http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...64&e=6&u=/nm/20040518/ts_nm/iraq_reuters_dc_4 Now not that I don't believe these folks, but don't journalists in war zones wear bright orange vests that say PRESS so they don't get swept up? K
While the circumstances of their arrest aren't described I think it's safe to assume they were dressed at the time.
But seriously, wouldn't NBC and Reuters have provide some sort of credentials for their people? Couldn't the soldiers figure out hey, these people have betacams they must be reporters? Sweeping up and jailing reporters just adds to the governments whole cover up over there, don't you think? K
They could be stripped by the Iraqis army first before sending in to Americans. Iraqi soldiers wouldn't give you a sh1t if you say you work for NBC because they didn't know sh1t what NBC was.
It is just a further prove, if there was the need of it, that the use of tortures was a policy. Now I understand the reasons of some attitudes I couldn't understand some time ago. http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/crisis/0817power.htm Vote Kerry, please. p.s. ah I forgot... and sign the ICC treaty. i mean "really sign".
Reuters and NBC have stringers abused but aren't even competent enough to break the story. Who's running those newsrooms, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz?
The army admits holding them three days, then releasing them. I just does not admit (yet) that the journalists were subject to "abuse." The story is legit.
are sure these two statements correspond?? you cant have both, I suggest you choose one.Since John Kerry has openly admited that he has comitted war crimes he just may be the first American we hand over to be tried.I mean afterall He has Openly admitted them on numerous occasions.Unless of course you think he his a liar?
Who the hell left the door to the retard room unlocked? I mean, c'mon, we shouldn't let people like zverskiy here have access to the sanitarium library's computers.
Those statements do not correspond because Kerrey has said that he doesn't approve of the ICC. But the rest of your post is just pure propoganda. Since he has admitted to it as a witness he would not be tried you facetious little man. I'd rather go after traitors who used their fathers or other flimsy deferments to get out of doing their duty for their country than someone who reported these crimes.
John Kerry in HIS words April 18, 1971 "There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. " I dont see anything about being witness to .From that statement it appears he his stating he took part in what he believes were criminal actions directed by the Defense department.
no body left it unlocked, Tipper came by to make sure my records were non- offensive and i slipped past her.
You mean, you never saw the news when he was called to testify about these atrocities? Well you are more misinformed than I thought. I mean don't you realize that those who come forward, even when they admit that they participated, to expose these acts are generally immune from prosecution when they testify?
first vote Kerry then convince him to sign the treaty. Tell him that The Hague, Netherlands is not Ryadh, Saudi Arabia, no sharia, no cutting of the hands or stuff, fair judgement and comfortable prisons. Or tell him that nowadays the people around the world could misinterpret the reasons why USA opposed and opposes ICC.