What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Gitmo is FUNDAMENTALLY UNAMERICAN Update @ 178 (1 Viewer)

Hipple Long Ware & Peete

Hipple Long Ware & Peete

Footballguy
That people being held there have not had trials and or charges after 4 years is BULL####. I know there are a few terrorists there, but most of those people were simply sold to the US (kind of like the salem witch trial: but we pay you 10-25,000 to rat someone out). So TRY the terrorists, and let the others go. This is EXACTLY the reason people came to america back in the DAY AND IS AN embarrassment.

NEW: The former Attorney General's "legal"[sic] position on some lil thing called Habeas Corpus

the attorney General arguing that habeus corpus (the idea that you have have to 'produce a body' and can't hold people in secrecy with unannaounced charges) is NOT in the constitution. The Constitution, according to our ####### ATTORNEY GENERAL merely says that you cannot take away the right of habeus corpus???

This guy is the arbiter of ####### justice for the bush administration? This ####### smug rightwing evangelical bush cabinet is driving me to my wits end.

Halls of Justice Painted Green

Money Talking

Power Wolves Beset Your Door

Hear Them Stalking

Soon You'll Please Their Appetite

They Devour

Hammer of Justice Crushes You

Overpower

The Ultimate in Vanity

Exploiting Their Supremacy

I Can't Believe the Things You Say

I Can't Believe

I Can't Believe the Price You Pay

Nothing Can Save You

Justice Is Lost

Justice Is Raped

Justice Is Gone

Pulling Your Strings

Justice Is Done

Seeking No Truth

Winning Is All

Find it So Grim

So True

So Real

Apathy Their Stepping Stone

So Unfeeling

Hidden Deep Animosity

So Deceiving

Through Your Eyes Their Light Burns

Hoping to Find

Inquisition Sinking You

With Prying Minds

The Ultimate in Vanity

Exploiting Their Supremacy

I Can't Believe the Things You Say

I Can't Believe

I Can't Believe the Price You Pay

Nothing Can Save You

Justice Is Lost

Justice Is Raped

Justice Is Gone

Pulling Your Strings

Justice Is Done

Seeking No Truth

Winning Is All

Find it So Grim

So True

So Real

Lady Justice Has Been Raped

Truth Assassin

Rolls of Red Tape Seal Your Lips

Now You're Done in

Their Money Tips Her Scales Again

Make Your Deal

Just What Is Truth? I Cannot Tell

Cannot Feel

The Ultimate in Vanity

Exploiting Their Supremacy

I Can't Believe the Things You Say

I Can't Believe

I Can't Believe the Price We Pay

Nothing Can Save Us

Justice Is Lost

Justice Is Raped

Justice Is Gone

Pulling Your Strings

Justice Is Done

Seeking No Truth

Winning Is All

Find it So Grim

So True

So Real

Seeking No Truth

Winning Is All

Find it So Grim

So True

So Real

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, this thread should go well. Ham agrees, BGP and bueno disagree, and most people don't want to think about it much would be my guess.

This treatment of human beings as being without fundamental rights is a crime against humanity itself. 4 years. I can't even imagine.

 
Rights are overrated. How about we try actually trusting our elected officials and stop crying about a few terrorists?

AT Gonzales and all the other politicians on the hill have our best interests at hand. Don't listen to the media. Just shut up and follow.

 
I'd be perfectly fine with none of the people at Gitmo ever seeing the light of day ever again. I don't have any huge objection to them getting some sort of military trial, but I'm not pining for it either. The most important thing is to make sure we don't release anybody who's going to turn around and take up arms against us as soon as they get home.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I'd be perfectly fine with none of the people at Gitmo ever seeing the light of day ever again. I don't have any huge objection to them getting some sort of military trial, but I'm not pining for it either. The most important thing is to make sure we don't release anybody who's going to turn around and take up arms against us as soon as they get home.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious post? So if someone was held there who had actually done nothing wrong, then that's ok?
 
Please See Mine said:
IvanKaramazov said:
I'd be perfectly fine with none of the people at Gitmo ever seeing the light of day ever again. I don't have any huge objection to them getting some sort of military trial, but I'm not pining for it either. The most important thing is to make sure we don't release anybody who's going to turn around and take up arms against us as soon as they get home.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious post? So if someone was held there who had actually done nothing wrong, then that's ok?
Click to expand...
It would be unfortunate, but in this particular case I think we should err on keeping these guys locked up. I'd rather have one innocent person imprisoned than have nine terrorists go free, to invert the cliche.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
Please See Mine said:
IvanKaramazov said:
I'd be perfectly fine with none of the people at Gitmo ever seeing the light of day ever again. I don't have any huge objection to them getting some sort of military trial, but I'm not pining for it either. The most important thing is to make sure we don't release anybody who's going to turn around and take up arms against us as soon as they get home.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious post? So if someone was held there who had actually done nothing wrong, then that's ok?
Click to expand...
It would be unfortunate, but in this particular case I think we should err on keeping these guys locked up. I'd rather have one innocent person imprisoned than have nine terrorists go free, to invert the cliche.
Click to expand...
For all we know they could have grabbed a random guy off the street and threw him in there.No matter who is in there, if they are innocent after 4 years of degrading abuse and poor conditions, you think anyone who gets released is gonna be a ray of sunshine towards the US?The whole thing is a shambles and Ivan is probably right. None of the guys there, Innocent or guilty is likely to be a productive member of society. Could be 50% innocent or 1%, who the heck knows? You'd think they'd be able to trump charges up, let alone gather real evidence
 
I think we should put them all on an island and create some sort of GITMO SURVIVOR LOST show. We could appease Hipple and everyone that agrees with him b/c they'd be free. And we could entertain everyone else in support of keeping these "terrorists" from taking up arms against us once their released. It's a win-win people.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I'd be perfectly fine with none of the people at Gitmo ever seeing the light of day ever again. I don't have any huge objection to them getting some sort of military trial, but I'm not pining for it either. The most important thing is to make sure we don't release anybody who's going to turn around and take up arms against us as soon as they get home.
Click to expand...
It's pretty much guaranteed that any of these guys would take arms against us now.
 
Paranoia said:
Rights are overrated. How about we try actually trusting our elected officials and stop crying about a few terrorists? AT Gonzales and all the other politicians on the hill have our best interests at hand. Don't listen to the media. Just shut up and follow.
Click to expand...
Seriously or sarcasticly?
 
Kilgore Trout said:
IvanKaramazov said:
It would be unfortunate, but in this particular case I think we should err on keeping these guys locked up. I'd rather have one innocent person imprisoned than have nine terrorists go free, to invert the cliche.
Click to expand...
And the left gets called Un-American.
Click to expand...
So out of curiosity, since I don't make it a habit to go around calling anybody un-American, do you think it's un-American to weigh the costs and benefits before releasing foreign enemy combatants?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People should worry about the problems in their own neighborhoods, instead of wasting their time worrying about the people at Gitmo. There are bigger problems in America than Gitmo.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Kilgore Trout said:
IvanKaramazov said:
It would be unfortunate, but in this particular case I think we should err on keeping these guys locked up. I'd rather have one innocent person imprisoned than have nine terrorists go free, to invert the cliche.
Click to expand...
And the left gets called Un-American.
Click to expand...
So out of curiosity, since I don't make it a habit to go around calling anybody un-American, do you think it's un-American to weigh the costs and benefits before releasing foreign enemy combatants?
Click to expand...
I think it is un-American to hold people in prison without due process. Sure, you can weigh the costs and benefits, but to me the cost of not upholding our own ideals far outweighs anything that some of these people in Gitmo could do. Try them, find them guilty or let them go.
 
Hipple said:
Halls of Justice Painted GreenMoney TalkingPower Wolves Beset Your DoorHear Them StalkingSoon You'll Please Their AppetiteThey DevourHammer of Justice Crushes YouOverpowerThe Ultimate in VanityExploiting Their SupremacyI Can't Believe the Things You SayI Can't BelieveI Can't Believe the Price You PayNothing Can Save YouJustice Is LostJustice Is RapedJustice Is GonePulling Your StringsJustice Is DoneSeeking No TruthWinning Is AllFind it So GrimSo TrueSo RealApathy Their Stepping StoneSo UnfeelingHidden Deep AnimositySo DeceivingThrough Your Eyes Their Light BurnsHoping to FindInquisition Sinking YouWith Prying MindsThe Ultimate in VanityExploiting Their SupremacyI Can't Believe the Things You SayI Can't BelieveI Can't Believe the Price You PayNothing Can Save YouJustice Is LostJustice Is RapedJustice Is GonePulling Your StringsJustice Is DoneSeeking No TruthWinning Is AllFind it So GrimSo TrueSo RealLady Justice Has Been RapedTruth AssassinRolls of Red Tape Seal Your LipsNow You're Done inTheir Money Tips Her Scales AgainMake Your DealJust What Is Truth? I Cannot TellCannot FeelThe Ultimate in VanityExploiting Their SupremacyI Can't Believe the Things You SayI Can't BelieveI Can't Believe the Price We PayNothing Can Save UsJustice Is LostJustice Is RapedJustice Is GonePulling Your StringsJustice Is DoneSeeking No TruthWinning Is AllFind it So GrimSo TrueSo RealSeeking No TruthWinning Is AllFind it So GrimSo TrueSo Real
Click to expand...
Nothing says hard-hitting political commentary like song lyrics. Nice work. :lol: Seriously, though, anyone at Gitmo that was picked up as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan or Iraq should be there. Habeus Corpus shouldn't apply to them. They've no rights under our Constitution.If, however, there are people that were picked up off Main Street as a result of interrogations (or the like), they should face some sort of trial (or decision on whether or not to go to trial). The notion that they are enemy combatants is tenuous, at best.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
I'd be perfectly fine with none of the people at Gitmo ever seeing the light of day ever again. I don't have any huge objection to them getting some sort of military trial, but I'm not pining for it either. The most important thing is to make sure we don't release anybody who's going to turn around and take up arms against us as soon as they get home.
Click to expand...
90% of these people never took up arms in the first place as far as we know. We offered significant rewards to Northern Alliance people to "tell us who the Taliban was." Of course, they just identified either random guys or guys they were pissed at and took the reward.The army's own documents admit that they have no evidence of any link to AQ or the Taliban for most of these detainees. I've lost my will to argue this stuff since the last presidential election. We had the chance to change things and we didn't take it. And if someone believes in the Iraq mission and thinks that's the best way to fight the GWOT, I can agree to disagree. But I'm just flabbergasted at the reaction to the Gitmo stuff. You know one group that was most uncomfortable about the policies at Gitmo? The military. Because they like to have rules. People who fight wars know how easy it is to lose a piece of their humanity in them, and they recognize the need to have rules to remind them where the line is. And plenty of generals and other officers have done credit to the honor of their profession by expressing their reservations with these policies. All for a bunch of civilians who wouldn't know combat if it bit them on the ### to call those reservations "naive".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kilgore Trout said:
IvanKaramazov said:
Kilgore Trout said:
IvanKaramazov said:
It would be unfortunate, but in this particular case I think we should err on keeping these guys locked up. I'd rather have one innocent person imprisoned than have nine terrorists go free, to invert the cliche.
Click to expand...
And the left gets called Un-American.
Click to expand...
So out of curiosity, since I don't make it a habit to go around calling anybody un-American, do you think it's un-American to weigh the costs and benefits before releasing foreign enemy combatants?
Click to expand...
I think it is un-American to hold people in prison without due process. Sure, you can weigh the costs and benefits, but to me the cost of not upholding our own ideals far outweighs anything that some of these people in Gitmo could do. Try them, find them guilty or let them go.
Click to expand...
Like I mentioned earlier, I don't hate the idea of giving them some sort of trial (not in our civil courts, but you get the idea) if we can do so without jeopardizing our intelligence-gathering aparatus. If we can do that, we should. If we can't, I don't think it's a travesty at all to hold people we think are AQ until the WOT is over. Once AQ surrenders and agrees to lay down their arms and disband, then of course we can release our prisoners. The main thing is that people we're holding are more like prisoners of war than they are like criminal defendants. They're not American citizens, and we're not holding them because they broke any criminal laws in the US. We're holding them because they're foreign fighters who are at war with us. I agree that it would be nice to have a reliable administrative screen in place to make sure there aren't a bunch of innocent bystanders in Gitmo who happened to get sold to the US somehow, but even then the people most directly responsible for that injustice are the folks who sold them up the river, not us.
 
scoobygang said:
90% of these people never took up arms in the first place as far as we know.
Click to expand...
I guess most of the stuff I've read about the people in Gitmo leads me to doubt this statement, and I guess I can see where that would result in a lot of the disagreement about on this topic.
 
kupcho1 said:
Seriously, though, anyone at Gitmo that was picked up as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan or Iraq should be there. Habeus Corpus shouldn't apply to them. They've no rights under our Constitution.If, however, there are people that were picked up off Main Street as a result of interrogations (or the like), they should face some sort of trial (or decision on whether or not to go to trial). The notion that they are enemy combatants is tenuous, at best.
Click to expand...
If someone was picked up as an actual enemy combatant, what's the harm of habeus corpus? That's why we have habeus corpus (which is not an "American" right, but a common law right recognized in just about every nation of law). To help us seperate out the people we have actual cause to believe are criminals/terrorists whatever from those we don't.
 
scoobygang said:
All for a bunch of civilians who wouldn't know combat if it bit them on the ### to call those reservations "naive".
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. First I get called un-American by KT. Now I get called a Chicken Hawk by SC. You guys aren't normally the sort of posters I would expect that from. I would think with the Dems in charge of Congress now you guys would be in a good mood. Did you have money riding on New England or something?
 
IvanKaramazov said:
scoobygang said:
90% of these people never took up arms in the first place as far as we know.
Click to expand...
I guess most of the stuff I've read about the people in Gitmo leads me to doubt this statement, and I guess I can see where that would result in a lot of the disagreement about on this topic.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you'll question the source, but the PBS documentaries on this stuff have been pretty well documented. Check out The Dark Side the next time it airs on Frontline. FWIW, I have a friend who worked in the military intelligence service and he's confirmed almost all of this stuff for me.
 
should have just killed them over there. Bodies don't talk.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
scoobygang said:
All for a bunch of civilians who wouldn't know combat if it bit them on the ### to call those reservations "naive".
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. First I get called un-American by KT. Now I get called a Chicken Hawk by SC. You guys aren't normally the sort of posters I would expect that from. I would think with the Dems in charge of Congress now you guys would be in a good mood. Did you have money riding on New England or something?
Click to expand...
I was talking about Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Addington. And I never used the word chicken hawk. Even if i had been talking about you (and I have no way of knowing whether you've been in the military or not), the point is completely valid. We've had career soldiers who have dedicated their life to these types of issues being called naive by people who are informed only by their intuitions. I'm sorry if you've taken offense, but I think you're taking this a bit personally. When someone posts that you should be tortured along with Uday and Qusay Hussein we can talk about how I've joined the dark side.
 
How many Americans are there? How many Americans are having their rights abused?

We are not allowed to pay informants any longer(see the Robert Torricelli Act...he managed to create this while taking thousands in bribes...go figure) so I don't know how the whole paying for a salem witch hunt thing is happening.

 
Kilgore Trout said:
I think it is un-American to hold people Americans in prison without due process. Sure, you can weigh the costs and benefits, but to me the cost of not upholding our own ideals far outweighs anything that some of these people in Gitmo could do. Try them, find them guilty or let them go.
Click to expand...
Fixed.
 
ThisGuy said:
How many Americans are there? How many Americans are having their rights abused?We are not allowed to pay informants any longer(see the Robert Torricelli Act...he managed to create this while taking thousands in bribes...go figure) so I don't know how the whole paying for a salem witch hunt thing is happening.
Click to expand...
Since when are Americans the only people who's fundamental rights and human dignity we're supposed to respect?And how does not paying for informants now change the situation for some schmuck who's been there for five years.
 
IvanKaramazov said:


If we can't, I don't think it's a travesty at all to hold people we think are AQ until the WOT is over. Once AQ surrenders and agrees to lay down their arms and disband, then of course we can release our prisoners.

The main thing is that people we're holding are more like prisoners of war than they are like criminal defendants. They're not American citizens, and we're not holding them because they broke any criminal laws in the US. We're holding them because they're foreign fighters who are at war with us.

I agree that it would be nice to have a reliable administrative screen in place to make sure there aren't a bunch of innocent bystanders in Gitmo who happened to get sold to the US somehow, but even then the people most directly responsible for that injustice are the folks who sold them up the river, not us.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that there will ever be a time when "AQ" lays down their arms en masse and the proclaimed "war on terror" is over? I think you are too smart to really think that...Do you concede that there should at least be a max length of time that you can hold alleged terrorists in a prison without a trial?

The POW comparison is only credible if you have a foreign government you can defeat such that you can then release their citizens back to their native country ...

 
scoobygang said:
FWIW, I have a friend who worked in the military intelligence service and he's confirmed almost all of this stuff for me.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, I also have a friend in intelligence who stated that few of those held are innocent in his opinion. But he did go on to say that it would be difficult at best to win a court case because of evidentiary problems and likened them to POWs.It's been a while since I spoke to him, though. I don't doubt what he told me, nor do I doubt what your friend told you. They could simply have different perspectives of the same situation with the same facts in front of them.
 
scoobygang said:
If someone was picked up as an actual enemy combatant, what's the harm of habeus corpus? That's why we have habeus corpus (which is not an "American" right, but a common law right recognized in just about every nation of law). To help us seperate out the people we have actual cause to believe are criminals/terrorists whatever from those we don't.
Click to expand...
Please help me understand which nations are "nation(s) of law" and which are not. Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan? Do tyrants count; they seem to think so. :censored: Also, as relates to habeus corpus, just how practical is that on the "battlefield"? I can see it now, every squad equipped with a medic, a chaplain and Columbo. :bye:
 
scoobygang said:
ThisGuy said:
How many Americans are there? How many Americans are having their rights abused?We are not allowed to pay informants any longer(see the Robert Torricelli Act...he managed to create this while taking thousands in bribes...go figure) so I don't know how the whole paying for a salem witch hunt thing is happening.
Click to expand...
Since when are Americans the only people who's fundamental rights and human dignity we're supposed to respect?And how does not paying for informants now change the situation for some schmuck who's been there for five years.
Click to expand...
I have a buddy who was stationed there 2 years ago. They are fed daily, being kept in shelters and allowed to pray whever they like. :censored:Hipple made it sound like we were buying these people up off the streets. I just want to make sure we aren't filling any heads up with lies here.
 
scoobygang said:
If someone was picked up as an actual enemy combatant, what's the harm of habeus corpus? That's why we have habeus corpus (which is not an "American" right, but a common law right recognized in just about every nation of law). To help us seperate out the people we have actual cause to believe are criminals/terrorists whatever from those we don't.
Click to expand...
What's the harm? How about: What's the point? In talking about the Gitmo prisoners, I'm focusing on those that were picked up in the actual fighting (I don't know enough to address the others that are held there). Did we process German or Japanese POWs during WWII? Of course not, they were held until the war was over.And I'm not willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, that in the fog of war they were mistakenly picked up as Taliban soldiers. Sorry. If they wanted certainty then they should have adhered to the "norms" (e.g., wearing a uniform).
 
Beaumont said:
Do you honestly think that there will ever be a time when "AQ" lays down their arms en masse and the proclaimed "war on terror" is over?
Click to expand...
Probably not.
Do you concede that there should at least be a max length of time that you can hold alleged terrorists in a prison without a trial?
Click to expand...
No. If AQ is never going to surrender, and if we have no good way to "try" a suspected AQ member, then I'm fine with keeping them locked up forever. That doesn't mean torturing them or exposing them to the elements or whatever; just keeping them locked away securely so they can't threaten the US anymore. I said that before. FWIW, the blame for this primarily lies with AQ. In WWII, we knew who was a German soldier and who wasn't. If AQ members were open about who they were, then the problem of mistaken identities wouldn't arise in the first place.
 
Dave Baker said:
Interestingly, I also have a friend in intelligence who stated that few of those held are innocent in his opinion. But he did go on to say that it would be difficult at best to win a court case because of evidentiary problems and likened them to POWs.
Click to expand...
FWIW, this matches up with most of what I've read about Gitmo, so that's the presupposition that I'm bringing to the table. If somebody could really convince me that most people in Gitmo (as opposed to a relative handful) were innocent, I would be forced to soften my stance on this, again based on cost-benefit considerations.
 
kupcho1 said:
What's the harm? How about: What's the point? In talking about the Gitmo prisoners, I'm focusing on those that were picked up in the actual fighting (I don't know enough to address the others that are held there). Did we process German or Japanese POWs during WWII? Of course not, they were held until the war was over.And I'm not willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, that in the fog of war they were mistakenly picked up as Taliban soldiers. Sorry. If they wanted certainty then they should have adhered to the "norms" (e.g., wearing a uniform).
Click to expand...
The point is to seperate those who are fighters from those who aren't.They should have worn uniforms? The guys who weren't Taliban in the first place? I really don't get your argument. I thought your earlier qualification meant that you really did think we should distinguish between those wrongly accused and those picked up fighting. Now you're arguing that we should have no process to distinguish the two and just assume that anyone picked up is the latter.
 
kupcho1 said:
scoobygang said:
If someone was picked up as an actual enemy combatant, what's the harm of habeus corpus? That's why we have habeus corpus (which is not an "American" right, but a common law right recognized in just about every nation of law). To help us seperate out the people we have actual cause to believe are criminals/terrorists whatever from those we don't.
Click to expand...
What's the harm? How about: What's the point? In talking about the Gitmo prisoners, I'm focusing on those that were picked up in the actual fighting (I don't know enough to address the others that are held there). Did we process German or Japanese POWs during WWII? Of course not, they were held until the war was over.And I'm not willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, that in the fog of war they were mistakenly picked up as Taliban soldiers. Sorry. If they wanted certainty then they should have adhered to the "norms" (e.g., wearing a uniform).
Click to expand...
Exactly. If those non-Taliban wanted to make sure they weren't mistakenly picked up, they should have made the Taliban wear uniforms. That'll teach 'em. :goodposting:
 
IvanKaramazov said:
Beaumont said:
Do you honestly think that there will ever be a time when "AQ" lays down their arms en masse and the proclaimed "war on terror" is over?
Click to expand...
Probably not.
Do you concede that there should at least be a max length of time that you can hold alleged terrorists in a prison without a trial?
Click to expand...
No. If AQ is never going to surrender, and if we have no good way to "try" a suspected AQ member, then I'm fine with keeping them locked up forever. That doesn't mean torturing them or exposing them to the elements or whatever; just keeping them locked away securely so they can't threaten the US anymore. I said that before. FWIW, the blame for this primarily lies with AQ. In WWII, we knew who was a German soldier and who wasn't. If AQ members were open about who they were, then the problem of mistaken identities wouldn't arise in the first place.
Click to expand...
Honest answers. For me, being America means that we just do not imprison innocents for years on end with no right to contest their imprisonment ...If we abrogate our moral responsibilities on this issue, then we just are not the great nation we like to think we are ...
 
IvanKaramazov said:
Dave Baker said:
Interestingly, I also have a friend in intelligence who stated that few of those held are innocent in his opinion. But he did go on to say that it would be difficult at best to win a court case because of evidentiary problems and likened them to POWs.
Click to expand...
FWIW, this matches up with most of what I've read about Gitmo, so that's the presupposition that I'm bringing to the table. If somebody could really convince me that most people in Gitmo (as opposed to a relative handful) were innocent, I would be forced to soften my stance on this, again based on cost-benefit considerations.
Click to expand...
And how is anybody supposed to do this without evidence either way?Our government has the evidence. They will not release it.
 
kupcho1 said:
scoobygang said:
If someone was picked up as an actual enemy combatant, what's the harm of habeus corpus? That's why we have habeus corpus (which is not an "American" right, but a common law right recognized in just about every nation of law). To help us seperate out the people we have actual cause to believe are criminals/terrorists whatever from those we don't.
Click to expand...
What's the harm? How about: What's the point? In talking about the Gitmo prisoners, I'm focusing on those that were picked up in the actual fighting (I don't know enough to address the others that are held there). Did we process German or Japanese POWs during WWII? Of course not, they were held until the war was over.And I'm not willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, that in the fog of war they were mistakenly picked up as Taliban soldiers. Sorry. If they wanted certainty then they should have adhered to the "norms" (e.g., wearing a uniform).
Click to expand...
The "we did it then so it must be right now" argument doesn't hold water. Look up the Geneva Convention of 1949.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended...
Click to expand...
I don't know about you, but I don't read that as actually GIVING the right to anyone, it just says the right won't be suspended. Now, the rest is up to interpretation, depending on the norms of the 18th century.
 
scoobygang said:
The point is to seperate those who are fighters from those who aren't.

Assumption: Anyone found on the battlefield is/was a fighter.

They should have worn uniforms? The guys who weren't Taliban in the first place?

Assumption: Anyone found on the battlefield is/was a fighter.

I really don't get your argument. I thought your earlier qualification meant that you really did think we should distinguish between those wrongly accused and those picked up fighting. Now you're arguing that we should have no process to distinguish the two and just assume that anyone picked up is the latter.

Bingo. Anyone picked up on the battlefield is an enemy combatant, not entitled to a trial and should be held until the war is over. If the war is never over, then they are never released
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pygmy Marmoset said:
If those non-Taliban wanted to make sure they weren't mistakenly picked up, they should have made the Taliban wear uniforms. That'll teach 'em. :yucky:
Click to expand...
:bag: I suppose we should just let 'em all go since there's no way to tell who is and who isn't a Taliban fighter.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

culdeus
Making Shark Pool Better (Was: "Shark pool is even more unreadable than ever. Rant.")
4 5 6
Replies
262
Views
6K
ShamrockPride
ShamrockPride
IC FBGCav
It is getting hard to have conversations, it seems
Replies
19
Views
738
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
S
Jury Finds Realtors Conspired to Keep Commissions High
5 6 7
Replies
323
Views
8K
FreeBaGeL
FreeBaGeL

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top