NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok. Before you scream and flame me, I want you to hear me out and read this at least three times with an open mind before you post. I will do the same when repling to your posts. Thank you.

I do not believe that the prisoners in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba deserve a trial. I do not believe that they are entitled to the rights specified in the Geneva convention. I do not believe that they should recieve any legal council unless they are American citizens, as which they shall be tried for treason. I shall list the reasons as such.

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.

2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.

4) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.

5) Giving those who fought against America would make us look weak to those who wish to hurt us, and another attack may be attempted. Also, it would be a large waste of money that could be used to help armor our troops in Iraq.

In conclusion, those in Gitmo deserve no rights.

"Human rights" you ask, well those who wish to destroy all forms of human life in a hemisphere of the world and certain religions are genocidial maniacs. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. In a world such as this, we cannot afford to give anything to such people. As for your so-called "human rights", give me a document agreed upon by both the USA and these terrorists that sets up what "human rights" are, and I'll agree that we should follow those guidelines. However, since no such document exists, then they are not due such.


Source for the Geneva conventions: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0840180.html

4) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.

Quick question. The revoking of citizenship comes BEFORE, or AFTER the trial?

They deserve a noose, nothing more or less.

Do they deserve any rights? No. Should they get rights? Yes.


We are no better then they are if we play on their level.

2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).


Didn't your mama ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?


3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.


Actually, the US Constitution was designed to protect everyone ... not just American citizens.

The problem is, there is no attempt being made to ensure that the people being held are even affilliate with any terrorist organization at all.

They deserve trials not because of who they are, but because of who we are. Remember the Declaration of Independence? All people are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." To deny them basic human rights does more damage to America then anything these potential terrorists could do with bombs and guns.

Uh most of the Gitmo people aren't terrorists, they are just mostly Taliban who may have harbored the head honcho's in Al-Quaeda but they just mostly fought against the northern alliance and other afghans.


"2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?)."

How could you possibly determine that without a trial?

Do they deserve any rights? No. Should they get rights? Yes.


We are no better then they are if we play on their level.

Well said! :)

You all seem to still be basing your opinions on the assumption that these people were, in fact, found to be fighting against the U.S. or involved in terrorist activity. That is not the case with many of them. And with the ones who are terrorists (and I'm sure there are plenty), they still deserve some basic rights. Just because they've denied others their basic human rights doesn't mean we should stoop to their level. So if anyone is found to be affilliated with a terrorist group, by all means, string the bastard up, but make sure you know who you're strining up first.

They deserve trials not because of they are, but because of who we are. Rremember the Declaration of Independence? All people are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." To deny them basic human rights does more damage to America then anything these potential terrorists could do with bombs and guns.
:fluffle:

You all seem to still be basing your opinions on the assumption that these people were, in fact, found to be fighting against the U.S. or involved in terrorist activity. That is not the case with many of them. And with the ones who are terrorists (and I'm sure there are plenty), they still deserve some basic rights. Just because they've denied others their basic human rights doesn't mean we should stoop to their level. So if anyone is found to be affilliated with a terrorist group, by all means, string the bastard up, but make sure you know who you're strining up first.

you're right, we can't know who is really a terrorist. Just their AK-47, black turban, and half-empty magazines in their guns make us think they're enemy combatants.

And i would like to say thank you for not flaming, spamming, or insulting anyone as of yet. i know this may infuriate a few of you, and you have logical conclusions. And here I was thinking that a bunch of idiots would spam this thread.

If we could give Nazis- who are not even human beings- trials, surely we could give anyone else the same, no?

but at least the nazis signed the damn pact and followed the command structure and standing army guidelines.

you're right, we can't know who is really a terrorist. Just their AK-47, black turban, and half-empty magazines in their guns make us think they're enemy combatants.

And i would like to say thank you for not flaming, spamming, or insulting anyone as of yet. i know this may infuriate a few of you, and you have logical conclusions. And here I was thinking that a bunch of idiots would spam this thread.
First of all, you're welcome, and thank you for being equally civil. I give it another half a page before it turns into just another flamefest. :rolleyes:

I realize that the papers print what sells, and scandals sell, but there have been too many reports of people taken from their homes and sent to Gitmo who weren't in posession of any weapons or involved in any combat to ignore. Even if only one in fifty of the detainees is innocent, we still owe them a chance to be heard in a fair trial.

Now that's where I disagree. I believe that is a bigger travesty to let 49 murderers who are guilty and letting a single innocent one free than keeping one unjustly. I believe that it is better to look for the greater good rather than the single person's chance.

Now that's where I disagree. I believe that is a bigger travesty to let 49 murderers who are guilty and letting a single innocent one free than keeping one unjustly. I believe that it is better to look for the greater good rather than the single person's chance.
Meh. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Now, if one person willingly makes that sacrifice for the greater good, then more power to them, but I don't think anyone should be forced to do so.

Now that's where I disagree. I believe that is a bigger travesty to let 49 murderers who are guilty and letting a single innocent one free than keeping one unjustly. I believe that it is better to look for the greater good rather than the single person's chance.

I think we live in different countries, or at least have different ideals for what this country is and should be.

Meh. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Now, if one person willingly makes that sacrifice for the greater good, then more power to them, but I don't think anyone should be forced to do so.

I believe that one willingly makes sacrifices. However, they may not understand everything, they willingly sacrifice even if that just means living.

now, as for me, I am an American. Southern by the Grace of God. More over, I am a Southern Baptist who wishes to enlist on my 18th bithday. I am Conservative by nature, with severe nationalist leanings at times in areas such as global domination. My life was changed radically 9-11-01,. My hate for the enemy has driven me to this kind of thinking.

Ok. Before you scream and flame me, I want you to hear me out and read this at least three times with an open mind before you post. I will do the same when repling to your posts. Thank you.

I do not believe that the prisoners in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba deserve a trial. I do not believe that they are entitled to the rights specified in the Geneva convention. I do not believe that they should recieve any legal council unless they are American citizens, as which they shall be tried for treason. I shall list the reasons as such.

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.

2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.

4) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.

5) Giving those who fought against America would make us look weak to those who wish to hurt us, and another attack may be attempted. Also, it would be a large waste of money that could be used to help armor our troops in Iraq.

In conclusion, those in Gitmo deserve no rights.

"Human rights" you ask, well those who wish to destroy all forms of human life in a hemisphere of the world and certain religions are genocidial maniacs. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. In a world such as this, we cannot afford to give anything to such people. As for your so-called "human rights", give me a document agreed upon by both the USA and these terrorists that sets up what "human rights" are, and I'll agree that we should follow those guidelines. However, since no such document exists, then they are not due such.


Source for the Geneva conventions: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0840180.html

Okay, I have read it three times with and an open mind and I still think you are an idiot. I will now proceed to scream and flame.

In response to point #1. The new attorney genral's former job was mainly to work the wording of documents, and to find loopholes, so that Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush couldn't be tried with war crimes. If there is even that much of a possibility of war crimes you have, in my mind, crossed the line.

#2 An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Two wrongs don't make a right. C'mon, aren't we supposed to be the good guys, the example. Stooping to their level takes away the moral high ground and makes us the bad guy as well.

#3 The constitution/bill of rights talks about the basic rights of man, not the basic rights of white, anglo-saxon, protestants, whom we happen to like. I know that by law it doesn't wxtend to non US citezens, but by law it is not living up to it's ideals. The basic rights of man.

#4 Agreed. If they were Americans they could be tried for treason. Of course that would involvle being charged first...

#5 It would make us look like a decent, humane nation, rather than a bunch of hypocrits, we look weak, another attack might be attempted. We treat people like this, and continue on the international course we are on, another attack will be attempted. And maybe by more than terror orginizations.

C'mon, even if they are all guilty, and all deserve to be put to death, they are still entitled to the due process of law. They are still human beings.

They deserve trials not because of who they are, but because of who we are. Remember the Declaration of Independence? All people are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." To deny them basic human rights does more damage to America then anything these potential terrorists could do with bombs and guns.Ding Ding Ding And we have a winner!

I'm not convinced Crazed Marines isn't just a troll, but to give em the benefit of the doubt, I'll expand on Ogiek's theme.

If America is to play the part of world police and take a place as world leader, we must hold ourselves to the highest standards. We must be beyond reproach, we must not let the slightest shadow of hypocrisy be cast upon our actions. What others do cannot influence the standard of conduct we must hold ourselves to. To do otherwise would hurt America more than any 'enemy combatant' could ever.

Every single one of your premises is unproven. How do you know that they were not soldiers as per the definition, or insurgent populice (or have their own protections), and if they are not commiting a crime on US territory, and they are not enemy soldiers, then under what legal rights did the US detain them in the first place? What right does Australia have for instance to send troops to the US uninvited, then detain those who oppose them? None whatsoever really....

Note: First flame in this thread. it couldn't last forever

You know, everything meant to last is built on ideals and principals. And in order to keep it standing, sometimes you must fight for it. I applaud everyone's zeal. However, if you could focus it on destroying our enemies today instead of helping them, than we would have the time to help them tomorrow. I believe, Branin, that your first point is not really one. I believe that it is just a line fed to you possibly subconciously by the "hate America" and "hate Bush" and "hate Christians who stand up for their beliefs" crowd. I believe that Churchill once said, "If you're not liberal by 21, you haven't a heart. If you're not conservative by 30, you haven't a brain." I lost my heart for the world that fateful Autum day, and all i care about any more is America and American lives. That is my sole purpose and my sole focus.

Every single one of your premises is unproven. How do you know that they were not soldiers as per the definition, or insurgent populice (or have their own protections), and if they are not commiting a crime on US territory, and they are not enemy soldiers, then under what legal rights did the US detain them in the first place? What right does Australia have for instance to send troops to the US uninvited, then detain those who oppose them? None whatsoever really....

1) Australia couldn't take the US in any fight, but it is a good analogy
2) Personally, if that were to happen, I would enlist, get a uniform helmet and gun, and fight a geurilla battle until they are dead.
3) WE are the world's police, well at least the UN's. i say we dictate policy if we have to enforce it.
4) For some reason, I didn't hear any liberals screaming their heads off when Clinton bombed Iraq, using the same intel Bush had, during the Lewinski scandal
5) No liberals foaming at the mount at the war in Kosovo. In which, we had less reasons to go there than Iraq in 2002-2003
6) This was just a place for me to vent after seeing some idiots post about the same thing.
7) Nobody has discussed the trial vs. armor point i raised. Please tell me where you stand.

Prisoners at Gitmo...

Known Terrorists: Hang em. Its more than they deserve and more than they should hope for.

Known Taliban: Return them to Afghanistan so that they may be dealt with by the people they oppressed.

Now that's where I disagree. I believe that is a bigger travesty to let 49 murderers who are guilty and letting a single innocent one free than keeping one unjustly. I believe that it is better to look for the greater good rather than the single person's chance.that's not the choice to be made. The trial should separate the one from the forty-nine. But you don't want that to happen

I guess you misunderstood me. I said it is worse to let the guilty loose than the innocent in prison.

4) For some reason, I didn't hear any liberals screaming their heads off when Clinton bombed Iraq, using the same intel Bush had, during the Lewinski scandalThat's the problem with Bush. He referred to intelligence reports about suspected WMD sites that had already been destroyed during Operation Desert Fox.

If you act on an intelligence report about a suspected WMD site when the UN inspectors are not in Iraq by bombing the site, you're a good president. The Republicans in Congress were against bombing those WMD sites.

If you're the next guy in charge and you go after the formerly suspected WMD site when the UN inspectors are in Iraq, you're George W Bush. The Republicans supported going after those places that weren't suspected WMD sites anymore

I guess you misunderstood me. I said it is worse to let the guilty loose than the innocent in prison.oh, I thought you were against letting the prisoners have trials. None of us said we should let the guilty loose

Executing prisoners without trial is what the Nazis & many communist countries have done. Is that how you would like to see America turn out? The right to a fair trial is one of the cornerstones of freedom. America styles itself as the land of the free.

What about the citizens of your allies, eg the UK & Australia? You may not care about keeping up relations with all governments, but surely you have to consider your friends. Otherwise you will rapidly run out of them.

2) Personally, if that were to happen, I would enlist, get a uniform helmet and gun, and fight a geurilla battle until they are dead.


Well .... you *do* realize that when a bunch of people did that in Iraq, they're called "terrorist insurgents" ... would you accept that label yourself?

Actually, the US Constitution was designed to protect everyone ... not just American citizens.

Sorry, this is a crock - Think about it, when adopted did the founding fathers intend for it to apply to British sympathizers still living in the colonies? In the Numerberg trials how many people were able to get evidence suppressed based on the 4th Amendment? Which ones claimed 5th and 6th Amendment privileges? NONE, that's who. The U.S. Constitution was created and designed to apply the the newly created United States of America and her citizens, no one else.

I'll let others debate whether it SHOULD apply to others. But to say it was designed TO apply to non-americans is foolish. Go read some history.

oh, I thought you were against letting the prisoners have trials. None of us said we should let the guilty loose
I'm against giving those MF's trials AND letting the guilty free in any instance.

About the "former" WMD sites. We didn't know. In anything, the most dangerous thing is the unknown. And if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...wouldn't ya know...IT'S A DAMN DUCK!

oh, I thought you were against letting the prisoners have trials. None of us said we should let the guilty loose

Point for panty...

Well .... you *do* realize that when a bunch of people did that in Iraq, they're called "terrorist insurgents" ... would you accept that label yourself?

And they shouldn't get trials... :D

Well .... you *do* realize that when a bunch of people did that in Iraq, they're called "terrorist insurgents" ... would you accept that label yourself?

read more carefully:


2) Personally, if that were to happen, I would enlist, get a uniform helmet and gun, and fight a geurilla battle until they are dead.


If they did as such and ACTUALLY signed an enlistment paper and wore their uniforms, and the Iraqi army wasn't disbanded at the time of their capture, than I would treat them as SOLDIERS, not the pigs they are.

Note: First flame in this thread. it couldn't last forever

You know, everything meant to last is built on ideals and principals. And in order to keep it standing, sometimes you must fight for it. I applaud everyone's zeal. However, if you could focus it on destroying our enemies today instead of helping them, than we would have the time to help them tomorrow. I believe, Branin, that your first point is not really one. I believe that it is just a line fed to you possibly subconciously by the "hate America" and "hate Bush" and "hate Christians who stand up for their beliefs" crowd. I believe that Churchill once said, "If you're not liberal by 21, you haven't a heart. If you're not conservative by 30, you haven't a brain." I lost my heart for the world that fateful Autum day, and all i care about any more is America and American lives. That is my sole purpose and my sole focus.
You're right.

By killing wrecklessly without due process we destroy the ideals and principles that not only our country was founded on, but the principles that we pretend to be spreading and 'enforcing' across the globe. You should be fighting to maintain those principles and ideals, that is america.

But looking at the quote in your signature I am left to conclude that you have no idea what america is supposed to be about.

Sorry, this is a crock - Think about it, when adopted did the founding fathers intend for it to apply to British sympathizers still living in the colonies?

You do realize that there was no such thing as an American citizen when the Constitution was drafted .... don't you? Until that thing was ratified, signed, sealed, and delivered, there was no such thing as "America".

There is unlimited opportunity to use Citizen in every article, but yet they chose to use "Person" and they are specific when it comes to Elected Office, in the use of Citizen, but not so in other catagories.

To answer your question, yes. It applied to everybody (except women and slaves, anyway). It now applies to women and minorities thanks to some amendments.

If they did as such and ACTUALLY signed an enlistment paper and wore their uniforms, and the Iraqi army wasn't disbanded at the time of their capture, than I would treat them as SOLDIERS, not the pigs they are.

Imagine someone came into the US and dismantled the US Army ...

What would you do? Cow?

I'd become one of those "pig terrorist insurgents" myself and I'd wear that label proudly.

The biggest problem I have with not giving them trials and lawyers and the same rights we would give any murderer, is that it was the Bush administation that made the determination they did not have the right.

Well, I don't think he has the right to decide anything, as I do not believe he is the duly elected president - this time or last.

It's impossible to believe that major players in the ways of "legal" war have ever given a damn about the rights of others. Trying to appear better than these guys is pretty weak when you consider all the things that have been perpetrated by the superpowers. So they signed the treaty. That treaty is more often used as a shield to stop people from doing things that are wrong, even as it is used in jabbing all the jabbity sharp bits into them to claim it was legal.

You do realize that there was no such thing as an American citizen when the Constitution was drafted .... don't you? Until that thing was ratified, signed, sealed, and delivered, there was no such thing as "America".

There is unlimited opportunity to use Citizen in every article, but yet they chose to use "Person" and they are specific when it comes to Elected Office, in the use of Citizen, but not so in other catagories.

To answer your question, yes. It applied to everybody (except women and slaves, anyway). It now applies to women and minorities thanks to some amendments.

So, it applied during the Nuremberg trials? Bullshit, go read some history.

Why does it say "We the people, of the United States" in the preamble instead of "We, the people of the entire planet" then?

Oh, and one more thing - the prisoners in Cuba were not arrested in Iraq, they came from Afgahnistan.

So, it applied during the Nuremberg trials? Bullshit, go read some history.

Your ability to debate is astonishing. Your savage wit and brutal intelligence has overwhelmed me. Oh great master, teach me your ways that I may be blessed with the ability to verbally smash all those who oppose me and crush everything in my path with such elegance and eloquence!

We are America, we may loose out freaking minds from time to time, especialy when attacked, but in the end we come back to being Americans.

We will send our spies and assasins out into the world and they will kill our enemies without a trial, I can assure you all of that. We're still learning the radical Islam game, but when we do a terrorist won't be able to think about attacking America without ending up with something hard embedded in his skull. That's because we're real bastards, and really we haven't even started being the low down dirty bastards we can actually be. The real war on terrorism will not be televised and our people will leave a bloody trail.

When we capture someone and they're at our mercy then the whole boy scout thing takes over. So we give a trial and/or release them so our spies and assasins can kill them later. That's because like I said, we're bastards. Big nasty wipe your family out once we know who you are bastards. It's going to be brutal.

I'm against giving those MF's trials AND letting the guilty free in any instance.

About the "former" WMD sites. We didn't know. In anything, the most dangerous thing is the unknown. And if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...wouldn't ya know...IT'S A DAMN DUCK!
This would be backwoods wisdom had this turned out to be a duck, but it didn't. The administration decided it looked, sounded, and walked like a duck with plenty of people saying, "Dude, I don't think that's a duck. There's not even a pond there..." so your colliqualism is meaningless, rather makes you look a little foolish.

Your ability to debate is astonishing. Your savage wit and brutal intelligence has overwhelmed me. Oh great master, teach me your ways that I may be blessed with the ability to verbally smash all those who oppose me and crush everything in my path with such elegance and eloquence!

I've asked twice, where did it apply in Nuremberg, you still refuse to answer. I also bow to your ability to evade the point. Explain again why it says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You lose, the constitution was created and established and ordained for Americans and their progeny and for the United States of America, not THE WORLD

This would be backwoods wisdom had this turned out to be a duck, but it didn't. The administration decided it looked, sounded, and walked like a duck with plenty of people saying, "Dude, I don't think that's a duck. There's not even a pond there..." so your colliqualism is meaningless, rather makes you look a little foolish.
No it went like this: The administration decided it looked, sounded, and walked like a duck with plenty of people saying, "it doesn't even have feathers, wings, or a beak."

Hahahaha, This forum is damn awesome. So funny!

Oh man, I can't ever imagine people saying those things seriously. Lol political joke forums are a blast, they brighten up my day. :)

Ok let me get into the spirit, Lets start the crusades again! Kill everyone who isn't from the west! Weeeh! Yay holy wars!

Oh man, good show all, keep the laughs coming...

Oh man, good show all, keep the laughs coming...

Okelie dokelie.

But looking at the quote in your signature I am left to conclude that you have no idea what america is supposed to be about.

Ok, I want to debate on issues. I guess you have to flame in order to try and rebut me. Look. That is Ms. coulter's opinion and her 2nd Amentment right as an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Now please get on the issues.

I've asked twice as well about this thing. The "trials" you want for these bastards are taking up valuable resources in the DoD budget which could be used to help our Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan get better armor and equiptment.

So, which would you prefer, trials for terrorists or armor for Americans?

Ok, I want to debate on issues. I guess you have to flame in order to try and rebut me. Look. That is Ms. coulter's opinion and her 2nd Amentment right as an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Now please get on the issues.


2nd Ammendment? Yikes ... Ann Coulter's armed now?

2nd Ammendment? Yikes ... Ann Coulter's armed now?

Nice Dodge of my questions oh eloquent one.

I guess you have to flame in order to try and rebut me.

Only because you ignore many of the sensible ones... simply because they... ummm... make sense. (which puts them one up on you so far)

Nice Dodge of my questions oh eloquent one.

Actually, the minute you started in with your "this is a crock" and "bullshit, go read some history" comments and calling my statement "foolish" rather than engaging in intelligent debate, in accordance with the rules of debate, you lost.

Hence, I do not need to bother with your questions.

BTW, all of you might want to read this (http://www.fed-soc.org/Laws%20of%20war/enemycomb.pdf)

BTW, all of you might want to read this (http://www.fed-soc.org/Laws%20of%20war/enemycomb.pdf)

Fun read .... but an opinion, not canon.

Ok, I want to debate on issues. I guess you have to flame in order to try and rebut me. Look. That is Ms. coulter's opinion and her 2nd Amentment right as an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Now please get on the issues.
I don't remember mentioning Coulter's right to bear arms. Nor do I remember insunuating that we should take away her first amendment right to free speech. Oddly enough, you've managed to underline my point. Nice job.

I've asked twice as well about this thing. The "trials" you want for these bastards are taking up valuable resources in the DoD budget which could be used to help our Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan get better armor and equiptment.

So, which would you prefer, trials for terrorists or armor for Americans?
We only get one? That's where the money has to come from? The reason everyone's ignoring this scenario is because it is overconstructed and ridiculous. There is no way for this to be a one or the other situation except in your mind.

And, to humour you, I want the trials. You know why? Because less american soldiers would die. The devil, you say? It's true. Thing is, this isn't just about "Kill X number of terrorists and the world is safe as houses." Sorry-GI Joe is a cartoon. We have to prevent the conditions that create terrorists. "Hearts and minds" ring a bell? If the message we send is that we will kill 'brown people' indiscrimantly every time we're threatened, why they might think that their only recourse is to sacrifice their lives in killing us.

Endless war comes from stooping. An end comes from showing a better way.

Actually, the minute you started in with your "this is a crock" and "bullshit, go read some history" comments and calling my statement "foolish" rather than engaging in intelligent debate, in accordance with the rules of debate, you lost.

Hence, I do not need to bother with your questions.

Again, nice dodge, I posted legit questions and you have failed and refused to answer or address a single one of them. Even in my first post you refused to address the issue of Nuremberg. Saying I lose because I told you to read history and said your questions were a crock and foolish is nothing but a dodge and a refusal to answer. According to the "rules of debate" if you are presented with a question you should answer. If confronted with facts that undermine your initial presumption, you should respond. Since you won't, I'm free to assume that you are incorrect in your stated assumption that the U.S. Constitution applies to all people. You have yet to post anything in support of that idea other than your own opinion. I, on the other hand, have referred to the very wording of the Constitution itself which clearly states it was created and ordained by the people of the U.S. for the people of the U.S., NOT the people of the entire planet.

2nd Ammendment? Yikes ... Ann Coulter's armed now?
lol
Yeah, i messed up. It's midnight here, I have had little sleep, and I'm on a gun-control debate with someone else on another forum. My mind's pretty much shot as of now, so I'm going to bed.


Parting shot: If the Constitution applies tyo everyone than that means everyone is an American citizen. If everyone was an American Citizen, then we would control the world. if that was true, I'd be happy and visit many great battle places such as Marathon, El Alemein, Middway, Guam, Guadalcanal, Normandy, Bastogne, the Ardennes, and Thermopalye Pass.


All I ask is that everyone stays civil. Nothing more than the occasional mild expletive. No "cock" and "bull" arguments. That means you Norleans and Keruvalia. I don't care who really started it, I'm ending it right now. Be civil, no spamming, no flaming, and everyone can stay in the thread. Stray out of these rules and I'll call the mods to break it up, even if it means locking my own thread. Thank you.

Fun read .... but an opinion, not canon.

It may be an opinion, but at least it has a more logical underpinning and support than anything you've posted yet that I've been able to see.

lol
Yeah, i messed up. It's midnight here, I have had little sleep, and I'm on a gun-control debate with someone else on another forum. My mind's pretty much shot as of now, so I'm going to bed.


I just had this startling vision of Ann Coulter running up and down the streets of New York shooting at anybody with a non-fat latte and reading an autographed copy of "The Naked Civil Servant". :D


All I ask is that everyone stays civil. Nothing more than the occasional mild expletive. No "cock" and "bull" arguments. That means you Norleans and Keruvalia. I don't care who really started it, I'm ending it right now. Be civil, no spamming, no flaming, and everyone can stay in the thread. Stray out of these rules and I'll call the mods to break it up, even if it means locking my own thread. Thank you.

Hey now. I ended it. Norleans wants to keep beating the dead horse. *shrug*

:headbang:
Ok, so here we go. I read your post, not once, not twice, but THREE times. I had to, not just because you told me to, but because I was trying to determine if you were serious.

The problem that I see with your logic is that you refuse to view yourself in the same light as you view your enemies. It is fine to have ideals, but you need to live up to them.

The bottom line is America defined the prisoners in Gitmo as illegal combatants, so that they didn't have to give them a trial. It still doesn't make it right.

However, before we can adequately discuss the issues, we have to get something clear - if you want to debate people, you have to have some discipline. You are complaining about flaming when in your initial post you stated this: "Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights." Come on, how are we to consider this serious when you A. generalize EVERYONE in Gitmo as a terrorist (Am I to suppose that every American is a blood thirst, anti-democratic individual who doesn't believe in the rule of law, after I read your post?) and B. your language is appropriate for a bar fight, not a debate.

Secondly, and the more severe of the points, you come off as a racist. Now, I am not saying that you are; personally, I believe it is probably due to your inability to look at this from both an historical and rational standpoint. To quote you " you're right, we can't know who is really a terrorist. Just their AK-47, black turban, and half-empty magazines in their guns make us think they're enemy combatants." Two point need to be said about this A. What you are saying is poor arab armies, which cannot afford advanced weapons and uniforms are terrorist. Just sit back and think about that. B. You make enemy combatants synonymous with terrorist, while this allows you to believe that all enemies are terrorists it also means that not all terrorists are bad.

You need to seriously sit back and think about your logic on this, not from a nationalist standpoint, but rather a moral standpoint. Make yourself accountable to the same theory of justice you place upon your enemy. Also, look at what your country and army has done around the world.

Parting shot: If the Constitution applies tyo everyone than that means everyone is an American citizen. If everyone was an American Citizen, then we would control the world. if that was true, I'd be happy and visit many great battle places such as Marathon, El Alemein, Middway, Guam, Guadalcanal, Normandy, Bastogne, the Ardennes, and Thermopalye Pass.


My point exactly!

All I ask is that everyone stays civil. Nothing more than the occasional mild expletive. No "cock" and "bull" arguments. That means you Norleans and Keruvalia. I don't care who really started it, I'm ending it right now. Be civil, no spamming, no flaming, and everyone can stay in the thread. Stray out of these rules and I'll call the mods to break it up, even if it means locking my own thread. Thank you.

Sorry If I got off base to start with, but I've tried to be civil ever since and have done nothing more than demand evidence that the Constitution applies to "everyone."

Hey now. I ended it. Norleans wants to keep beating the dead horse. *shrug*

So, your horse is dead? The Constitution doesn't apply to everyone? Glad to hear you admit it. I'll stop beating you now.

lol
Parting shot: If the Constitution applies tyo everyone than that means everyone is an American citizen. If everyone was an American Citizen, then we would control the world. if that was true, I'd be happy and visit many great battle places such as Marathon, El Alemein, Middway, Guam, Guadalcanal, Normandy, Bastogne, the Ardennes, and Thermopalye Pass.
.

Just curious, why won't you visit those places, two of them are on american territory, and most of the rest on allied soil

So, your horse is dead? The Constitution doesn't apply to everyone? Glad to hear you admit it. I'll stop beating you now.

See what I mean?

Yeesh. Let it go, man. You lost. However, since you clearly require having the last word, go ahead and take it. I won't respond to you in this thread again.

Green Justice, just an FYI, a Black Turban was the distinguishing mark of a Taliban fighter. It can be seen as a form of uniform if you will. However, they still lack signing the Geneva convention.

I'm not racist, but I use profiling as a way to be cautious. If someone fits the profile, then they might just be one I'm after.

Just curious, why won't you visit those places, two of them are on american territory, and most of the rest on allied soil
gotta finish school first. But later, i probably will if said governments will allow me to carry a pistol.

See what I mean?

Yeesh. Let it go, man. You lost. However, since you clearly require having the last word, go ahead and take it. I won't respond to you in this thread again.

Because you can't respond to my arguments. Feel free to ignore my Vitriole, answer my questions:

1. At what point in Nuremberg did the Constitution apply?;
2. Where is your proof that the Constitution applies to "everyone?"
3. What is your reply to the preamble to the Constitution's language?

I'm sorry, but you continue to dodge and evade my questions and hide claiming the manner I asked them is "wrong" so you don't have to answer.

EDIT: And you don't want to answer me, answer Crazed Marines instead:


Parting shot: If the Constitution applies tyo everyone than that means everyone is an American citizen. If everyone was an American Citizen, then we would control the world.

So, it applied during the Nuremberg trials? Bullshit, go read some history.

Why does it say "We the people, of the United States" in the preamble instead of "We, the people of the entire planet" then?

Check your map. Nuremberg is on German soil--at the time, occupied German soil.

And the Allies put the war criminals to fair trials instead of issuing summary judgment or just imprisoning them indefinitely. Why are trials a bad idea now? Answer: They aren't.

1) Australia couldn't take the US in any fight, but it is a good analogy
2) Personally, if that were to happen, I would enlist, get a uniform helmet and gun, and fight a geurilla battle until they are dead.
3) WE are the world's police, well at least the UN's. i say we dictate policy if we have to enforce it.
4) For some reason, I didn't hear any liberals screaming their heads off when Clinton bombed Iraq, using the same intel Bush had, during the Lewinski scandal
5) No liberals foaming at the mount at the war in Kosovo. In which, we had less reasons to go there than Iraq in 2002-2003
6) This was just a place for me to vent after seeing some idiots post about the same thing.
7) Nobody has discussed the trial vs. armor point i raised. Please tell me where you stand.
2) you wouldnt if that were not possible because for instance your government did not supply you with a uniform...it may seem a silly point, but that's only because you live in an industrialised nation where telephones and even internet are realistic goals for the average citizen, as is travelling further from your village than you can walk in couple of days...
3)No you are not the world's police. The UN expects all it's members to contribute, just as any organistion with voluntary membership expects it's members to contribute to it's aims. Some of us not only provide 'policing' but are also up to date on regular UN fees and special levies, such as those used to help mop up the mess of unilaterist members who say they dont need the UN, until the bill arrives...
4)I doubt very much that the people being held with trial referred to were for the most (or even whole part) not involved in endorsing Clinton's actions, nor likely to have been listened to if they were opposed. Basically how is whether or not people totally unrelated to those being held without trial, complained about an x-Presidents actions, justification for locking up potentially innocent people in contravention of all legal and natural justice? I personally dont see the link...
5)Kosovo again, I dont see the link, if everything you say is true, why does that justify suspension of all legal and ethical norms with regards to an unrelated (to those you complain of) group of people?
As for the armour business, I find your suggestion morally bankrupt. To suggest that large groups of people who's detention is questionable, should have any remaining rights stripped of them, and their lives effectively wiped off at the whim of a government who's conduct has been questionable at best, just to save some money, is really nasty, and frankly unconsionable so far as I am concerned...if money bothers you that much, you can always see how many Americans are willing to donate their tax cuts to acquire more armour....

The first poster makes a good point-terrorists deserve no such rights. There's only one problem though. If you don't TRY them, you can't prove they're terrorists. If I remember correctly, one-only one-of the accused terrorists is proven to be a terrorist. The basis of the argument, while arguably correct, is indisputably misapplied.

Check your map. Nuremberg is on German soil--at the time, occupied German soil.

And the Allies put the war criminals to fair trials instead of issuing summary judgment or just imprisoning them indefinitely. Why are trials a bad idea now? Answer: They aren't.

I didn't say they were a bad idea, in fact I think they are a good idea, my question is, if the U.S. Constitution applies to "everyone" why did it not govern the Nuremberg trials? If you'll go back, my original post was in reply to the statement that the Constitution applied to "everyone" that is what I claimed was BS. I specifically stated I'd leave it up to others to argue whether it SHOULD apply to everyone. I merely said it DIDN'T and have continued to demand some sort of evidence to back up the claim that it does. Evidence which appears to be lacking completely.

Again, I didn't say fair trials were bad ideas or that what was done in Nuremberg was right or wrong, I merely pointed out it wasn't governed by the U.S. Constitution.

The US Constitution regulates the conduct of the US government. All persons on US soil or in a position of control by the US government, citizens or not, may enjoy its protections.

For the record, a black turban can also mean that the person believes / can trace their heritage back to the prophet Mohhamad (not the sole reason why everyone that wears a black turban does). While it might have been a symbol for the Taliban, it doesn't mean that only those in the Taliban wear it.
Regardless, It does not change the rest of my points. You need to think about your logic on this. I don't mean to insult you, but patriotism is blinding; don't let it take away your ability to see right from wrong.

Quick question. The revoking of citizenship comes BEFORE, or AFTER the trial?
Given the circumstances we're talking about, it would probably be high treason, which I believe is an automatic death penalty.

There is no reason at all why anyone should be held without a trial.
If we as a nation are trying to impose our sense of Democracy upon the Muslim world, then to not give our prisoners a fair trial is a criminal act, according to the Constitution.
More importantly, its so incredibly wrong, and two faced.
We cannot demand that a nation like Iraq adopt democracy, and then deny other muslims the due process wich we Americans enjoy as well.


There can be no debate.

Wrong is wrong.

Some of those held were citizens of other countries, so they should be handed over to them to deal with. To be bound by the Geneva convention you must sign up to it, if you have not then you don't have to if you have like the US you should. Even though the US break the convention every day arming soldiers with shot guns.
So what is being said is that if you oppose the US, and you fight an army invading your country then you can be captured, taken to another country and held until you die or they decide to kill you. Hmm, there's an advance in civilization for you.

read more carefully:



If they did as such and ACTUALLY signed an enlistment paper and wore their uniforms, and the Iraqi army wasn't disbanded at the time of their capture, than I would treat them as SOLDIERS, not the pigs they are.

so basically the relative wealth of a nation/comabttant is the deciding factor in whether they should receive human rights?

if they didn't have time to go get their smartest fighting clothes on before an invading force occupied their country, or if they just plain couldn't afford a spangly new uniform, that means they gotta die like a dog? if the usa wages war on civillians it cannot be surprised when the 'combatants' it detains are dressed in civillian clothes.

so basically the relative wealth of a nation/comabttant is the deciding factor in whether they should receive human rights?

if they didn't have time to go get their smartest fighting clothes on before an invading force occupied their country, or if they just plain couldn't afford a spangly new uniform, that means they gotta die like a dog? if the usa wages war on civillians it cannot be surprised when the 'combatants' it detains are dressed in civillian clothes.
So the other poster agrees with the German execution of anyone assisting resistance fighters in France in WWII and the slaughter of villages by Germans in Poland for not reporting fighters there! Nice to see the the sacrafice of our Grandparents has so little impact on the American 'civilization'.

Remember,

The Nazis got ordinary German citizens and soldiers to kill millions of Jews by convincing them that they werent even human.

Look at the origianl post, and tell me if thats not what Bush is doing to our troops in regards to the Muslims.

Ok. Before you scream and flame me, I want you to hear me out and read this at least three times with an open mind before you post. I will do the same when repling to your posts. Thank you.

I do not believe that the prisoners in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba deserve a trial. I do not believe that they are entitled to the rights specified in the Geneva convention. I do not believe that they should recieve any legal council unless they are American citizens, as which they shall be tried for treason. I shall list the reasons as such.

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.

2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.

4) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.

5) Giving those who fought against America would make us look weak to those who wish to hurt us, and another attack may be attempted. Also, it would be a large waste of money that could be used to help armor our troops in Iraq.

In conclusion, those in Gitmo deserve no rights.

"Human rights" you ask, well those who wish to destroy all forms of human life in a hemisphere of the world and certain religions are genocidial maniacs. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. In a world such as this, we cannot afford to give anything to such people. As for your so-called "human rights", give me a document agreed upon by both the USA and these terrorists that sets up what "human rights" are, and I'll agree that we should follow those guidelines. However, since no such document exists, then they are not due such.


Source for the Geneva conventions: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0840180.html

1) If they didnt signed the pact, too bad, since the US did. And if they had a trial, one could defend that they are indeed soldiers:
a)Their commander is Osama Bin Laden, each unit must have someone in charge.
b) Their regular clothing is their sign, i.e., their uniform is the traditional vests of their country
c) I cant discuss this, BECAUSE NOT I OR ANYONE, OR NOT EVEN THEM KNOWS OF WHAT CRIMES THEY ARE ACUSED.
d) The point is that the US signed the pact, so it should follow it.

2) Can you say Abu graib? Still, point one: The US signed the pact, it should follow it, or the US is has bad as a frigging terrorist.

3) So US law is not applied to non US citizens? Remember me NEVER to travel to your country..

4) Well, not going to dispute that.

5) Gitmo in itself, makes the US looks weak, pathetic, and terrorist in its own right. Kinda makes you look has bad as those frigging zealots.

1) If they didnt signed the pact, too bad, since the US did. And if they had a trial, one could defend that they are indeed soldiers:
a)Their commander is Osama Bin Laden, each unit must have someone in charge.
b) Their regular clothing is their sign, i.e., their uniform is the traditional vests of their country
c) I cant discuss this, BECAUSE NOT I OR ANYONE, OR NOT EVEN THEM KNOWS OF WHAT CRIMES THEY ARE ACUSED.
d) The point is that the US signed the pact, so it should follow it.



a) not likely since many of the so called combatants were sheep farmers 'too poor or too stupid to be elsewhere*' when the usa invaded.
b) uniform should distinguish civilian from military, that is the point of uniform. however, the reason they didn't have uniform is cos half of them weren't even combatants.
c) how true
d) damn right

i'm with you most of the way.

So the other poster agrees with the German execution of anyone assisting resistance fighters in France in WWII and the slaughter of villages by Germans in Poland for not reporting fighters there! Nice to see the the sacrafice of our Grandparents has so little impact on the American 'civilization'.

yeah, apparently so. sad innit?

*source for a) = 'Al Qaeda: the true story of radical islam' Jason burke (highly reccommended)

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.

All of them are citizens of one country or another. Everyone is a citizen of somewhere, even if they are terrorists. They should, therefore, be deported to their respective countries and tried there. They should not be held without trial on SUSPICION of being terrorists. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Does that even apply in the US anymore?

Many of the countries the suspects are from HAVE signed the Geneva convention. Therefore, as citizens of that nation, they should be covered by it. Unless you think each individual person should have signed it, but then you'd be unforgivably stupid as opposed to misguided and ill-informed.

2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).

Alledgedly. But, as mentioned above, there's not been a trial so we don't know for sure, do we? Several of the people since released from Gitmo had nothing to do with terrorism at all. They probably do now, but wouldn't you if you'd been locked up without trial for crimes you didn't commit, based mainly on the colour of your skin?

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.

And the US shouldn't be the ones locking them up. In case no-one noticed, Afghanistan and Iraq both now have western-friendly governments, who are unlikely to immediately release known terrorists again. And since three of the prisoners still held are British, why are the being held in a US prison camp in Cuba?

4) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.

Fine, I agree. But they've still not BEEN TRIED, have they? They've just been held without trial.

5) Giving those who fought against America would make us look weak to those who wish to hurt us, and another attack may be attempted. Also, it would be a large waste of money that could be used to help armor our troops in Iraq.

Not really, giving them to their native countries (many of which are after them anyway) would make the US look fair and just, and would dispell a lot of the resentment you've built up about how you seem to believe you're the world police force and have more rights than other countries do. Whenever US citizens are held in other countries without trial, there's a huge media outcry about how hidioesly unfair and unconstitutional it is, and how it violates human rights. Why exactly shouldn't this apply to foriegners held by the US?

In conclusion, those in Gitmo deserve no rights.

No. Those held in Gitmo deserve a full and fair trial before you start making sweeping judgements about them.

So the other poster agrees with the German execution of anyone assisting resistance fighters in France in WWII and the slaughter of villages by Germans in Poland for not reporting fighters there! Nice to see the the sacrafice of our Grandparents has so little impact on the American 'civilization'.

The best part is when American 'civilisation' then starts going on about how they saved the world from pretty much exactly what they're doing now. Great work, US! At least this way, the brutal right-wingers are on our side! :rolleyes:

Ogiek, BackwoodsSquatches and many others have said things far more beautifully than I could. But what strikes me most is how saddening it is that there is so much hate in someone so young, towards an 'enemy' of 'pigs' that he has never met. Everyone on the planet, no matter how 'good' or 'evil', is a human being deserving of exactly the same human rights. There can be no negotiation on that. Hitler committed some of the most barbaric, evil acts in history and I believe that if he had been captured he should have been entitled to a fair trial and human rights - in any case there's no way a genuinely fair trial could have found that he was anything but a war criminal and acted accordingly. (In the end it's probably just as well he spared us all the trouble, but that's another story.)

All of us have good and evil tendencies. I may be mentally ill and slightly warped but even I have learned that. Who are any of us to say with no hesitation and no doubt that under different circumstances we would not do something we would consider 'evil'? I would love to be able to say that I will never take a life and in all probability I won't, but the truth is that I can't make that promise because I'm not precognizant, and God only knows what the future holds for me. The world could become a barren nuclear wasteland terrorised by cruel alien invaders for all I know (I'm hyperbolising, of course, but you get my point.) Some of us are further from the edge than others, but the edge is always there and you're fooling yourself if you think there's no chance of you falling over it.

My point is, all those people you dismiss as less than human are you in other circumstances. They have thoughts and feelings and pasts and families and histories and life experiences that have shaped their beliefs and brought them to where they are today. No one can say "I would never" because, well, how do you know? Or better, do you really know, or do you just hope? Recognising that key difference, what one knows about oneself versus what one hopes for oneself, is, I think, a key step in self-awareness, and in growing up. (And it's depressing how many people never seem to get there.)

Is terrorism right? Of course not. Is it ok for people to blow themselves up to kill innocent people, or oppress people who look or act differently? No. But no act, however evil, negates one's basic humanity, and to ignore that basic humanity is to commit the same evil with which these people are charged - a fundamental disrespect for human life.

I talk too much, but we need trials. You may think one innocent person in prison is a fair sacrifice, but I suspect that innocent person denied life and freedom doesn't find it terribly fair at all. This kind of thinking, this kind of ingrained hatred and prejudice (in this case, literal pre-judging) is how and why wars and violence go on for generation after generation, and it worries me immensely if this is the culture in which young Americans are being raised. We need to address the issues that are causing the terrorism, not just capture or kill anyone we feel might be connected to it. I'm a bit relieved not to be there anymore, if I'm honest, if things back home are as bad as I fear.

The real question is how do we know that they are terroists if we do not have a trial. The army could have grabed anyone said they were BAD MEN and locked them up. I am not saying that this is what happened but the burden of proof must be on the accusor.

I believe that one willingly makes sacrifices. However, they may not understand everything, they willingly sacrifice even if that just means living.

now, as for me, I am an American. Southern by the Grace of God. More over, I am a Southern Baptist who wishes to enlist on my 18th bithday. I am Conservative by nature, with severe nationalist leanings at times in areas such as global domination. My life was changed radically 9-11-01,. My hate for the enemy has driven me to this kind of thinking.


You're a sad disillusioned child.
How was your life "radically" changed when you were 12 years old by a tragedy that didn't affect you (apologies if it did directly affect you).
There should be no wars

The real question is how do we know that they are terroists if we do not have a trial. The army could have grabed anyone said they were BAD MEN and locked them up. I am not saying that this is what happened but the burden of proof must be on the accusor.

And that's the real heart of it, isn't it? I don't give a damn what the US does with terrorists, but people are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. How do you prove someone guilty? You have a trial! It's such a novel concept that it's only been the basis of the legal system since, well, since the legal system was invented. The guys in Gitmo are innocent, and so should have all their rights. Once they are proven guilty, then for all I care you can make them dance the sodding fandango in stripy tutus, but until then they are innocent human beings who've been incarcerated illegally and have been tortured and humiliated. Which, given the total lack of WMDs, is almost certainly going to be the new official reason for bringing down Saddam's regime.

Basically, at the moment they've been locked up for the terrible crime of being deliberately and repeatedly foreign, occasionally in public places. There's not enough evidence to convict them of anything else, or there would have been a trial. Now your government has to hold them indefinitely for some reason, and I'm not thinking it's because they're terrorists. I'm thinking they've been tortured, they've had their rights infringed, and they're actually innocent. That's such a big PR problem that now the US HAS to keep them under lock and key for the rest of their natural lives, to stop anyone hearing about it.

They deserve a noose, nothing more or less.


The american marine who shot that wounded Iraqi should also hang then

Just to start:

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.



re a) I don't imagine that you are calling the leadership of Al Qaeda or the Taliban an unknown entity since the US has been very clear on who and how many of them have been captured, Hell, we all know who Bin Laden is!

re b) you seem to indicate that their involvement IS due to a recognizable uniform yourself later when you later state: "you're right, we can't know who is really a terrorist. Just their AK-47, black turban, and half-empty magazines in their guns make us think they're enemy combatants." Hey - if you can pick them out so easily then that seems to satsify the requirement. And let's not forget that US special forces operated behind enemy lines in the early part of the Iraq invasion - in plainsclothes. Pot, meet kettle, discuss dark colouration.....


re c) which exact rules did the Taliban break whent he US invaded Afghanistan? Ad when? And no - pointing to somebody else performing beheadings in another country does not count. This is an indivivdual requirement - not a group one.

and finally, re d)
Perhaps you missed the notation in Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 which state:

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."

By signing the Convention you remain bound regardless of the status of those you are fighting against.


2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).

Yes, I can say it. "Beheading". It makes me just a nauseous as you. But that is Iraq. The Gitmo prisoners are from Afghanistan. And you have to prove this on an individual basis. Some Nazis were tried as criminals. Some weren't. This is not a blanket provision.

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.


Well, that is why they were sent to Cuba. Because the Constitution affects everyone - citizen or not - on US soil. By putting them at Gitmo they avoided the Constitution.

) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.


OK, so in this case you agree with the trial. How many American's are a Gitmo? None? So this is beside the point.


5) Giving those who fought against America would make us look weak to those who wish to hurt us, and another attack may be attempted. Also, it would be a large waste of money that could be used to help armor our troops in Iraq.


you really think that Bin Laden is stting back asking himself "should I attack again? Should I not? I know - if they put those guys on trial I will. If they don't - I won't".

I doubt that.



Sinking to the level of the lowest common denominator does not help your cause. At all. It's like the child excusing punching another kid in the head because they hit them first.

Green Justice, just an FYI, a Black Turban was the distinguishing mark of a Taliban fighter. It can be seen as a form of uniform if you will. However, they still lack signing the Geneva convention.

I'm not racist, but I use profiling as a way to be cautious. If someone fits the profile, then they might just be one I'm after.

Errr... Afghanistan Rattified the convention in 1956. http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_gc/$File/Conventions%20de%20GenSve%20et%20Protocoles%20additionnels%20ENG-logo.pdf

So one of your princible arguments is just... um, wrong.

*edited religion stuff*
I am an American. Southern by the Grace of God...*... who wishes to enlist on my 18th bithday. I am Conservative by nature, with severe nationalist leanings at times in areas such as global domination. My life was changed radically 9-11-01,. My hate for the enemy has driven me to this kind of thinking.

how old are you?

The problem is, there is no attempt being made to ensure that the people being held are even affilliate with any terrorist organization at all.
weren't a lot of these people just in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with the fighting anyways?

Ok. Before you scream and flame me, I want you to hear me out and read this at least three times with an open mind before you post. I will do the same when repling to your posts. Thank you.

I do not believe that the prisoners in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba deserve a trial. I do not believe that they are entitled to the rights specified in the Geneva convention. I do not believe that they should recieve any legal council unless they are American citizens, as which they shall be tried for treason. I shall list the reasons as such.

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.

2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.

4) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.

5) Giving those who fought against America would make us look weak to those who wish to hurt us, and another attack may be attempted. Also, it would be a large waste of money that could be used to help armor our troops in Iraq.

In conclusion, those in Gitmo deserve no rights.

"Human rights" you ask, well those who wish to destroy all forms of human life in a hemisphere of the world and certain religions are genocidial maniacs. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. In a world such as this, we cannot afford to give anything to such people. As for your so-called "human rights", give me a document agreed upon by both the USA and these terrorists that sets up what "human rights" are, and I'll agree that we should follow those guidelines. However, since no such document exists, then they are not due such.


Source for the Geneva conventions: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0840180.html
*pukes*...Maybe it's the beer....oh..nope..it's an American.
I hope once you've enlisted you are send to a hot spot and are captured by your enemy. And that they treat you with the same regards.

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW)...
Source for the Geneva conventions: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0840180.html

It is pure fantasy to claim that the US's Al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners are not "prisoners of war" under the Geneva convention - and a cursory examination of the treaty itself proves it.

The Geneva conventions are a series of international treaties drawn up to protect soldiers and civilians in times of war. It is the third and final convention, signed in 1949 and dealing with the rights of prisoners of war, that the US is accused by human rights groups and others of flouting.
...
Descriptions of militia or volunteer corps "having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance" seem a little quaint after the war in Afghanistan, where daisy cutter fuel air bombs were dropped from a great height on a terrorist group's mountain hideout.
...
The convention is clear on what constitutes a war, and also what should happen to those taken prisoner. It says that the provisions apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict "even if the state of war is not recognised" by one side.

There is no question of the US breaking the convention, in the manner in which it has stepped away from other international agreements such as the ABM treaty and the Kyoto protocol.

The convention recognises six categories of prisoner of war, the following three being the most relevant to the men in Guantanamo Bay:

· Members of armed forces of a party to the conflict as well as militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

· Members of other militia or volunteer corps including those of organised resistance movements that are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance, carry arms openly and conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

· Member of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or authority not recognised by the detaining power.

the US shouldnt be allowed to hold people without evidence. it's total BS, they can't even prove these guys are terrorists. that's part of the reason they won't give them trials, they don't have enough evidence to convict them. the ones who we have no evidence for have the right to not be in prison, we should just deport them or something.

sorry if someone said all that before, i wasn't gonna read all 7 pages.

Point 1 - Here in the UK we have a little saying - INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I believe that you have the same opinions in the USA. That is what trials are for. Proving guilt. If you don't have trials, how do you prove guilt?

Point 2 - What exactly are they being accused of? Murder? Genocide? If so, under what legal system? The US legal system? The international UN legal system? If they are being detained because they are criminals, then that very definition demands a trial.

I certainly have no sympathy for terrorists. For any americans reading this, we in Europe, and especially here in the UK (and Spain- ETA) have lived under threat of terrorism for 30 years. The IRA were certainly no pushover, yet they behaved in an atrocious and inhumane manner on many occasions. It was the avowed policy of the British government not to give them the status of POWs or political prisoners, which is what the US govt is doing with the Gitmo prrisoners. What we did was categorize them as criminals - along with all the rights that criminals have, such as TRIALS. The US govt seems unwilling to categorize the people they holding as anything. I wonder why!?

I am a Southern Baptist who wishes to enlist on my 18th bithday. I am Conservative by nature, with severe nationalist leanings at times in areas such as global domination. My life was changed radically 9-11-01,. My hate for the enemy has driven me to this kind of thinking. You wouldn't pass the psych evaluation in Australia. Right after 911 there was a total rush of attempted enlistments by xenophobic maniacs who wanted to grab a gun and kill an arab but thankfully our armed services don't want idiots like that.... (Maybe that's why you don't hear about other countries soldiers shooting up busloads of kids or wounded Iraqis - dunno, but maybe)

What I've noticed in this thread (and I have read all 7 pages) is that the people who agree with the first post seem to believe that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" should only apply to citizens of the US. And perhaps to only some of those.

Personally, I think it's a form of cowardice that these people have been taken prisoner (by a government) and housed (the term used loosely here) on soil foreign to their captors.

Originally Posted by Crazed Marines
I am a Southern Baptist who wishes to enlist on my 18th bithday. I am Conservative by nature, with severe nationalist leanings at times in areas such as global domination. My life was changed radically 9-11-01,. My hate for the enemy has driven me to this kind of thinking.


I bet he washes out. The Marines don't need trigger happy nut jobs they need solders that follow orders. Hate isn't in the Marine creed only duty, honor, and country to which they are Semper Fi.

By the way kid change your name, There are a lot of men resting in Arlington who can call themselves "Marines". You Are not one of them. You may someday be a Marine , (if you don't die trying) but that's in the future.

I hope to god they take you sweetheart, and you can earn that name you posting under. Because if you think 9-11 changed your pampered civy ass that's nothing to what Paris Island is going to do to you. :D

I'm sure this has already been said, but it's worth saying again...

They aren't protected by Geneva so they should be tortured? Don't we have our own laws against that sort of thing? Isn't it against the American spirit? Isn't it just a fucked up thing to do?

I think the answers to these questions should be pretty obvious.

Ok. Before you scream and flame me, I want you to hear me out and read this at least three times with an open mind before you post. I will do the same when repling to your posts. Thank you.

I do not believe that the prisoners in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba deserve a trial. I do not believe that they are entitled to the rights specified in the Geneva convention. I do not believe that they should recieve any legal council unless they are American citizens, as which they shall be tried for treason. I shall list the reasons as such.

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.

2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.

4) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.

5) Giving those who fought against America would make us look weak to those who wish to hurt us, and another attack may be attempted. Also, it would be a large waste of money that could be used to help armor our troops in Iraq.

In conclusion, those in Gitmo deserve no rights.

"Human rights" you ask, well those who wish to destroy all forms of human life in a hemisphere of the world and certain religions are genocidial maniacs. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. In a world such as this, we cannot afford to give anything to such people. As for your so-called "human rights", give me a document agreed upon by both the USA and these terrorists that sets up what "human rights" are, and I'll agree that we should follow those guidelines. However, since no such document exists, then they are not due such.
Flaws:

*assumption that all prisoners at Guantanamo bay are guilty.

*assertion that human rights don't apply to everyone (giving them an inch so they can take a a mile? What power do they have to take that mile?). Human rights apply to all, even maniacs.

*there is no agreed document between the USA and terrorists because the latter are not a legitimate political force.

1. Is Osama bin Laden not considered a commander? This point exhibits your major flaw, i.e. assuming that the prisoners are guilty.

2. a) assumption that all prisoners at Guantanamo bay are guilty
b) you think it is a good idea for the US to stop down to the level of the terrorists?

3. US Constitution rights apply to everyone who deals with the United States. With your logic you could claim that British people living in America do not have the right to freedom of speech or religion, or freedom from unreasonable searches.

4. Yes.

5. I doubt these terrorists need any more reasons to attack you. Betraying your founding principles is no sign of strength.

Human rights are granted by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

I then saw you have a quote from Ann Coulter in your signature. That explains a lot.

now, as for me, I am an American. Southern by the Grace of God. More over, I am a Southern Baptist who wishes to enlist on my 18th bithday. I am Conservative by nature, with severe nationalist leanings at times in areas such as global domination. My life was changed radically 9-11-01,. My hate for the enemy has driven me to this kind of thinking.
So you are fascist? (That's not an insult, it's a technical political term.)

1. However, if you could focus it on destroying our enemies today instead of helping them, than we would have the time to help them tomorrow.

2. I believe, Branin, that your first point is not really one. I believe that it is just a line fed to you possibly subconciously by the "hate America" and "hate Bush" and "hate Christians who stand up for their beliefs" crowd.

3. I believe that Churchill once said, "If you're not liberal by 21, you haven't a heart. If you're not conservative by 30, you haven't a brain." I lost my heart for the world that fateful Autum day, and all i care about any more is America and American lives. That is my sole purpose and my sole focus.
1. "Love thy enemy," Jesus said. How can we help our enemies if we have destroyed them?

2. Can you really criticise this? Your own beliefs appear to be based on hating everyone who is not a conservative American. Hating Bush is not the same as hating America nor hating Christians. You are proof of the disturbing new phenomenon of the integration of the president, Christianity and the American state into one. It's called theocracy.

3. Churchill never said any such thing. On a more personal note, you seem to believe that the entire world was responsible for the 9/11 atrocities. No, it was just a small armed group of jihadist maniacs.

Well .... you *do* realize that when a bunch of people did that in Iraq, they're called "terrorist insurgents" ... would you accept that label yourself?

YEAH! they are!

Seriously, even when dealing with irregular forces, some degree of care has to be exercised because in situations of guerrilla warfare the dead become martyrs, and then they become an effective recruitment tool.
As far as American citizens doing this sort of thing against the United States, full proof, a real trial, not a show trial and the death penalty are not a problem in my view.

Brief comment on the Nazis and whether they signed the Geneva convention. Their country did, I'm not sure that the Nazis did, I'd like to look into that before saying anything either way.

The big problem with the Geneva Conventions is that it really only applies to established governments, other social entities can have legitimate problems, which can result in conflict. It is really important to remember something here, how prisoners in our hands are treated can and does have an effect on how our soldiers and even private citizens are treated in case they fall into the hands of some enemy. The fact is one is at risk of capture in time of war, and how that goes is important.
I don't know about now, but I remember when I was growing up, American soldiers were carefully instructed in the correct way of handleing prisoners of war, and that in general prisoners of war were well treated. This is very important, a mark of civilized people. How America handles this situation is important to American credibility.

On the question of how many might be innocent of involvement in terror, but still present in Guantanamo Bay, well, unless there are trials, we don't know.

As far as the Kosovo intervention, we had good reasons to intervene, what was going on there had the potential to disrupt what the Americans and the allies did to stabilize the Balkans.

I want to say that it's very good that most people have kept civil and refrained from flameing.

Ogiek is God.

Need I say more? Apparently so....


Group A comes to new land, and uses new land to give themselves lots of rights. Then (200 some odd years later) when group B attacks them, they invade group C, which has a lot of Group B in them. They then take a sample portion of Group C, including a few members of group B (we will call this new group E), to Group D's home base, and group D used to want to nuke group A, and vise versa. They then take away all of E's rights, and lock them up, and use faulty logic, demogogery, and fear-mongering *(I perfer fish-mongerers myself, but then, I like fish.) that group F used around 70 years ago to seize power and execute lots of G's, (and G and B had a prior conflict too, but thats not important....), and the resulting fight between F and A (and a heck of a lot of countries that could have used A's help if they could have gotton off of their collective A's (group Z never got attack, yet we were there from the start)) caused the situation between A and D, and a lot of H's who meant well, but then got collectivly screwed by their government. Then some H's invaded C, and causeed a mess that created a lot of B's.
*to prevent E from getting rights.
Ok, well there is your history lesson. but remember, Ogiek is god.

I forgot my point, ok? aside from Ogiek = God.

And If you got confused, A= United states of America
b=inladin (its Usama btw)
c= afganistan.
d= cuba
e= Guatamala Bay persons
f= nazis
g= jews
h= communists.

You're a sad disillusioned child.
How was your life "radically" changed when you were 12 years old by a tragedy that didn't affect you (apologies if it did directly affect you).
There should be no wars
You're right, there should be no wars, but we ain't all saints *like you*. And FYI, my uncle almost got killed that day. He's a courier, so he could have been at any of the targets or on any of the planes. I saw the second plane hit. I saw the Towers. I saw thousands killed in front of my eyes. You'll never forget that or rage like I felt then.

Eurotrash: you truly are. That marine defended himself with approperiate force to someone who might have been laying on a grenade or mine like what happened to his best friend the day before.

UCP: I'm gonna earn that title and wear it with pride. However, I'll put Uncle Sam before myself and listen to his orders.

Siljhouettes: No, I'm not Fascist. No, I don't hate all of Islam, just those who attacked us.

Holy sheep: Not too unreasonable a conclusion hwen you have no real proof such is happening. If you give me reliable proof that we are in a conspiracy to take all rights from the prisoners simply because we can, then I'll concede.

Also, Osama is no longer a commander. He is merely a figurehead. He can not send commands to his "troops" at will. Since Tora Bora, he's maybe sent a dozen messages to those he "commands".

And if you're curious, I am a ROTC cadet. I have a legal uniform and could be activated in an emergency the same way that a National Guard soldier could be, except it would be more despirate times like in the movie Red Dawn. I have a uniform or two, helmets, magazines, knives, bayonets, enough guns to get the job done, a gas mask, and friends who are willing to fight a geurilla war against an invader like I am.

Hey! it's been a while since i've seen you.

Anyway, I agree that the prisoners need to be punished as severly as possible, for pretty much the same reasons.

Interesting...

Well as an interrogator... (Not at Gitmo) I must concur with those who say "We have not yet determined if they are terrorists", this is certainly the issue with most of the prisoners at Gitmo.
As for the wearing of Turbans and having AK's whereever they go? that's just apart of life there.. they can have weapons.

Honestly I believe that they should not be denied their rights, the geneva conventions sets aside a special category for these people; they are entitled to three meals a day, 4 hours of sleep within a 24-hour period, and only performing labor = to their capabilities (meaning you cannot force an 80 year old man to do excessive hard labor, such as overlifting or heavy construction).
The Geneva conventions specifically sets aside this category for those who are of countries who have not signed the Geneva convention. Yes, this makes things a pain, but is far better for America in terms of rapport with foreign countries.

You do have a good point, Haischumein. BTW I didn't read all of this thread because I came so late. But I do think you make a reasonable agrument, I probably wouldn't have said anything, but I wanted to say hi to CM.

Someone probably already posted this but just for good measure.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche

Crazed Marines, answer the question that's been posed.

We in the US have a thing about 'innocent until proven guilty', right? And trials are used to prove that guilt? So we're holding men who are theoretically innocent in Cuba right now, right?

Or does that only apply to people whos skin is only lighter than ____ RGB value?

Someone probably already posted this but just for good measure.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche
They are already way past that stage.

Ein interesantes name "Von Witzleben" ... Wissen Sie was es gemeint?"
Do you know what your name means?


Not really sure where the person was going with that older that dinosaurs Nieztche quote... sorry for any misspellings i am typing like a rocket..

As for "Innocent until proved guilty" Yes out on the combat zone and in Gitmo that is still practiced and by both the constitution and the geneva conventions that is afforded to people not of our nation (America), including "perceived or possible" terrorists.
In truth... Gitmo is not even a place necessarilly for terrorists... to inform "CrazedMarine" about its purpose:

Gitmo is established to provide a safe haven to hold prisoners who have not established their identity, I.E. those who did not have I.D., those who chose to not speak (from fear, or anxiety), also for those medically unable to identify themselves, I.E. trauma, loss of thought process, coma, or just about anything else along those lines you can think of. Gitmo is also a place for those who have COOPERATED!!!!! (esp. "Innocent" civilians of Afghan./Iraq) it is meant to keep them safe till they recover from any fear that will allow them to begin speaking, also to give American forces time to track down those who would hunt our sources for having been sympathetic to our cause.

Ein interesantes name "Von Witzleben" ... Wissen Sie was es gemeint?"
Do you know what your name means?
Ich weiss das es der name de felfmarschalls Erwin von Witzleben war.
Aber was der name an sich bedeutet, keinen schimmer. Weisst du es vielleicht?

Very impressive. It means "The Joke Life" or "Life's Joke", I thought it was funny especially given the current thread

Very impressive. It means "The Joke Life" or "Life's Joke", I thought it was funny especially given the current thread
Thats only if you translate the words directly.

Wow! one who knows his history. Not often do people have any understanding of the German language nor the development of its phonemes and bases.
Yes you are quite correct, though I will admit I am not totally familiar with any nations war responses, especially names dealing with political and conflict interests. funny, considering I am a military kid... =)

Wow! one who knows his history. Not often do people have any understanding of the German language nor the development of its phonemes and bases.
As a German I would have to be ashamed if I wasn't at least a little familiar with my native tongue. ;)
Yes you are quite correct, though I will admit I am not totally familiar with any nations war responses, especially names dealing with political and conflict interests. funny, considering I am a military kid... =)
Ok. This makes me confused. War responses?

You're right, there should be no wars, but we ain't all saints *like you*. And FYI, my uncle almost got killed that day. He's a courier, so he could have been at any of the targets or on any of the planes. I saw the second plane hit. I saw the Towers. I saw thousands killed in front of my eyes. You'll never forget that or rage like I felt then.

So did all americans.
The same ones that you will try to swear to protect and serve the constitution.
The same Constitution that says that all people have the right to a fair trial.

Eurotrash: you truly are. That marine defended himself with approperiate force to someone who might have been laying on a grenade or mine like what happened to his best friend the day before.

That marine was jumpy and nervous, and ended up shooting an unarmed man.
Simple as that.
I might be sitting on a nuclear bomb...you think you should shoot me?


UCP: I'm gonna earn that title and wear it with pride. However, I'll put Uncle Sam before myself and listen to his orders.

Uncle Sam says you should uphold the Constitution.
The Constitution says that people are entitled to due process of law.

[/quote]Siljhouettes: No, I'm not Fascist. No, I don't hate all of Islam, just those who attacked us.[/quote]

That certainly isnt Iraq.
Keep that in mind.

Holy sheep: Not too unreasonable a conclusion hwen you have no real proof such is happening. If you give me reliable proof that we are in a conspiracy to take all rights from the prisoners simply because we can, then I'll concede.

How about the fact thet Bush wont let them go to trial?
This way...they can be held indefinately.
Its not a conspiracy..its whats actually happening.

Also, Osama is no longer a commander. He is merely a figurehead. He can not send commands to his "troops" at will. Since Tora Bora, he's maybe sent a dozen messages to those he "commands".

and a 17 year old kid from the south would know this how?


And if you're curious, I am a ROTC cadet. I have a legal uniform and could be activated in an emergency the same way that a National Guard soldier could be, except it would be more despirate times like in the movie Red Dawn. I have a uniform or two, helmets, magazines, knives, bayonets, enough guns to get the job done, a gas mask, and friends who are willing to fight a geurilla war against an invader like I am.

Oh...you mean..like the people are doing in Iraq?

Eurotrash: you truly are. That marine defended himself with approperiate force to someone who might have been laying on a grenade or mine like what happened to his best friend the day before.



Yeah, i think i must be trash. :rolleyes:

Gun-ho nutcase

Every1 has the right for a fair trail, even 'terrorist'. America wants to show us its civilised, then act like it.

As for the poster of post #111: International law prohibits trying persons under a nation's laws unless they are either one of theese: 1) A citizen of said country, and 2) They are in said country. The US constitution ONLY applies to US CITIZENS or on her soil. "We the people of the United States of America". People are only due a trial if one of these two are true. Its because of blood and the soil you're on that gives you rights, not your skin color.

As for me "not knowing" about bin Laden's inability to order troops around, I say it helps to have defense analysts as your friends.

As for BackwoodsSquatches saying that we are actually "torturing" prisoners by dening them rights due only of American Citizens. GIVE ME PROOF! As for you comparing me to an insurgent, I find that highly insulting because at least I'm smart enough to not fight those who came to depose a dictator responsible for the deaths of over one million of his own citizens. At least I'm smart enough not to follow a hijacked religion that says everything Jesus said was true...but not true...but true...and that I should kill those who are not just like me. At least I'm smart enough to not fight the World's #1 SUPER POWER! I care about americans and America herself. if she were threatened, I would not hesitate to die to save lives, especially American ones. I have a slight blood thirst, I'll admit it, but that's because I want to act like a vampire to bin Laden's neck (figuratively, not lierally; that's what i get for watching a vampire movie while typing this)

Haischumein: I was speaking about those who raised up arms against us.

I guess nobody saw the half loaded part of the AK as evidence. No person in that region carries a half-loaded weapon unless they have a death wish, recently engaged in combat, or are going to get more ammo. They've lived this long and made good combat habits, so carrying around a limited supply of ammo is usually a bad thing if you wish to live.

All I'll say on the matter...

If you're going to act world police, whether you want to or not, your justice must be equal for all, otherwise you're just one more corrupt police force to those you police.

well fine then don't say hi

:confused:

Errr... hi?

:confused:

First off, I did not mean to say it was a conspiracy, However, I did phrase that unclearly, and besides, that (my post) was soo confusing that I could hardly make sure I didn't offend you.

And now to argue

1)These people have been living under corrupt news services for a long time. They honestly think that SH was a good leader, becuase they were ignorant.

2)You start with the assumtion that they are guilty. They do not deserve a trial because... they are guilty... And innocent until proven Guilty means what?

They deserve a trial.

Ok, so if Oz invades the US (we were already ), you will stage a gorilla war. Congrats. Then you get sent to New Zealand for the rest of your life, and you are just held there, along with your friends hypothetical younger brother who did nothing to help you, (primarily becuase he is 10? 8? Isn't one of the Gitamo prisonurs that young?) [edit - perhaps becuase he sees the Ozzies as liberators]. You would not want a trial so your friends brother could get on to leading a semi-normal life rebuilding in the wake of the Aussie Invasion?

Note - Sorry to NZ for comparing you to Cuba, and vise versa. Sorry to Oz for comparing you to America, and vise versa.

Ok. Before you scream and flame me, I want you to hear me out and read this at least three times with an open mind before you post. I will do the same when repling to your posts. Thank you.

I do not believe that the prisoners in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba deserve a trial. I do not believe that they are entitled to the rights specified in the Geneva convention. I do not believe that they should recieve any legal council unless they are American citizens, as which they shall be tried for treason. I shall list the reasons as such.

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.

2) They violate the Geneva convention rights as often as a dog barks, and therefore do not follow the laws of war (can you say behedding of prisoners?).

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.

4) If they are Americans, they are due a trial. A trial for treason that is! If you read an American visa or passport's opening page it states that if you take up arms for a country or unti engaged against America, then you may betried for treason, stripped of your American citizenship, or both.

5) Giving those who fought against America would make us look weak to those who wish to hurt us, and another attack may be attempted. Also, it would be a large waste of money that could be used to help armor our troops in Iraq.

In conclusion, those in Gitmo deserve no rights.

"Human rights" you ask, well those who wish to destroy all forms of human life in a hemisphere of the world and certain religions are genocidial maniacs. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. In a world such as this, we cannot afford to give anything to such people. As for your so-called "human rights", give me a document agreed upon by both the USA and these terrorists that sets up what "human rights" are, and I'll agree that we should follow those guidelines. However, since no such document exists, then they are not due such.


Source for the Geneva conventions: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0840180.html

There is a very easy answer to why they absolutely deserve a trial.......... They may be innocent.

:confused:

Errr... hi?

:confused:
Hello!

As for me "not knowing" about bin Laden's inability to order troops around, I say it helps to have defense analysts as your friends.[/quote

I'd say your full of it.

[quote]As for BackwoodsSquatches saying that we are actually "torturing" prisoners by dening them rights due only of American Citizens. GIVE ME PROOF!

George Bush....THIS WEEK made the decision to deny these people the right to fair trials...READ THE NEWS.

As for you comparing me to an insurgent, I find that highly insulting because at least I'm smart enough to not fight those who came to depose a dictator responsible for the deaths of over one million of his own citizens.

No..they came to look for WMD's....how did that work out again?
The problem is..when they deposed Saddam...they didnt leave..and then declared martial law upon the citizens...oh yeah...and then gave them an election..but didnt let anyone pick who they wanted to run for wich office.

At least I'm smart enough not to follow a hijacked religion that says everything Jesus said was true...but not true...but true...and that I should kill those who are not just like me.

No..but you are dumb enough to follow a religion that starts out by two nudists taking dietary advice from a talking snake.

At least I'm smart enough to not fight the World's #1 SUPER POWER!

If america were #2..and was invaded by #1..you'd fight tooth and nail against them, would you?
That has nothing to do with anything.
No one can help where they are from.

I care about americans and America herself. if she were threatened, I would not hesitate to die to save lives, especially American ones. I have a slight blood thirst, I'll admit it, but that's because I want to act like a vampire to bin Laden's neck (figuratively, not lierally; that's what i get for watching a vampire movie while typing this)



Im wondering if you care about Americans, or just the White, Christian ones.

1) The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) says, in the very beginning of the terms, that for one to be considered a legal combatat and due such rights one must have all of the following. a) a single commander who is responsible for the actions of his men, b) an identifiable signal or banner visible at a distance (IE: flag or national crest), c) must adhere to the laws and customs of war, and finally d) have SIGNED the pact. Since the terrorist bastards have done none of these, they are not due the Geneva Convention rights.
And how do you know they are "terrorist bastards" without giving them a trial in the first place?
Or are you just happy to rely on what the authorities tell you?

If america were #2..and was invaded by #1..you'd fight tooth and nail against them, would you?
That has nothing to do with anything.
No one can help where they are from.

exactly. When CM gets around to my OZ situation, he will have already thought about it.

sorry for the lack of response. Changed comps again to my normal.

For the OZ situation, I would fight in the service of my country and with the knowlege of it. After all, they'd be the ones to get me dependable nades.

And I care about all Americans. However, at times I question why fight for those who wish to strip me of my rights by using the law *cough*liberals*cough*Second Amendment*cough*

The problem is, there is no attempt being made to ensure that the people being held are even affilliate with any terrorist organization at all.

Wrong. They do make this attempt. There just isn't a trial by jury to make that determination.

Ostensibly, the inmates at Gitmo are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Primarily because they fit in the context of "enemy combatant", a category only marginally more conducive to longevity than "spy".

But additionally because the Taliban Government and Al-Qaeda are not signatories to the Geneva Convention.

thank you. That's what I've been saying the whole time.

sorry for the lack of response. Changed comps again to my normal.

For the OZ situation, I would fight in the service of my country and with the knowlege of it. After all, they'd be the ones to get me dependable nades.

And I care about all Americans. However, at times I question why fight for those who wish to strip me of my rights by using the law *cough*liberals*cough*Second Amendment*cough*

What about your friends twelve year old brother that did nothing to help you that also got sent to New Zealand equivilent of Gitamo?

I'd say he's a tough kid and can work a way through it just like we would all have to.

you still haven't said hi CM

hi NOF. Sorry, g2g now...

hi NOF. Sorry, g2g now...
no prob see ya later

Wrong. They do make this attempt. There just isn't a trial by jury to make that determination.

Ostensibly, the inmates at Gitmo are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Primarily because they fit in the context of "enemy combatant", a category only marginally more conducive to longevity than "spy".

But additionally because the Taliban Government and Al-Qaeda are not signatories to the Geneva Convention.

It doesnt matter if the Taliban is adherent to the Geneva Convention or not.'
WE ARE.

Therefore, we are bound to adhere by it, wether or not the enemy is.

What I cant understand, is why anyone so "Gung Ho" about America, and its Constitution, can so easily forget the reason WHY this country was founded.
It was started to get away from the same kind of tyrrany that we are showing these prisoners.

You cannot call someone a "Terrorist" if you dont allow them to have a fair trial.

This country was founded so that EVERYONE had the right to a fair trail, by a jury of your peers, if you were accused of a crime.

Under NO circumstances, should the Government have the right to hold ANYONE with out filing formal charges against them.

America as a nation has NO right to force a democracy upon another country, and then turn around and withhold certain rights to our P.O.W's.

That is nothing but hippocracy, and is not debateable.

It doesnt matter if the Taliban is adherent to the Geneva Convention or not.'
WE ARE.

Therefore, we are bound to adhere by it, wether or not the enemy is.

What I cant understand, is why anyone so "Gung Ho" about America, and its Constitution, can so easily forget the reason WHY this country was founded.
It was started to get away from the same kind of tyrrany that we are showing these prisoners.

You cannot call someone a "Terrorist" if you dont allow them to have a fair trial.

This country was founded so that EVERYONE had the right to a fair trail, by a jury of your peers, if you were accused of a crime.

Under NO circumstances, should the Government have the right to hold ANYONE with out filing formal charges against them.

America as a nation has NO right to force a democracy upon another country, and then turn around and withhold certain rights to our P.O.W's.

That is nothing but hippocracy, and is not debateable.

Go BSquatches!
That about sums it all up right there.

I thought that a person was innocent until proven guilty? I can understand that they may need to be detained whilst awaiting a trial, but until they have that trial (and possibly after) they are free men/women.

Several conceptual problems:

We are not accusing them of being terrorists, or committing terrorist acts. That would be a "law enforcement" or "judicial" approach, and would entail the types of trials and innocence until proven guilty concepts you would like to see.

In war, a military (according to the Convention) may classify prisoners. According to the Convention, this is a military administrative function - not a judicial one. The prisoner is not "accused" of a crime - in fact, being an enemy soldier or enemy combatant is not a "crime".

The Convention clearly lays out the specifications for an "enemy combatant" - a category into which the Taliban and Al-Qaeda neatly fall. This is not a previously unused category - it has ample historical precedence. As I said before, "enemy combatant" is one step away from the other category, "spy".

Historically, most European nations have shot "enemy combatants" out of hand in the 20th century without trial or hearing.

If we allow trials to determine if someone is an "enemy combatant", then we should also allow trials to determine if someone is a "prisoner of war". Therefore, we would have the prospect of fighting an ordinary army, potentially capturing hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers, and holding hundreds of thousands of trials with hundreds of thousands of appeals.

War is not law enforcement. That is where you are confusing the issue.

we are not having trials to tell if they are "enemy combatants" we are having trials to figure out if they are completely innocent and we are goign around grabbing people just to do it. and this is not war, i dont recall congress goign "We are at war with terrorism *pipes up from the back*How can we be at war with terrorism? its an ideal not a nati- *snap* *speaker* anyway we declare war on terrorism thank you"
no the president was like "we're gonna go kick some middle eastern ass hoo-yah" then he actually declared it OVER "vidi vini vichi, which means in greek, we like vichi. now the war is over"

saying we can do whatever we want in this "war" is like saying we can just bust into peoples houses and search their houses without warrant or just arrest them on drug charges because their neighbor said they have drugs because the dog crapped on their lawn, you know we are in a "war on drugs"

If you don't like the administrative declaration of persons to be "enemy combatants", I suggest that you take your nation out of the Geneva Convention (that's right - unilaterally abandon the convention), and then write a new agreement that has trials for anyone captured.

Until then, you'll have to live with the treaty you signed and ratified.

If you don't like the administrative declaration of persons to be "enemy combatants", I suggest that you take your nation out of the Geneva Convention (that's right - unilaterally abandon the convention), and then write a new agreement that has trials for anyone captured.

Until then, you'll have to live with the treaty you signed and ratified.
you missed the point that this is not a war

you missed the point that this is not a war

It doesn't need to be an officially declared "war".

It only has to be detention in the course of "combat".

Read up.

you missed the point that this is not a war

you just don't get it; the imprisonments are ironic. bush is the greatest social comedian ever.

you just don't get it; the imprisonments are ironic. bush is the greatest social comedian ever.

Then he's using material written by Europeans as his script - the Geneva Conventions.

It doesn't need to be an officially declared "war".

It only has to be detention in the course of "combat".

Read up.
i guess we can literally detain whoever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want becuase there is always combat

Then he's using material written by Europeans as his script - the Geneva Conventions.
no, george bush has said the Geneva Convention does not apply to these people, but we should treat them like it does, hes pretending it doesnt exist so he can do whatever he wants, as usual

if there is a law or convention or something in the way, pretend it doesnt exist but at the same time insist you are following it

3) They are not American citizens and therefore American Constitution-given rights are not due to them.The constitution is not limited to US citizens. It is applicable to all the US government does to whoever and wherever.

i guess we can literally detain whoever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want becuase there is always combat

Unfortunately, yes. Especially US troops operating outside US territory.

I bet that the writers of the Geneva Convention didn't have any of this in mind when they agreed to the part about "enemy combatants".

Of course, this was written in the days when militaries all lined up in nice uniforms, and accepted surrender, etc.

Not when people ran around in civilian clothes and put bombs by the side of the road.

Unfortunately, yes. Especially US troops operating outside US territory.

I bet that the writers of the Geneva Convention didn't have any of this in mind when they agreed to the part about "enemy combatants".

Of course, this was written in the days when militaries all lined up in nice uniforms, and accepted surrender, etc.

Not when people ran around in civilian clothes and put bombs by the side of the road.
oh yeah there were no people using hit and run tactics in WWI or II, or anyone sneaking around out of uniform using explosives to kill foreign soldiers, there was no underground movements of unidenitifed characters that were trying to kill some one, no siree bob

:rolleyes:

oh yeah there were no people using hit and run tactics in WWI or II, or anyone sneaking around out of uniform using explosives to kill foreign soldiers, there was no underground movements of unidenitifed characters that were trying to kill some one, no siree bob

:rolleyes:

Yes there were. And usually, they were put against a convenient wall and shot without trial when captured.

All within the bounds of the Convention, as "enemy combatants".

Read the history books.

Yes there were. And usually, they were put against a convenient wall and shot without trial when captured.

All within the bounds of the Convention, as "enemy combatants".

Read the history books.
and now you change your tune as to what was going on. first you say people lined up in nice uniforms and foguht, then you sya there were people being shot as "enemy combatants", not that that matters anyway, the people they were fighting shot and killed civilians too.

and half the people we have imprisoned we actually have no proof they even are enemy combatants, ooh they are muslims, all muslims are the same, lets just go drop a bomb on that area over there somewhere with the muslims


well i have to go to school all damn day, ill be back and listen to the pied pipers new tune tonight sometime

and now you change your tune as to what was going on. first you say people lined up in nice uniforms and foguht, then you sya there were people being shot as "enemy combatants", not that that matters anyway, the people they were fighting shot and killed civilians too.

and half the people we have imprisoned we actually have no proof they even are enemy combatants, ooh they are muslims, all muslims are the same, lets just go drop a bomb on that area over there somewhere with the muslims


well i have to go to school all damn day, ill be back and listen to the pied pipers new tune tonight sometime

Hmm.. I'm trying to be facetious.

hmmm...liquidating an entire region or the Muslim religion...not a bad idea...

[/sarcasm]

Alright. Well sorry to jump Back in so late in the game.

I have a lot of responding in a very non-specific manner to do.

First I am going to flame CrazedMarine for an old post... You claim that your knowledge of Osama's command capabilities comes from a "Defense Analyst"? Umm.. Well in army terms that's a 96B (I don't know the Marine MOS identifier). And I hate to break it to ya but most (about 90%) of what an analyst knows is classified, at the SECRET and TOPSECRET levels. So, if this person was actually telling you factual information about OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) Then that person is up for a SAEDA (Subversion And Espionage Directed against the Army). That would be a serious act of treachery.
Reason I know this? I myself as I stated earlier am a 97E, an interrogator, and I know from personal experience just how much the classification stuff means. Information like what you allude to knowing... would not be known to most people period, even the soldiers working down range right next to the source of the information.

As for the whole deal with U.S. being a police force and all these supposed rules of the Geneva convention that most posters keep spouting... most of your "facts" are b.s. ...
But first to deal with the post about Bush saying that fair trials will not be granted to those in Gitmo... This is not to say that they will immediately be executed... Plain and Simple. The fair trial mandate stated by President Bush simply shuts down the clause that we Americans hold so dear, "Fair and Speedy". The prisoners will still be granted a reasonable ( I can't make a promise to FAIR) trial... eventually.

As to whether or not these people fall under the protections of the Geneva Convetion Articles? it depends... The primary people who fall under the protections are those in an obvious military uniform performing the obvious function, being subordinate to someone who is obviously in command... Please note the many obviouses. Those who don't fall under this category are either A) those in the care/religious category: Convention approved Medics/Doctors/Chaplains. they have their own penalties and benefits and protections (they are the only status that is not allowed to make escape attempts[ yes it is stated in the conventions that it is a captured persons DUTY to attempt to escape]). The next group is B) the detained status... this usually applies to people who dont fit the military category who were caught fighting or killing or any nefarious act in general... with a primary exception... Those captured as SPIES. This group is not protected AT ALL under the convention... those captured as spies (military dressed in civilian clothing doing intel work, or insurgent forces assisting military forces as an op recon force or doing spying for their own aims) are given a chance to prove they are not spies (usually in an interrogation booth, yes I have released several people that some infantry teams thought were spies, it's USUALLY an easy thing to identify) [PLEASE NOTE: I will not give specific information on many military things simply based on Classification.], after the attempt to prove innocence the spies may be charged for war crimes, if they are then they are put on a trial and if found guilty on ALL charges laid against them, summarily executed. If not guilty, they are free to go. If the persons are not charged with war crimes they are either executed based on evidence brought against them that is paramountly obvious to a point of no-doubt (the person was captured in the open with a bomb in hand making threats to blow the populace etc...) or they are let go after being interrogated for any information they may have regarding insurgent activity.

As to the whole deal about getting rid of a dictator who killed millions of people and starved his population and all that joyous stuff... umm need I say.. wasn't it the U.S. that set up said dictator?... food for thought..

Roger the part about those who raised up arms against us... thanks for the clarification.

Next on the agenda... please don't make statements about the Islamic religion like the one I noticed BackwoodsSquatches quoting... umm.. it doesn't even make sense... The Quran does not make those statements at all... The difficulty in reading the Quran is that it is not in chronological order in the slightest. I am a protestant but have read quite a bit of the Quran. As to the belief system... it claims Christ as a saint-like person. Not the prophecied son of God. Christ is a great example to follow, pretty much THE example to follow but this is not the form the messiah is to come in. That is that portion of the belief system.

Do the prisoners at Gitmo deserve a fair trial? You better believe it... Many of those people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong/right time. The difficulty in truly nailing who is/is not a terrorist/insurgent is that everyone in the Box is a potential combatant or at least a threat, even babies, pregnant women, 6 year old children with AK-74s/47s. (If you don't know the difference, the 74 is a 5.45-mm round and the 47 is the whopping 7.62-mm round.)

Just one thing I had to add..

"Read the History Books"? .. LOL, don't make me die of laughter...
History books are written by the victors...when it comes to current actions of humans.. take what you can rationally believe in, not just some hype some non-objective twit wrote.

Did I say he was an Army analyst? No, he's a civvy (kinda like a merc), and this was informally speaking therefore I'm not naming him. However, if you watch the History Channel's special on Cannons, he's there.

First I am going to flame CrazedMarine for an old post... You claim that your knowledge of Osama's command capabilities comes from a "Defense Analyst"? Umm.. Well in army terms that's a 96B (I don't know the Marine MOS identifier). And I hate to break it to ya but most (about 90%) of what an analyst knows is classified, at the SECRET and TOPSECRET levels. So, if this person was actually telling you factual information about OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) Then that person is up for a SAEDA (Subversion And Espionage Directed against the Army). That would be a serious act of treachery.


So Crazed Marine should do his patriotic duty and shoot his freind becuse he is committing treachery by telling things to crazed marine?
That would a true test of Crazed marines character. (sarcasm kinda)

dude. You do know that a lot of Classified stuff is on the internet. The reason that stuff is classified is because it is linked with other items. I mean, my ROTC commander gave me a good example. A pic of a Naval ship with its specific designation was classified, but he saw the exact same pic in Jane's the very same day, just telling the ship's class.

dude. You do know that a lot of Classified stuff is on the internet. The reason that stuff is classified is because it is linked with other items. I mean, my ROTC commander gave me a good example. A pic of a Naval ship with its specific designation was classified, but he saw the exact same pic in Jane's the very same day, just telling the ship's class.

ROTC ROFLMAO!

I'll give you a little hint. Classified stuff isn't on the Internet.

America, it is said by many people here, is the world's sole remaining Superpower. I disagree with this, but I'll leave my feelings on that matter to one side. If America is the world's sole remaining Superpower, what message does it convey to the rest of the world, especially to the developing world - not to mention US interests, when the world's sole remaining Superpower very publicly chooses to sidestep international treaties and conventions, and deny human beings basic rights when it suits their political whim?

If America really believed in the moral superiority of the 'Democracy' they wish to inflict on other people in other places, they'd be better off leading by example, thus fomenting the drive toward Democratic reforms from within. By invading, occupying, and establishing Banana-republic 'Democratic' governments, they're just pissing into the wind. At a very hefty cost to American taxpayers, by the way.

France did the same sort of thing after the French revolution. They called it 'Exporting Revolution'...and it was a bloody, nonsensical mess if ever there was one, with huge nembers of people dead for no reason but political whims (and dreams of empire, to be sure). All, if not most of, the countries France attacked eventually did become democracies of one sort or another, but not because of what France did, rather in spite of it. Democratization is a natural process, but it can't be effectively forced upon a people - they have to want change. It's not something you can just serve on a platter.

It's called acting in your own national self-interest, as you perceive it, not as external actors see it.

France did it. Britain did it. Germany did it. Hell, everyone did it and does it.

People are just pissed because they're not a superpower. If they were the only superpower, we would get their idea of a brave new world rammed down our throats.

It's called acting in your own national self-interest, as you perceive it, not as external actors see it.

France did it. Britain did it. Germany did it. Hell, everyone did it and does it.

People are just pissed because they're not a superpower. If they were the only superpower, we would get their idea of a brave new world rammed down our throats.

Wouldn't know, my country has never aspired to being a Superpower. So I'm not pissed we're not a Superpower. If we were, maybe I'd feel differently. But I'm not, so I don't.

Just 'cause everyone's done it is no proper excuse.

So, I assume you're french...or Australian


French military rifles for sale! All are super rare! Never been fired and only dropped once!

Wouldn't know, my country has never aspired to being a Superpower. So I'm not pissed we're not a Superpower. If we were, maybe I'd feel differently. But I'm not, so I don't.

Just 'cause everyone's done it is no proper excuse.

It's not an excuse. It's just to show why it's happenning.

I'm not sure that any nation could stop from behaving in their own national interest, given the power to do so. Can you name a point in history when a nation that had the power to rule the world consistently did not act in their own interest, but were completely altruistic?

And whose "other" interest could we act in, without making some other nation upset?

Assume whatever you'd like. All that matters is that there's a marked difference in perception going on here, and that we can glean things from our discussions, if not agree.

The important thing is to be able to see from different perspectives. I see the American perspective, and I understand it - though I disagree with it. I don't disagree because of some hatred for America - America has in its' grasp (and has had, for most of the 20th century) the means to set the moral & ethical standards for the rest of the planet. This could be a very good thing.

I'm not talking about arms, here. That too, America has had in plenty, and it could be easy to confuse one for the other, I suppose...but I'm talking about American economic and political power.

My sense is that, knowing of America's power to set that moral and ethical standard for the world, a willful extended clique of fundamentalist Americans have successfully hijacked the policy of this administration, if not the presidency itself. They are using America's position & power - military power certainly, even if political or economic power seem a little beyond them - to foist their own agenda upon a world increasingly ready to lash back at impositions from without.

Perilous-!

It's not an excuse. It's just to show why it's happenning.

I'm not sure that any nation could stop from behaving in their own national interest, given the power to do so. Can you name a point in history when a nation that had the power to rule the world consistently did not act in their own interest, but were completely altruistic?

And whose "other" interest could we act in, without making some other nation upset?

Why not strike a blow against the known? Be unique. Do it. That's how to build History. And that's how History remembers things best.

Why not strike a blow against the known? Be unique. Do it. That's how to build History. And that's how History remembers things best.

When nations don't act in their self-interest, they have the nasty habit of ceasing to exist.

Someone must have mentioned this by now, but a trial is how you ascertain guilt. If you don't have one, you don't know if the prisoner has actually commited a crime.

Someone must have mentioned this by now, but a trial is how you ascertain guilt. If you don't have one, you don't know if the prisoner has actually commited a crime.

The problem with this situation is that they are not accused of committing a crime. This is not a criminal justice situation. This is a military situation.

The treatment of prisoners (whether unarmed non-combatants, armed combatants, prisoners of war, or mercenaries) is covered by the Geneva Conventions.

In a war, when you capture a prisoner, he is a prisoner. That is his status. No trial is held to say, "well, we convict you of being an enemy soldier". Ever.

By the Conventions, it is possible (in fact quite easy) to interpret them to mean that they apply:

1. Only between High Contracting Parties (that is, signatories) or,
2. Only between a High Contracting Party and a non-signatory that indicates through public agreement and action that they are going to abide by the provisions of the Convention.

It is arguable then, that any Iraqi prisoner of any kind should be protected by the Convention. And so the US failed to make this clear, and the policies of Guantanamo came over and became unofficial policy - and now some people are being smoked like cheap cigars for that failure (not that any one but the lowest will get smoked).

But, it is also clearly arguable that any Taliban or al-Qaeda prisoner is a member of a non-signatory and by their continuing actions (taking hostages, attacking civilians as their primary target, killing hostages, and in combat in Afghanistan - not taking prisoners) they are not agreeing to the Convention, that they should not be subject to the protection of the Convention. Rumsfeld announced that they would be subject to the protections of the Convention, but it is unclear if the US ascribes to Protocol I and II which came in 1977 (a lot of nations don't subscribe to these, or interpret them differently).

If you're caught by the US, make sure you're caught by FBI on US soil, and not by military troops outside the US.

Someone must have mentioned this by now, but a trial is how you ascertain guilt. If you don't have one, you don't know if the prisoner has actually commited a crime.
No man. The US assigns guilt.

Do they deserve any rights? No. Should they get rights? Yes.


We are no better then they are if we play on their level.
Well said. That is why everybody was so outraged at Abu Ghraib.

No man. The US assigns guilt.

I see. Guilt is assigned in the US, rather than ascertained. Gotcha.

I see. Guilt is assigned in the US, rather than ascertained. Gotcha.

I think you need to go back and read my post. It's not a criminal justice matter, so there isn't the concept of guilt.

Read your Geneva Conventions, especially the first one.

And my whole point is that the terrorists nor the Iraqis/Afghans signed the Treaty, therefore it doesn't apply to them.

It's called acting in your own national self-interest, as you perceive it, not as external actors see it.
Like terrorists do you mean? And Saddam?

France did it. Britain did it. Germany did it. Hell, everyone did it and does it.
Oh I see, a list with others or do the same or worse makes evil ok, I guess after Hitler, Jack the Ripper is just about ready to be cannonised?

People are just pissed because they're not a superpower. If they were the only superpower, we would get their idea of a brave new world rammed down our throats.
Not necessarily, you see some people actually do more than pay lip service to ideas such as liberty (you know the one now being touted as excuse for the invasion), not everyone is a hypocrite you know...some of us actually walk as we talk...

I see. Guilt is assigned in the US, rather than ascertained. Gotcha.
Yeah. The imPOTUS has this big golden book in which he writes who has been naughty and nice.