NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/18/detainee.backsliders.ap/index.html

Meh, not good for an image adjustment...

Oh man, they sign a paper that states they'll be good and they get to go free. God the US government sucks.

Oh man, they sign a paper that states they'll be good and they get to go free. God the US government sucks.


Of course they will turn against the US, they've been kept in a torture camp.


The jews were really keen on the nazis after the camps were liberated werent they!

rofl more likely there was a reason why they were in Gitmo to begin with. having said that they had to either charge them with something or let them go. At least now the military can kill them legally :gundge:

What else are the jailers supposed to do, put a tracking device up their ass when they leave and follow them for a few months to make sure they don't do anything? I'm pretty sure that would go over well with the rest of the world.

The problem is, there isn't any way to tell for sure which one of these guys who gets released will go back to terrorism or not. The only way to be absolutely sur would be to detain them for life, and that just won't happen.

You get a terrorist caught and in your prison you fucking hang him.

You get a terrorist caught and in your prison you fucking hang him.
Ever heard of a thing called due process? Even terrorists have right to a free trial.

You get a terrorist caught and in your prison you fucking hang him.


After you hang all the muslims will you burn their bodies in ovens or put them in mass graves?

And will gay people be next?

You get a terrorist caught and in your prison you fucking hang him.Gee--you don't think that maybe the guy wasn't a terrorist beforehand and got so pissed by the way he got fucked in Gitmo that he decided to become on after all?

rofl more likely there was a reason why they were in Gitmo to begin with. having said that they had to either charge them with something or let them go. At least now the military can kill them legally :gundge:Yes, on all points. But not necessarily all of the prisoners were terrorists. That is the reason they should be given due process; that is the means by which we try and prevent the punishment of innocent people. The flip side is that guilty people are sometimes released, but that is a trade-off that has long been accepted in our cultures.

Ever heard of a thing called due process? Even terrorists have right to a free trial.
Actually, they're mostly foreign. And thus are not entitled to any Constitutional rights.

Actually, they're mostly foreign. And thus are not entitled to any Constitutional rights.

Yup, and guerillas have none at all.. summary execution is too kind. :sniper:

Like who couldn't see this coming, well except for those talented indivduals who thought GITMO was a bad idea.

Actually, they're mostly foreign. And thus are not entitled to any Constitutional rights.

They're entitled to human rights.



Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

After you hang all the muslims will you burn their bodies in ovens or put them in mass graves?

And will gay people be next?


Who said anything about muslims?? he said terrorists, so maybe you should wake up and stop making assumptions and allegations.

They're entitled to human rights.

Yeah but those UN thingies aren't binding international law though, so they're not "entitled" to anything.

As I recall, the USA has signed and ratified that agreement, so yes, they are required to follow them.

and in case anyone needs to be reminded of it; article 6, clause 2 of the us constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

and in case anyone needs to be reminded of it; article 6, clause 2 of the us constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yes the I know what the supremacy clause says.

So what, it's a declaration not a treaty, doesn't have the force of law.

Or is the invasion of Iraq legal again then?

What does America expect? Guantanamo Bay would only prove to these extremists that their perception of America as 'The Great Satan' is not too far from the truth. It would have been wiser to treat them as POW's and follow through the Geneva Protocol.

After you hang all the muslims will you burn their bodies in ovens or put them in mass graves?

And will gay people be next?

No, you bury them in a pig skin......

Only gay terrorists will be next...you can tell them from the others by the pink robes they wear.

What does America expect? Guantanamo Bay would only prove to these extremists that their perception of America as 'The Great Satan' is not too far from the truth. It would have been wiser to treat them as POW's and follow through the Geneva Protocol.

Yeah....like these clowns were not terrorists to begin with. :rolleyes: So those caught can be brought back to Gitmo where they can die from old age in a cage where they belong.

and in case anyone needs to be reminded of it; article 6, clause 2 of the us constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, and NON-US citizens are NOT protected by the Constitution UNLESS they are on US soil. Gitmo not being US soil they are not so protected.....

Did this strike anyone else as a funny turn of phrase:
Of those, 146 were let go only after U.S. officials determined they no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.So does that mean they let the retarded ones go first? :)


On a serious note, what did they expect from the Afghanis? Returning home to a warzone with constant battles between warring factions and tribes, was it really plausible they'd not take up arms again and go straight back to what they've been doing for the last umpteen years?

Yes, and NON-US citizens are NOT protected by the Constitution UNLESS they are on US soil. Gitmo not being US soil they are not so protected.....
Which proves just how petty and pathetic the Bush Admin are, really.

Which proves just how petty and pathetic the Bush Admin are, really.

Wow....that foreigners are NOT protected by the US Constitution, and US citizens are NOT protected by any other nations constitution is a fact and you blame Bush for that? Please.....it has been that way since nation states were formed.

I would much rather see these terrorists we capture in a cage in Cuba than here on US soil. Maybe you feel they are good enough to introduce your sister to, but as far as I am concerned they range somewhere between feral animals and sub-human since they lack the basic humanity that makes us human. If we kept them in a prison in Afganistan you would probably complain about that too.

Yeah....like these clowns were not terrorists to begin with. :rolleyes: So those caught can be brought back to Gitmo where they can die from old age in a cage where they belong.

Where is your proof that every one who was arrested was a terrorist? Just a few months ago 5 Brits were released after spending 2 years under interrogation. You know what they were charged with?

They weren't. If you have such confidence in this process then you can safely say at least these 5 are not terorrists (at least they were not when captured and imprisoned).

Where is your proof that every one who was arrested was a terrorist? Just a few months ago 5 Brits were released after spending 2 years under interrogation. You know what they were charged with?

They weren't. If you have such confidence in this process then you can safely say at least these 5 are not terorrists (at least they were not when captured and imprisoned).

Lets see.....captured while fighting FOR the Taliban. The Taliban is and always has been a terrorist group. They ruled the areas of Afganistan they controlled through terror. Also, those 5 "brits" did not exactly have Anglo-Saxon names now did they?

If it walks and sounds like a duck.....chances are it is a duck. maybe some of these ducks will be coming back to Gitmo to roost, permanantly.

Lets see.....captured while fighting FOR the Taliban. The Taliban is and always has been a terrorist group. They ruled the areas of Afganistan they controlled through terror. Also, those 5 "brits" did not exactly have Anglo-Saxon names now did they?

If it walks and sounds like a duck.....chances are it is a duck. maybe some of these ducks will be coming back to Gitmo to roost, permanantly.

I don't see any proof there, Biff. Where is your love of "sources" now?

Here's one of your so-called terrorists from those that were released:

In March, he was released without charge. After running security checks, US Intelligence eventually admitted that he was so 'clean' he could work for MI5! Jamal is now planning to sue the US Government.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/features/2004/03/30/jamal.shtml

And you're suggesting that the only terrorists are those with Arab names? Please try to veil your racism a little more.

Most prisoners in Gitmo are not terrorists, but "illegal combatants". They are deemed such because the Taliban, who in effect ruled Afghanistan, were not recognized as the legal government of said country. The average lineman of the Taliban is a extremist nutjob with the lowest education imaginable, namely being taught what to think by equally extreme mullahs. While the leaders of the Taliban are among the most despicable people ever to run a already unstable society straight into the dark ages and ignored just about any human rights that exist, they are not per default terrorists, nor subhumans (nice borrowing from the Nazis, Biff) or animals. The unthinking soldiers, who followed them arent all terrorists, but most did come into US custody for the crime of shooting at what they perceived as invaders of their homeland while not being part of a regular, properly uniformed, army or militia, a concept that is as alien to them as a thinking woman. That doesnt make them terrorists, subhumans or animals.
Of course there are terrorists among them, but they are human beings. You dont have to like their morales, ideas or actions, but human they are.

I don't see any proof there, Biff. Where is your love of "sources" now?

Here's one of your so-called terrorists from those that were released:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/features/2004/03/30/jamal.shtml

And you're suggesting that the only terrorists are those with Arab names? Please try to veil your racism a little more.

This is funny....

Back in 2002, Jamal - who changed his name from Ronald Fiddler when he convered to Islam - was seized by the Taleban near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Thinking he was a British spy, they handed him over to American security forces.

Since when did the TALIBAN ever turn anyone over to the US? Especially anyone they thought was a spy? No, they would have beheaded him in the public square paid for by the UN.

This is funny....

Back in 2002, Jamal - who changed his name from Ronald Fiddler when he convered to Islam - was seized by the Taleban near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Thinking he was a British spy, they handed him over to American security forces.

Since when did the TALIBAN ever turn anyone over to the US? Especially anyone they thought was a spy? No, they would have beheaded him in the public square paid for by the UN.

In March, he was released without charge. After running security checks, US Intelligence eventually admitted that he was so 'clean' he could work for MI5! Jamal is now planning to sue the US Government.


And still no sources which prove beyond doubt that all those arrested are terrorists.

Of course there are terrorists among them, but they are human beings. You dont have to like their morales, ideas or actions, but human they are.

When you lack the basic humanity that these "people" do, then you are somewhat "less than human."

And still no sources which prove beyond doubt that all those arrested are terrorists.

Don't need one. They are either terrorists or illegal combatants. Either group can be captured and held without charge. The story you quote is quite suspect because of the item I quoted. I doubt it's veracity.

Don't need one. They are either terrorists or illegal combatants. Either group can be captured and held without charge. The story you quote is quite suspect because of the item I quoted. I doubt it's veracity.

You do need a source. Now you must provide one which says they were all either terrorists or illegal combatants. Your opinion will never be taken as fact.

EDIT: Now you're also saying you don't have confidence in the same process you are championing. Well done.

When you lack the basic humanity that these "people" do, then you are somewhat "less than human."

Any further discussion with a idiot like you seems rather fruitless, so i abstain from it.

You do need a source. Now you must provide one which says they were all either terrorists or illegal combatants. Your opinion will never be taken as fact.

An opinion is just that, an OPINION. In my OPINION, those held at Gitmo are either terrorists or illegal combatants. That some who were released have thus been caught or killed while taking part in terrorist acts or in training camps strengthens my OPINION that this is so. Your allegation that ONE guy was so clean that the US says he could work for MI5 is funny because MI5 is NOT a US agency. The stories of these guys who are "innocent" are unbelieveable.

Captured by the "taleban" (sic) or accidently wandered into Afganistan are frequent excuses. What POSSIBLE reason does one travel to a war zone if not to fight or provide relief. Those "brits" who were captured were not Dr's and their reasons for their capture are just unreal.

Any further discussion with a idiot like you seems rather fruitless, so i abstain from it.

They always resort to namecalling. Look up the word humanity and then tell me that these terrorists fall under that definition.

I like this one.....

The quality of being humane; benevolence.

or this one....

The quality of being humane; the kind feelings, dispositions, and sympathies of man; especially, a disposition to relieve persons or animals in distress, and to treat all creatures with kindness and tenderness.

Yes, and NON-US citizens are NOT protected by the Constitution UNLESS they are on US soil. Gitmo not being US soil they are not so protected.....
Gee Biff, that's not how the Supreme Court saw it. The government got their asses handed to them in that case, which is why the people being held there are being released or are having their cases adjuducated now.

those held at Gitmo are either terrorists or illegal
combatants.
Sources?

That some who were released have thus been caught or killed while taking part in terrorist acts or in training camps strengthens my OPINION that this is so.

Sources?

Your allegation that ONE guy was so clean that the US says he could work for MI5 is funny because MI5 is NOT a US agency. The stories of these guys who are "innocent" are unbelieveable.

It is not "my" allegation in the least. It is the US Intel's allegation. What the fuck does MI5 not being a US agency have do with it?

Captured by the "taleban" (sic) or accidently wandered into Afganistan are frequent excuses. What POSSIBLE reason does one travel to a war zone if not to fight or provide relief.
So tell me, Ken Bigley...he was terrorist, right?

Those "brits" who were captured were not Dr's and their reasons for their capture are just unreal.
How do you know? So far it seems you've only seen/read one.

Gee Biff, that's not how the Supreme Court saw it. The government got their asses handed to them in that case, which is why the people being held there are being released or are having their cases adjuducated now.

Yeah...how is THAT going for them? They are not going anywhere anytime soon. Padilla? Not going anywhere. They will EVENTUALLY have their status reviewed....but it will be a long time before the military is through with most of them.

So tell me, Ken Bigley...he was terrorist, right?

According to Biff's fine reasoning, yep.. So was Nick Berg. Damn those Westerners! Illegal combatants, they were! ;)

Well.. Biff.. I believe RPP has shut the door in your face quite a few times I don't even have to bother arguing about this subject matter.


But I can't ignore your sick remarks. You outlined two definitions of humanity. Tell me.. what the terrorists did does not fall under that definition, thus they are inhuman.

Dropping thousands of cluster bombs, cruise missiles, MOABs, and the proposed RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator for those who haven't heard of it. It's on Bush's 2005 agenda) is very humane, right?

As long as it's being done from inside BUFFs, Tornados, and F-16s, (Oh, and let us not forget the M1A1 Abrams with its Depleted Uranium Shells), it's very very humane, correct??




Expected Answer: "But we're at war. In wars, people die. Iraqis are terrorists. We had to kill them. We don't resort to this inhumanity. We're AMERICANS!! God BLESS AMERICA!!!

Don't need one. They are either terrorists or illegal combatants. Either group can be captured and held without charge. The story you quote is quite suspect because of the item I quoted. I doubt it's veracity.

Maybe they should have a trial to see wether or not they are 'illegal combatants' as the US wankers in charge have named them. the Death Penalty is quite irrevocable, and should not be carried out UNTILL ALL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THEY ARE GUILTY!



Lets see.....captured while fighting FOR the Taliban. The Taliban is and always has been a terrorist group. They ruled the areas of Afganistan they controlled through terror. Also, those 5 "brits" did not exactly have Anglo-Saxon names now did they?

If it walks and sounds like a duck.....chances are it is a duck. maybe some of these ducks will be coming back to Gitmo to roost, permanantly.

You realise that one of the people you had locked up was a frickin' CAB DRIVER, arrested while driving a cab! how you can classify driving a cab as terrorism i do no know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Soviets
and in case anyone needs to be reminded of it; article 6, clause 2 of the us constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Yes, and NON-US citizens are NOT protected by the Constitution UNLESS they are on US soil. Gitmo not being US soil they are not so protected.....

2 things: This is NOT a matter for your bloody constitution. this is about HUMAN RIGHTS.
From the human rights act, 1998
ARTICLE 5
RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:



(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;



(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;



(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;



(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;



(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;



(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

ARTICLE 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:



(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;



(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;



(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;



(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;



(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

ARTICLE 7
NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.
Does it mean that because im british i have no human rights?

second- if its not on US soil, then why are the US building a frickin' Concentration Camp. youve become worse than the bloody nazis. it was because of stuff like this that we went to war. hope that we do not have reason to again.

Sources?

The story this thread was based on tells me that they are.

MI5 is a British agency. HOW would US intelligence agents know if this guy could work for MI5?

How about this genius?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3504034.stm

Jamal Udeen has told the Daily Mirror he went to Pakistan to study Muslim culture but was taken prisoner after straying into Afghanistan by mistake.

He "accidently" wandered into Afganistan from Pakistan while studying Islam. Sure he did....

They always resort to namecalling. Look up the word humanity and then tell me that these terrorists fall under that definition.

I like this one.....

The quality of being humane; benevolence.

or this one....

The quality of being humane; the kind feelings, dispositions, and sympathies of man; especially, a disposition to relieve persons or animals in distress, and to treat all creatures with kindness and tenderness.

ANIMAL RIGHTS gives them a right to better treatment than you do

The story this thread was based on tells me that they are.

MI5 is a British agency. HOW would US intelligence agents know if this guy could work for MI5?


That's not the point is it? US intel says he's clean.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3504034.stm



He "accidently" wandered into Afganistan from Pakistan while studying Islam. Sure he did....

What about it? Sounds plausible to me. Have you ever been to Pakistan? I have, the roads are not that clearly marked. There is one major motorway and it only links about 3 cities.

According to Biff's fine reasoning, yep.. So was Nick Berg. Damn those Westerners! Illegal combatants, they were! ;)

Well.. Biff.. I believe RPP has shut the door in your face quite a few times I don't even have to bother arguing about this subject matter.


But I can't ignore your sick remarks. You outlined two definitions of humanity. Tell me.. what the terrorists did does not fall under that definition, thus they are inhuman.

Dropping thousands of cluster bombs, cruise missiles, MOABs, and the proposed RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator for those who haven't heard of it. It's on Bush's 2005 agenda) is very humane, right?

As long as it's being done from inside BUFFs, Tornados, and F-16s, (Oh, and let us not forget the M1A1 Abrams with its Depleted Uranium Shells), it's very very humane, correct??

Expected Answer: "But we're at war. In wars, people die. Iraqis are terrorists. We had to kill them. We don't resort to this inhumanity. We're AMERICANS!! God BLESS AMERICA!!!

Nope, I don't KNOW what the guy was, terrorist or idiot. However, travelling TO Afganistan DURING the conflict would certainly suggest that he went to support one side or the other or to provide relief. Since he is NOT a medical Dr it is doubtful he could provide much if any relief. That he was "supposedly" captured by the "taleban" and turned over to the US because they thought he was a British spy is laughable at best. The US was fighting AGAINST the taliban and they certainly would not have handed over someone they considered a spy to the US. That you guys cannot see that is laughable at best.

No, i am not going to jump on the issue you baited me with. Good try though.

He "accidently" wandered into Afganistan from Pakistan while studying Islam. Sure he did....

I thought you've been to the Middle East??..

Have you been to the Afghan/Pakistani border before the war on "terror" started??..

The Afghan/Pakistani border is one of the most vast expanses of land and one of the easiest to get across in the world??. Why? Because of its sheer length. It's a desolate, barren landscape, and even today, after security measures have been beefed up fanatically by Pakistan, terrorists manage to escape Afghanistan and infiltrate its Southern neighbor.

I thought you've been to the Middle East??..

Have you been to the Afghan/Pakistani border before the war on "terror" started??..

The Afghan/Pakistani border is one of the most vast expanses of land and one of the easiest to get across in the world??. Why? Because of its sheer length. It's a desolate, barren landscape, and even today, after security measures have been beefed up fanatically by Pakistan, terrorists manage to escape Afghanistan and infiltrate its Southern neighbor.

Yes, I have been to the middle east, many times. I liked your country the best.

Read the story. When one travels to another country, one is usually allowed entry as long as they have a return ticket. Since this guy went to Pakistan from Britain, one can assume he flew there. He certainly did not walk or drive there. Now, WHY would one who flew to Pakistan NEED to leave in a hurry by hiring a local truck driver to take him to Turkey? Why not return to the airport he arrived in and fly home? Thats what I, and I bet you would do too.

It just does not add up.....

What do I THINK happened? I think he went and joined the Taliban and was captured there. He was found to be non-threatening in time and was released. In order to have a "normal" life he came up with this story to tell everyone. I bet we will hear about this clown again someday.

Yeah...how is THAT going for them? They are not going anywhere anytime soon. Padilla? Not going anywhere. They will EVENTUALLY have their status reviewed....but it will be a long time before the military is through with most of them.
Ignoring for a moment that Padilla wasn't part of the Gitmo case and that Hamdi has already been released to Saudi Arabia, my point was that the detainees at Gitmo do have access to the federal system. The Supreme Court found that the federal government can't carve out a place where they have jurisdiction and yet don't have control, just to be able to strip people of the protections our Constitution provides even to non-citizens.

The fact that the current administration would even try to argue something so horrible ought to bother you. Then again, you support these guys, and they tried to legally justify torture as well, and if that didn't turn you, I don't know what will.

Ignoring for a moment that Padilla wasn't part of the Gitmo case and that Hamdi has already been released to Saudi Arabia, my point was that the detainees at Gitmo do have access to the federal system. The Supreme Court found that the federal government can't carve out a place where they have jurisdiction and yet don't have control, just to be able to strip people of the protections our Constitution provides even to non-citizens.

The fact that the current administration would even try to argue something so horrible ought to bother you. Then again, you support these guys, and they tried to legally justify torture as well, and if that didn't turn you, I don't know what will.

While the Supreme Court did rule one way, they did not completely turn what the DoD is doing over.

That terrorists who would try and attack the US or any of it's allies are captured and held at Gitmo is no concern of mine. These individuals would just as likely cut my throat as look at me. Not for anything I might have done to them or anyone else, but for WHO I am. That there are those who believe we should try to "reason" with these idiots is amazing to me. When someone has a knife at your throat, it is past time for "reasoning."

As for legally justifying torture, you will have to show me that one, I do not believe that torture is appropriate or necessary, muchless justified.

While the Supreme Court did rule one way, they did not completely turn what the DoD is doing over.

That terrorists who would try and attack the US or any of it's allies are captured and held at Gitmo is no concern of mine. These individuals would just as likely cut my throat as look at me. Not for anything I might have done to them or anyone else, but for WHO I am. That there are those who believe we should try to "reason" with these idiots is amazing to me. When someone has a knife at your throat, it is past time for "reasoning."

As for legally justifying torture, you will have to show me that one, I do not believe that torture is appropriate or necessary, muchless justified.The torture justification came in the form of a memo from August 1, 2002, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush. You can find a discussion of it, as well as links to the actual memo here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html)

The biggest problem with Gitmo for me is that we don't have any way of knowing--and I mean we as the public here--whether or not those people actually were terrorists, or if they got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. My worry is that the shitty treatment may have turned someone who wasn't a terrorist into one, and thus we'll have made our problem worse as a result.

The torture justification came in the form of a memo from August 1, 2002, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush. You can find a discussion of it, as well as links to the actual memo here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html)

The biggest problem with Gitmo for me is that we don't have any way of knowing--and I mean we as the public here--whether or not those people actually were terrorists, or if they got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. My worry is that the shitty treatment may have turned someone who wasn't a terrorist into one, and thus we'll have made our problem worse as a result.

I see your point. The difference for me though is that I don't want to take the chance that they are not terrorists and just release them. These people have no records, there is no way to do a background check on them, and, as the lead story says, some of those released did indeed turn out to be terrorists. It is a fine line we walk, but I would rather not take the risk and just release them. IF they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time, then thats just bad luck on their part, but how do we KNOW that to be the case?

Yes, I have been to the middle east, many times. I liked your country the best.

Read the story. When one travels to another country, one is usually allowed entry as long as they have a return ticket. Since this guy went to Pakistan from Britain, one can assume he flew there. He certainly did not walk or drive there. Now, WHY would one who flew to Pakistan NEED to leave in a hurry by hiring a local truck driver to take him to Turkey? Why not return to the airport he arrived in and fly home? Thats what I, and I bet you would do too.

It just does not add up.....

What do I THINK happened? I think he went and joined the Taliban and was captured there. He was found to be non-threatening in time and was released. In order to have a "normal" life he came up with this story to tell everyone. I bet we will hear about this clown again someday.

So suddenly US intel = idiots and you are all-knowing?
That's a bit of a switch. What's that I hear?

*beeep beeep*

Backing up?!

I doubt you have been to the Middle East. If so, you wouldn't have such militant views. You clearly know nothing about terrorists, terrorism or how it works. If I can use you as an example of the average American (although I wouldn't like to call the average American batshit insane), Osama has already won on so many levels.

Of course they will turn against the US, they've been kept in a torture camp.


The jews were really keen on the nazis after the camps were liberated werent they!

Jeeze! Some "torture camp!" They lived better in the damned camp than they ever did at home! And comparing Guantanamo to Aushwitz? You're seriously in need of a reality check.

Jeeze! Some "torture camp!" They lived better in the damned camp than they ever did at home! And comparing Guantanamo to Aushwitz? You're seriously in need of a reality check.

Although Moss Side is a bit rough I doubt he was beaten by own family...well...not regularly...I hope...

So suddenly US intel = idiots and you are all-knowing?
That's a bit of a switch. What's that I hear?

*beeep beeep*

Backing up?!

I doubt you have been to the Middle East. If so, you wouldn't have such militant views. You clearly know nothing about terrorists, terrorism or how it works. If I can use you as an example of the average American (although I wouldn't like to call the average American batshit insane), Osama has already won on so many levels.

I have NO idea of what you just posted.

Yes, I have been to the middle east many times. My various deployments there in support of the no-fly zones allowed me many opportunities to travel throughout that part of the world. But you believe whatever you want to.

Yes, I have been to the middle east many times. My various deployments there in support of the no-fly zones allowed me many opportunities to travel throughout that part of the world. But you believe whatever you want to.

Sources?

Sources?

Well....

As a weapons loader stationed at RAF Upper Heyford I loaded some of the bombs we dropped on Libya in 1986.

I have been to Kuwait a few times to Al Jaber air base with the 55th Fighter Squadron and the 78th Fighter Squadron.

I have been to Doha Qatar with the 78th and the 77th Fighter Squadron.

I have been to Sheik Isa air base in Bahrain a few times with the 78th and 79th Fighter Squadron.

I have been to Saudi Arabia and stayed in the Khobar Towers with the 78th and 79th Fighter Squadrons and was there when the terrorists detonated their truck bomb in 1996.

I have been to Turkey 6 times to Incirlik air base with the 77th, 79th, 55th fighter squadrons AND the 520th aircraft maintainance unit. I got my SCUBA certification in Mercin.

I was in Desert Storm with the 375th aeromedical airlift wing.

I have been to the UAE and Oman as well.

I retired with disability due to my service after 20 years in 2001.

So yes, I have been to the middle east and I do have some experience with terrorists.

That's great, but where are your sources? How do I know you didn't make that stuff up? ;)

That's great, but where are your sources? How do I know you didn't make that stuff up? ;)

Wel....you don't. But there it is...so believe what you will. I have no reason to lie about that, i am proud of what I did and where I went.

Wel....you don't. But there it is...so believe what you will. I have no reason to lie about that, i am proud of what I did and where I went.

Sure you are. No, really, I believe you.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have to address the people of Mars. I am their king.

Sure you are. No, really, I believe you.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have to address the people of Mars. I am their king.

Like I said...believe what you will. We all do.

Like I said...believe what you will. We all do.

Hey, man. At least I can prove that I'm the King of Mars. :D

This entire arguement can be dealt with extremely simply.

Define "terrorist"

Define "illegal combatant"

Define "legal combatant"

When this has been done I will continue.

Hey, man. At least I can prove that I'm the King of Mars. :D

Well, I am sure I still have copies of the military orders that sent me to these places somewhere. Failing that I do have my retiree military ID card in my wallet. Either way your majesty, I have no reason to lie about my service.

I see your point. The difference for me though is that I don't want to take the chance that they are not terrorists and just release them. These people have no records, there is no way to do a background check on them, and, as the lead story says, some of those released did indeed turn out to be terrorists. It is a fine line we walk, but I would rather not take the risk and just release them. IF they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time, then thats just bad luck on their part, but how do we KNOW that to be the case?
I'd have no problem with a temporary detainment, as long as the treatment was decent and there was an active plan to try to find out what their status was. But that's not what it sounds like we were doing. The NY Times is describing (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/politics/17gitmo.html?ex=1099053748&ei=1&en=bc13d4dc810d05b0) some pretty harsh treatment of the prisoners, and the fact that the administration wanted to keep them from having any legal recourse to defend themselves makes it sound like they didn't want these guys to ever have a chance at getting released.