akhalteke Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Nice.....you post something from cnn of all places.....think of your source dude. Does not matter what they confess....they have to be proven guilty in a court of law before they are not innocent anymore. No they don't kev. They are not soldiers. They are not citizens of the country they are captured in. Serenity alluded to the reason that Gitmo was created. The soldiers that we fought previously, even in Vietnam, wore uniforms. These don't. They do not abide by the Geneva convention. By carrying out war activities while not wearing a uniform, they are infact war criminals. So what to do with them? What would you do kev? Personally, I don't like the idea of Gitmo, but we are kinda stuck with it. Gitmo makes their hatred of the US worse and it is pretty un-american. What else do you do kev? I know what you will say. Pull out. We all wish your father would have, but that obviously didn't work then and it isn't gonna now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 It's not possible for supporters of torture and abolishing habeus corpus to produce arguments that don't also indict their own cause. Bringing up these 5, for example, raises the issues of a) why their trial started so recently 8 years after capture and b) why there are only 5 Gitmo trials happening at all out of nearly 300 prisoners. Furthermore, if one examines these cases, and I have, one quickly realizes what a complete clusterfuck the military commissions system, under which these men are being tried, is. For example, several of these men confessed so that they could be martyred, but the head of military commissions reported several months ago that it may not be possible to legally levy the death penalty under the commission system. The main problem is that the proceedings have used evidence gained under torture (yes, the head of the military commissions system has publically acknowledge that they were tortured (her words), so save the bullshit semantics about whether or not waterboarding etc should be called). It's questionable whether or not the trials will continue at all due to that little complication. If they cannot continue, the enemies of habeaus corpus and friends of torture will blame the 'liberals', rather than the rule of law prohibiting torture, which has been around for more than half a century, and the right of habeus corpus, which is actually more than a thousand years old. That's what happens when a bowl full of idiots get together and try to re-invent 1000 years worth of criminal justice in an afternoon so they can stack the deck against a particular group of defendents for political purposes. "Get me some fucking terrorists; here's a pile of cash". Well, we got a pile of 'em all, right, and right quick, too. Gee, how'd that happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 It costs so much because there are people out there, like yourself, predominately non military types who second guess/armchair every move on the battlefield. This rhetoric and over the shoulder two step aids the enemy more than it aids your own troops trying to do their job. Then once we incarcerate someone openly conducting warfare, we have to justify to someone, like you, despite every common sense indicator justifying use of force the guy on the ground utilized to capture PUC. So when did non citizens start receiving due process under US law, with an almost ferocious backing by liberals bent on establishing new world order. One people, one government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 These guys should have habeus corpus? http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre52a6o8-us-security-usa-somalia/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) Nice.....you post something from cnn of all places.....think of your source dude. Does not matter what they confess....they have to be proven guilty in a court of law before they are not innocent anymore. No they don't kev. They are not soldiers. They are not citizens of the country they are captured in. Serenity alluded to the reason that Gitmo was created. The soldiers that we fought previously, even in Vietnam, wore uniforms. These don't. They do not abide by the Geneva convention. By carrying out war activities while not wearing a uniform, they are infact war criminals. So what to do with them? What would you do kev? Personally, I don't like the idea of Gitmo, but we are kinda stuck with it. Gitmo makes their hatred of the US worse and it is pretty un-american. What else do you do kev? I know what you will say. Pull out. We all wish your father would have, but that obviously didn't work then and it isn't gonna now. I'd like you to give us a list of names, country captured in, and nationality of the detainees at Gitmo, because, frankly, I don't believe you know your ass from a hole in the ground in that department, despite your claim that you know this information. Second, as I stated previously, protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions and our anti-torture statutes apply to all detainnes in U.S. custody. You can argue with the Supreme Court on that one, but them's the rule of law of the country you claim to be a citizen and public servant of. In addition, and I don't expect you to understand the principles here, Common Article 3 applies to all battlefield captives from through convention and practice. Finally; you've claimed that war criminals shouldn't be tried. Tell us, why not? Edited March 12, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 as far as releasing bad guys and having them show back up on the battlefield - hey, look at your history - its a time-honored tradition! - for example, the north and south exchanged prisoners during the civil war (and when the practice was stopped, the "american auschwitz" of andersonville resulted) - prisoner exchanges were common in the napoleonic wars too - now, the germans and soviets just murdered each others prisoner, but then how well do we remember them? your choices w/ POWs/enemy combatants/guys in pj's/whatever are a) kill them after they surrender (okay, solves the problem, but costs you your national soul in the process) b) hold them for the duration of the war (problematic given the politics/expense, especially when you declare a war that by definition can have no ending - "war on terror") or c) at some point release/exchange them. is there a 4th option? We should close Gitmo and move all the prisoners into a halfway house next door to josephh, mattp or kevboner. These guys are clearly innocent lambs! now that's funny...just sayin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 These guys should have habeus corpus? http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre52a6o8-us-security-usa-somalia/ Every human being on the planet should have the right of habeus corpus. That's the kind of world I'd like to work towards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 It costs so much because there are people out there, like yourself, predominately non military types who second guess/armchair every move on the battlefield. This rhetoric and over the shoulder two step aids the enemy more than it aids your own troops trying to do their job. Then once we incarcerate someone openly conducting warfare, we have to justify to someone, like you, despite every common sense indicator justifying use of force the guy on the ground utilized to capture PUC. So when did non citizens start receiving due process under US law, with an almost ferocious backing by liberals bent on establishing new world order. One people, one government? if we didn't want to afford due process and other basic rights to non-usa citizens then we shouldn't have joined the u.n. or signed the convention on human rights serenity, certainly you've read military history? you know, something other than world war 2 stuff where we were the golden knights, the conquering heroes? history shows, time after time after time, that military power, unchecked by silly, dumb-ass, know-nothing, liberal-wanker civilians results in totalitarian states - what exactly are you fighting for? do you want to preserve the ideals of the american liberal democracy or not? if you just want to be in a neo-fascist state, can you please emmigrat to russia, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 These guys should have habeus corpus? http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre52a6o8-us-security-usa-somalia/ dude, do you want habeus corpus? it's kinda like a golden-rule baby-jesus thing - if you want basic human rights, you have to afford them to everybody else too, and you don't get to pick and choose because then the whole fucking thing falls apart. people should be able to challenge their detention if they actually did some fucked up shit, they should be tried if they're guilty, they should be punished it they're not guilty, they should be free what on earth is so hard to understand about that? do we really have to refight the english civil war? resign the magna carta? re-create hammurabi's code? exactly how far back in time do you want to go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Nice.....you post something from cnn of all places.....think of your source dude. Does not matter what they confess....they have to be proven guilty in a court of law before they are not innocent anymore. No they don't kev. They are not soldiers. They are not citizens of the country they are captured in. Serenity alluded to the reason that Gitmo was created. The soldiers that we fought previously, even in Vietnam, wore uniforms. These don't. They do not abide by the Geneva convention. By carrying out war activities while not wearing a uniform, they are infact war criminals. So what to do with them? What would you do kev? Personally, I don't like the idea of Gitmo, but we are kinda stuck with it. Gitmo makes their hatred of the US worse and it is pretty un-american. What else do you do kev? I know what you will say. Pull out. We all wish your father would have, but that obviously didn't work then and it isn't gonna now. I'd like you to give us a list of names, country captured in, and nationality of the detainees at Gitmo, because, frankly, I don't believe you know your ass from a hole in the ground in that department, despite your claim that you know this information. Second, as I stated previously, protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions and our anti-torture statutes apply to all detainnes in U.S. custody. You can argue with the Supreme Court on that one, but them's the rule of law of the country you claim to be a citizen and public servant of. In addition, and I don't expect you to understand the principles here, Common Article 3 applies to all battlefield captives from through convention and practice. Finally; you've claimed that war criminals shouldn't be tried. Tell us, why not? I'd like you to kiss my ass. 1st hand knowledge says the people I dealt with were not Iraqis. 2nd, I never said I didn't think that war criminals shouldn't be tried. Protections under the geneva convention only apply to enemy combatants and these 'soldiers' do not meet the requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 By carrying out war activities while not wearing a uniform, they are infact war criminals. I never said I didn't think that war criminals shouldn't be tried. How many of our guys –including maybe our friend Serenity- should be tried, then? I'm sure we have plenty of guys active in the conflict areas who are not always wearing uniforms identifying them as our guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Billcoe, nice try on the previous page but really all you did was prove my point. You didn't set forth any argument that we are accomplishing anything at Guantanimo that we couldn't do if we held the same captives at home, nor did you even try to justify the torture practices there. Your chief point is that some of them are bad guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) Yeah, AKA, I suspected you didn't know shit about the detainees at Gitmo. I don't really give a shit about who you've run into in Iraq; that's not what you were talking about, and that's not what I responded to. You specifically stated that the detainees at Gitmo were not citizens of the country they were captured in (all of them?). It was one of your typical fire-one-off-despite-not-knowing-fuck-all comment...with the mandatory mention of your boots-on-the-ground experience, as if that somehow makes you an expert in all matters pertaining to the War on Terror. Take Gitmo; a place you've never been and obviously not bothered to learn much about, despite copiously flapping your well exercized jaws about it. Any time you're called on your bullshit, such as I've just done, you try a feint by dropping another irrelevant battlefield reference, maybe with a stupid hippie comment or two. Predictable and unimpressive. Amazingly, you're also apparently unaware that Common Article 3 does apply to the folks you yourself claim to capture. Fuck me, you don't even know your own job. I guess I should add incompetent to the list. Edited March 12, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Serenity, I have some sympathy for that "you civilians safe in your houses shouldn't be second guessing the troops on the ground" argument, but that is why we have the rule of law and a political process which includes the election of our commander in chief. I noted above that I'm sure there were some good reasons for decisions made at many points along the road to Guantanimo, but I'm afraid you are just going to have to live with the second guessing - and should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) What invariably happens when 'we take the gloves off', or operate outside the rule of law, as Serenity suggests, is that a whole bunch of civilians get raped, killed, and mutilated. The word then gets out, and the shit hits the fan in the wrong direction. I seriously doubt the veracity of his claim that the rule of law, habeus corpus and the ban on torture, is somehow responsible for a failed war effort. How about the fact that it was a fucking horrible idea to begin with? And that we're operating without any clear objectives? Or the idea that a war on a human behavior is pure hallucination? Yeah, I think there might just be a few other problems that have made our two little pet wars piss and shit all over the carpet. Edited March 12, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) Today I learned that our out-of-uni contractors and special ops folks are war criminals. Oh, and they're not from around here, either. Edited March 12, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braydon Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 What would patton do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Take Gitmo; a place you've never been and obviously not bothered to learn much about, despite copiously flapping your well exercized jaws about it. When were you there, chief jaw-flapper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I've got a direct, inside line to what goes on there, both from the legal and treatment of prisoners standpoint. Let's just call it my little secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Every human being on the planet should have the right of habeus corpus. That's the kind of world I'd like to work towards. It's h-a-b-e-a-s. Once you learn to spell it, you may wish to continue your law dreams--or maybe even embellish your fantasy a bit more! Psssst, did ya know that even a high school dropout like yourself can take The Bar exam in this state? Carry on. Hey, why not Miranda rights too! I can just picture these guys getting their day in court on American soil; their attorneys demanding the squad leader identify the accused and requesting dismissal from the Clinton-appointed judge who sneers at this 'blatant' breech of battlefield protocol. "I hereby order the defendant released, and, furthermore, order taxpayer funded housing, monetary reparations, health care, continued pilot training, and a tenured professorship at the state university of mister Khalid's choice. This court is hereby adjourned". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 They are not soldiers. That is correct. They are people. Like you and me. hey are not citizens of the country they are captured in. What does that have to do with anything? The soldiers that we fought previously, even in Vietnam, wore uniforms. These don't. They do not abide by the Geneva convention. By carrying out war activities while not wearing a uniform, they are infact war criminals. So….if they wore a uniform they would not be criminals? What a crock. To be a criminal you have to be convicted of a crime. So what to do with them? What would you do kev? Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. And if you have no proof of a crime and cannot bring a case against them…..let them go. Just like any other suspect in America. The reality Scott is the US is traveling down a very slippery slope. Keeping detainee’s indefinitely is absolutely wrong. Then filling your head with right wing propaganda like “there are war criminals and are not US citizens so they get treated differently” is crap and you know it. Treat people how you would want to be treated. Transcend how they would treat you. Lead by example at all costs. The world is what WE make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Then once we incarcerate someone openly conducting warfare, we have to justify to someone, like you, despite every common sense indicator justifying use of force the guy on the ground utilized to capture PUC. Explain to me how you rationalize and justify indefinitely detaining 17 Uighurs who were fighting the Chinese, not the U.S. - are we working for the Chinese military now? And no, people like me have nothing whatsoever to do with why it cost so much - a fullhouse of piss poor political, intelligence, diplomatic, and military decisions made by the previous administration are what have squandered $3T only to foster more terrorism than it's prevented and left the U.S. little better prepared to deal with a terrorist threat then on 9/10/2001. The gross stupidity of the decisions made in the ME and at home since 2001 relative to true security for U.S. interests at home and abroad is only surpassed by the complete squandering of human, material, and financial resources which could have been used infinitely more effectively for our long term security. Hey, it's been an unbelievably pathetic, ineffectual, and counterproductive response to terrorism on every single front since 2001. Again, the entire Bush administration might as well been hand-picked agents of China's MSS and Iran's VEVAK for how well they've bolstered those nation's global interests at the heavy expense of our own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I've got a direct, inside line to what goes on there, both from the legal and treatment of prisoners standpoint. Let's just call it my little secret. you are a fucking liar. you say this kinda crap all the time. I am still waiting for the pictures of your hand blown glass table you made; or is your camera still broken? Oh and you still haven't told us what part of the military you were in. You are so full of shit your eyes smell. I know some other people think you are full of it too. You pretentious fuck. Why don't you peddle your lies to 8 year olds who don't have the capacity to debunk them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Why don't you peddle your lies to 8 year olds who don't have the capacity to debunk them? odd, then, that they seem so ineffective on you, socrates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.