I was brought up to believe that capturing people at gunpoint and then locking them up without charge or trial was a Bad Thing.
I seem to remember that we in the West used to have pretty robust views on nations that acted in that manner.
Now we seem to have joined their illustrious ranks.
I honestly don’t give a button what justifications people trot out.
Look, it’s quite simple…..
If these prisoners were fighting a war against the forces that toppled the Taliban then they are POWs and are protected by the Geneva Convention. Their treatment to date clearly violates that treaty.
If they are armed civilians who committed acts of aggression against the US/UK forces, they are criminals who should be tried by due legal process and punished severely if found guilty on the basis of evidence presented to the court. After all, the evidence against them must be pretty clear – I should think they were caught red-handed. But this hasn’t happened either.
If they are suspected of terrorist offences, then once again they should be tried by due legal process and punished severely if found guilty on the basis of evidence presented to the court. Once again, this isn’t the case.
Instead, we are told that they are suspected “enemy combatants” – whatever that means. Apparently most of them have dark skins and beards, which seems to be evidence enough for some of you.
Just one final point – the USA openly holds people without trial in Cuba while at one and the same time castigating the Cuban government for allegedly doing the same.
If this isn’t hypocrisy then what is it?
How do you know? :confused:
How do you know? :confused:
“Aircraft Manufacturer Sells Some Aeroplanes…..” Whatever next? :rolleyes:
“Aircraft Manufacturer Sells Some Aeroplanes…..” Whatever next? :rolleyes:
G-ARPD, the well-known Tees-side resident????
Not enough engines, Sandy. :D:D:D:D
G-ARPD, the well-known Tees-side resident????
Not enough engines, Sandy. :D:D:D:D
Really, skycruiser?
Obviously you know what you’re talking about, so why would this be the case?
Really, skycruiser?
Obviously you know what you’re talking about, so why would this be the case?
So there’s no need for pilots to carry guns then, is there? :D:D:D
Quod Erat Demonstrandum. 😎
Thank you, and Goodnight! :diablo:
So there’s no need for pilots to carry guns then, is there? :D:D:D
Quod Erat Demonstrandum. 😎
Thank you, and Goodnight! :diablo:
Yes, it left Filton for Cambridge earlier today.
Yes, it left Filton for Cambridge earlier today.
So, lets say the pilots are not armed and that same situation arises… what now?
It’s irrelevant, Sandy.
These days the passengers would tear the hijackers limb from limb at the first sign of an attenpt to take the aircraft. What, after all, would they have to lose?
That’s what we were trying to tell you earlier…… 😀
So, lets say the pilots are not armed and that same situation arises… what now?
It’s irrelevant, Sandy.
These days the passengers would tear the hijackers limb from limb at the first sign of an attenpt to take the aircraft. What, after all, would they have to lose?
That’s what we were trying to tell you earlier…… 😀