Arabia. I didn't know we had gone to
war with them. Could you please tell me when we did,
was it during the Clinton Admin?

[xrayzebra]

Grinch doesn't say exactly what his Newteva Conventions for Terrorists would be.

It's more fear-mongering, just like the lies that got the US snookered into Iraq.

The rules of evidence, habeas corpus, right to legal representation .etc, etc. have served well until dubya/ head/Gonzo/Rummy decided they were worthless.

Did all this apply to the German spies captured during
WWII and hung in record time.

[xrayzebra]

Well like I said in the original post, didn't expect the normal
liberal crowd to like what he said.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh, is that why they bombed our embassies, WTC twice, the
barracks in Saudi Arabia. I didn't know we had gone to
war with them. Could you please tell me when we did,
was it during the Clinton Admin?

Can we at least acknowldege a couple of things? For one there has always been Muslims who want us off the face of the eart? Agreed? So in essence they have been at war with us for 60 ,70 80 yrs? Now they have escalated the fight and we have to respond. Can we agree on this? it just didn't happen in the 90's ray. I know your talk radio heroes like to tell it all happened under a Dem but that's not true. Secondly do you think it's smart to enrage some of the folks who are on the fence is this fight? I believe this would bring more peolpe into the fight. Agreed? So invading a country , let's say, under shaky pretenses might not have been the smartest move. Agreed?
Probably made things worse..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did all this apply to the German spies captured during
WWII and hung in record time.

Well this is similar to the Iraq war argument.." but,but,but the dems said it too.."
"but,but,but germany does it so we can too.."

[spurster]

I agree with Newt. Among other things, we need an International Criminal Court to deal with the problem.

[fyatuk]

Newt has always been an idiot. Not even worth paying attention to usually.

He's basically asking to remove a citizens rights when they are arrested in relation to a terrorist plot. That's stupid. There are too many correlations that would eventually be drawn to other crimes as well and eventually the rights he's trying to subvert for a specific group of criminals will end up being subverted for all violent criminals. It's the way it works. The government always expands definitions, never narrows.

[ChumpDumper]

Who is this guy names after a lizard?

[xrayzebra]

Well this is similar to the Iraq war argument.." but,but,but the dems said it too.."
"but,but,but germany does it so we can too.."

Youngster, do I have to teach you history too. Read the
following and note the time it took to try them and hang
them. All this occured during WWII in the United States.

Shortly after midnight on the morning of June 13, 1942, four men landed on a beach near Amagansett, Long Island, New York, from a German submarine, clad in German uniforms and bringing ashore enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production. On June 17, 1942, a similar group landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, near Jacksonville, Florida, equipped for a similar career in industrial disruption.

The purpose of the invasions was to strike a major blow for Germany by bringing the violence of war to our home ground through destruction of America's ability to manufacture vital equipment and supplies and transport them to the battlegrounds of Europe; to strike fear into the American civilian population, and diminish the resolve of the United States to overcome our enemies.

By June 27, 1942, all eight saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days.

Those sentenced to death were executed at the District of Columbia Jail on August 8, 1942.


Hmmmmm, wonder where the ACLU was at?

[xrayzebra]

The Geneva Conventions isn't the only thing Newt thinks is "outdated"

Surrender the 1st Admendment, or your cities will go up in mushroom clouds. But no worries, he didn't mention the 2nd Admendment. I'm sure the government won't mess with you because you still have a semi-automatic firearm.

You mock the 2nd admendment. It just might be the
salvation of this country. The Russians thought of it
often during the cold war.

[medstudent]

sweet ray, you're all in favor of a police state.

[xrayzebra]

Can we at least acknowldege a couple of things? For one there has always been Muslims who want us off the face of the eart? Agreed? So in essence they have been at war with us for 60 ,70 80 yrs? Now they have escalated the fight and we have to respond. Can we agree on this? it just didn't happen in the 90's ray. I know your talk radio heroes like to tell it all happened under a Dem but that's not true. Secondly do you think it's smart to enrage some of the folks who are on the fence is this fight? I believe this would bring more peolpe into the fight. Agreed? So invading a country , let's say, under shaky pretenses might not have been the smartest move. Agreed?
Probably made things worse..

Talk radio has nothing to do with our problem. People
like you and you mind set are. For some reason you
think we are the problem. We aren't.

I concede nothing to you. Nothing! I agree with
nothing you say nor will I in regards to this.

Why? Because you are wrong as two left feet. The
people we are fighting are killing others in their own
countries because they do not believe as they think
they should. Get a brain, use it. Quit making excuses
for them and face the fact they want to kill you. You
got that, K I L L Y O U. We are not the bad guys.
Never were. Never will be.

Enrage people on the fence, get a life. There are no
one over there on the fence. There are only those
that kill and those that will be killed or give in to
those that do the killing. Why do you think Saddam
killed anyone who even thought of opposing him.
Including his own son-in-laws.

Twerp, you better grow up and start acting like someone
who knows something and give up on the BS put
out by those who want power at any cost.

[xrayzebra]

sweet ray, you're all in favor of a police state.

No I am in favor of the United States going onto a
war time footing like we have in the past. There is
considerable difference. But how would you know. I
doubt you have much knowledge of our history.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Talk radio has nothing to do with our problem. People
like you and you mind set are. For some reason you
think we are the problem. We aren't.

I concede nothing to you. Nothing! I agree with
nothing you say nor will I in regards to this.

Why? Because you are wrong as two left feet. The
people we are fighting are killing others in their own
countries because they do not believe as they think
they should. Get a brain, use it. Quit making excuses
for them and face the fact they want to kill you. You
got that, K I L L Y O U. We are not the bad guys.
Never were. Never will be.

Enrage people on the fence, get a life. There are no
one over there on the fence. There are only those
that kill and those that will be killed or give in to
those that do the killing. Why do you think Saddam
killed anyone who even thought of opposing him.
Including his own son-in-laws.

Twerp, you better grow up and start acting like someone
who knows something and give up on the BS put
out by those who want power at any cost.

I see so now your relegated to comparing saddam's regime to terrorists organizations. got it ray..

You say terrorists want to kill us.. I think at this point that's a bit obvious don't you think?

Enrage people on the fence, get a life. There are no
one over there on the fence. There are only those
that kill and those that will be killed or give in to
those that do the killing. Why do you think Saddam
killed anyone who even thought of opposing him.
Including his own son-in-laws.

Well ray YOUR WRONG AGAIN. There are many instances that have been reported that people who were either on our side of the fence or sitting on the fence that that decided after we invaded Iraq they wanted to kill us too. WOuldn't that be counter-productive Ray?

[medstudent]

dont make me go V for Vendetta on your sorry old ...

[George Gervin's Afro]

No I am in favor of the United States going onto a
war time footing like we have in the past. There is
considerable difference. But how would you know. I
doubt you have much knowledge of our history.

which would be shut up and let bush do anything he wants. Ray's American Way!!

[fyatuk]

Talk radio has nothing to do with our problem. People
like you and you mind set are. For some reason you
think we are the problem. We aren't.

Admittedly, there's some rudimentary problems between outlooks that cause some of the strife, but you're fooling yourself if you think we didn't do plenty to dig our own hole here.

We've been breeding hate towards us in the Muslim world for 50 years by arming and then abandoning militant groups, as well as by helping ruthless dictators into power because they state a pro-US view, and then turning against them because they are too ruthless, etc. It's a simple fact, that at the very least our foreign politics over the last several decades have given extremists plenty of ammunition to recruit followers and push their jihad mentality.

Not just the US either, but European countries as well. They did a poor job of ending their colonial reign and drew some rather poor and arbitrary borders which helped to create a culture of distrust and violence. Blind backing of rather violent and aggressive Israeli regimes hasn't helped either.

IMO, our foreign policy decisions have turned what should have been a relationship of distrust and dislike into a relationship of blind hatred, which the extremist/jihadists have used to their advantage. With a more conservative foreign policy that didn't involve dictating regimes in foreign countries probably would have prevented much of the strife we have now.

The funny thing is we still haven't learned our lesson. We proclaim we want democracy in the middle east, then cut off foreign aid when Hamas comes into power, but now want to re-instate it by putting it directly into Fatah's control? We're still trying to force pro-us regimes into power while saying "we want to give you freedom" and that's only going to continue to ascerbate the problems.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Admittedly, there's some rudimentary problems between outlooks that cause some of the strife, but you're fooling yourself if you think we didn't do plenty to dig our own hole here.

We've been breeding hate towards us in the Muslim world for 50 years by arming and then abandoning militant groups, as well as by helping ruthless dictators into power because they state a pro-US view, and then turning against them because they are too ruthless, etc. It's a simple fact, that at the very least our foreign politics over the last several decades have given extremists plenty of ammunition to recruit followers and push their jihad mentality.

Not just the US either, but European countries as well. They did a poor job of ending their colonial reign and drew some rather poor and arbitrary borders which helped to create a culture of distrust and violence. Blind backing of rather violent and aggressive Israeli regimes hasn't helped either.

IMO, our foreign policy decisions have turned what should have been a relationship of distrust and dislike into a relationship of blind hatred, which the extremist/jihadists have used to their advantage. With a more conservative foreign policy that didn't involve dictating regimes in foreign countries probably would have prevented much of the strife we have now.

The funny thing is we still haven't learned our lesson. We proclaim we want democracy in the middle east, then cut off foreign aid when Hamas comes into power, but now want to re-instate it by putting it directly into Fatah's control? We're still trying to force pro-us regimes into power while saying "we want to give you freedom" and that's only going to continue to ascerbate the problems.

I'll save ray the post. You don't know anything you twerp.

[fyatuk]

I'll save ray the post. You don't know anything you twerp.

1) I'm a bit too old for twerp, thank you. But thanks for insinuating I'm still young.

2) We HAVE done everything I said and more. If you disagree on the impact of it that's fine, but it hardly means I know nothing. Might mean I misinterpret a few things, but hardly what you said.

3) Guess this part of the forum isn't as fun as the rest. Should probably stick to my normal talk-shop with politics since people there at least explain themselves when they disagree with you. usually.

[George Gervin's Afro]

1) I'm a bit too old for twerp, thank you. But thanks for insinuating I'm still young.

2) We HAVE done everything I said and more. If you disagree on the impact of it that's fine, but it hardly means I know nothing. Might mean I misinterpret a few things, but hardly what you said.

3) Guess this part of the forum isn't as fun as the rest. Should probably stick to my normal talk-shop with politics since people there at least explain themselves when they disagree with you. usually.

Actually I agree with you. Your original post was well thought out and passed the common sense test in my view. On the other hand people like Ray will never agree with your opnion and will rely on calling you names. i was actually mocking xray more than your post.