NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like not all the Congressmen and Senators want Gitmo closed down. There are some who realize just how dangerous those people are.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160036,00.html

Here is an excerpt from the article for those of you who don't want to take the time to read the whole thing. However, you should read all of it.

"Of the people that we've released, we've captured a number of them or killed a number of them back on the battlefield in Afghanistan," Hunter, R-Calif., told FOX News on Sunday. "The question is, are we liberal enough in the application of our standards that determine who we release back into the world. I think some American parents who have kids out there would argue we're too liberal."

Citing a memo prepared for him by his staff, Hunter proceeded to discuss some of the at least 10 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, only to re-join the fight against the U.S. coalition bringing democracy to Afghanistan.

Methinks the Senator might be right.

I think he's right too. These aren't the average crooks, they're dangerous criminals that will stop at nothing to attack the U.S. and civilians to serve their pathetic desires.

They should be locked up and kept there.

So, what you're saying is that after years of incarceration and torture, the DoD STILL can't get enough information out of these people to figure out which ones are terrorists?



What is this supposed to be indicitive of besides the uselessness of the tactics in use there?

So, what you're saying is that after years of incarceration and torture, the DoD STILL can't get enough information out of these people to figure out which ones are terrorists?



What is this supposed to be indicitive of besides the uselessness of the tactics in use there?

Years of incarcaration, yes. Torture, no. And this thread is not about torture, it is about what several of the prisoners have done after their release, and what others will do if they are released.

If I remember correctly from watching the report in FOX (which I detest, but they have alot of N. Holloway coverage) they had recaptured three people. I don't know if you have newer or better information, but three people, who went back to Afghanistan to fight, does not seem very threatening.
However, I do understand that there is a big potential for other 'detainees' to do more nefarious things than that, and think that they should remain in the Pokey.
We might as well give them EPW status, because although we can no longer torture them at that point, we cannot release them until the end of the conflict. (Which may be never.)
But doing so would make people happier that we are playing by the rules, and I think that we would gain more than we lose by doing so.

If I remember correctly from watching the report in FOX (which I detest, but they have alot of N. Holloway coverage) they had recaptured three people. I don't know if you have newer or better information, but three people, who went back to Afghanistan to fight, does not seem very threatening.

Read the article sir, at least 10 and I'm sure the Senator's information is up to date.

We might as well give them EPW status, because although we can no longer torture them at that point, we cannot release them until the end of the conflict.

We can not give them EPW status because under the Geneva Convention they do not qualify for that status.

Since when do I qualify as a sir? :-) I haven't gone to OCS!
Read the article more thoroughly, saw the ten, and still stick to my argument.
As far as EPW status, they do apply, according to Part 1, Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions (www.genevaconventions.org).

[Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (i.e. the Taliban or volunteers who come to fight with them)

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

It is in this part that it gets sticky. I would say that the whole 'fixed distinctive sign' phrase, as it is under the OTHER MILITIAS designation, means exactly that, other groups not belonging to the Party referenced in Section 1. But I suppose that better people than I come to a different conclusion. But hey, I get points for looking it up. Right?

And even if we could not, would anyone complain if we gave them a better status than what they have/deserve? The whole reason we store them at Gitmo is to keep them out of CONUS, where no state representative on a mission can get all pissy for having them in her/his jurisdiction. Plus, being on a Naval base on the island of a perpetual enemy is about as far away from prying eyes as you can get.
If this whole war on terror is so important, then why not make everything is upfront? Show the proof, show the evidence, give them fair trials, and make an actual, real case for war and move on with it! Why all the constant secrecy? Does the government not trust us to make up our own minds?

Since when do I qualify as a sir? :-) I haven't gone to OCS!

I'm sorry, perhaps I should have said Madam, but I was taught to be polite and didn't kn ow if you were male or female. Please excuse my political incorrectness.

[Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (i.e. the Taliban or volunteers who come to fight with them)

(2) [U]Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having ; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They don't meet the requirements. They were not a member of a recognized malitia, they definatly did not have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance", and were not conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They do not meet the requirements of the Convention.

I think he's right too. These aren't the average crooks, they're dangerous criminals that will stop at nothing to attack the U.S. and civilians to serve their pathetic desires.

They should be locked up and kept there.
Why there are some innocents at Gitmo:
http://fapfap.org/innocent.php

They don't meet the requirements. They were not a member of a recognized malitia, they definatly did not have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance", and were not conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
And we have justified it by making a distinction between "terrorism" and "war", though the Geneva Convention makes no such distinction.

So out of the multitudes we've released, ten have since confirmed themselves to be hard-core terrorists eh? So...What about the multitudes who didn't turn around and attack the US?

Wrongful imprisonment? Or did we simply convince them to be good? Must we lock up 500 innocents for every 10 bad guys? Kind of a lackluster screening system; its almost as if our methods of obtaining intelligence were ineffective.

Nobody's guilty of anything; nobody's had a trial yet. You can call a person anything; it's another thing to prove that a person is something. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is not just a phrase, it's a universal human right.

Until I see DNA evidence that the people in Guatanamo Bay do not belong to the species of homo sapiens sapiens, I will be waiting for them to be proven guilty in accordance with this right.

And we have justified it by making a distinction between "terrorism" and "war", though the Geneva Convention makes no such distinction.

No, we are fighting a "war on terrorism."

So out of the multitudes we've released, ten have since confirmed themselves to be hard-core terrorists eh? So...What about the multitudes who didn't turn around and attack the US?

We have not released "multitudes." Some of those who were released are still in custody in their home countries.

I just wanna know why soldiers on the other side are now called "terrorists"?
Yes, they were fighting for the Taliban, yes they may also have been fighting for Al Qaeda.
But that only makes them fighters, not terrorists. They didn't commit, nor did they, the individuals specifically, plan to commit acts of terrorism.
I just think classifying them as anything other than soldiers and prisoners of war is wrong. Even if they're only part of a paramilitary organisation, they still deserve to be treated with respect and to keep their dignity.
Apart from the fact that pretty much everyone in X-Ray that wasn't a simple footsoldier is just people that they picked up randomly because they looked like they shouldn't have been there, like Mamdouh Habib from Australia. Kept there for two years or so, apparently sent to Egypt for torture, mistreated in Afghanistan (they picked him up in Pakistan) and then sent home without a charge or anything.
Not even an apology.
There's gotta be an American who thinks that is just a little bit too cynical to be excused.

We have not released "multitudes." Some of those who were released are still in custody in their home countries.

Last I heard we had released about 200. As for the Senator on FOX news, "a number of..." could easily be zero. "Killed or captured" could easily mean that a carbomb blew up right next to them and a bunch of American soldiers, or that they were arrested on as specious grounds as they were the first time.

I don't trust anything on FOX news as even being technically true, but misleading. When something is said in so vague a way (for a politician) that it could mean anything, it means exactly nothing.

We have not released "multitudes." Some of those who were released are still in custody in their home countries.

From the article...

"Currently, 545 detainees are housed at Gitmo, most of them members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their related terror groups. An additional 146 have been released and 62 have been handed over to other governments, according to the memo."

So...10 confirmed die-hards out of the 146 released.

So...what about the remaining 136? The 'too liberal' stance seems a little unusual, considering that less than 10% re-offend. Hell, US jails the rate is 30-60% reoffending right now, depending on the area.

(Multitudes is a great word, it simply means "A number, more than a few." Thus, 146 fits the definition nicely)

No, we are fighting a "war on terrorism."

"War on Terror" is just a catchphrase. Like Reagan's "war on drugs," or LBJ's "war on poverty." It isn't a real war. You can't wage a real war on a tactic. Otherwise WWII would have been the "war on naval engagements," and Vietnam the "war on jungle camoflage."

From the article...

"Currently, 545 detainees are housed at Gitmo, most of them members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their related terror groups. An additional 146 have been released and 62 have been handed over to other governments, according to the memo."

So...10 confirmed die-hards out of the 146 released.

So...what about the remaining 136? The 'too liberal' stance seems a little unusual, considering that less than 10% re-offend. Hell, US jails the rate is 30-60% reoffending right now, depending on the area.

(Multitudes is a great word, it simply means "A number, more than a few." Thus, 146 fits the definition nicely)

Wow. 90% don't go into terrorism? That's a shockingly good number. I think if I were from the middle east and had managed to go my whole life without joining a terrorist organization and then got dragged half way around the world by American soldiers and locked in a cage for 3 years with no contact with my friends or family or even a chance to let them know I was alive, the first thing I'd do when I got home would be to sign up for one of the groups that I hadn't bothered joining before.

Or look at it from the other side. If the French government were suddenly strong enough to go arresting American citizens against our governments wishes, and they did so to you, don't you think you'd be looking for some anti France organizations when you got home?

they're dangerous criminals that will stop at nothing to attack the U.S. and civilians to serve their pathetic desires.
Every single one of them? If they are such dangerous crooks, then the government needs to get off its ass, find out which ones are terrorists, and prosecute those. Keeping people locked up is fine, but they all have the right to a trial.

(Multitudes is a great word, it simply means "A number, more than a few."

Not quite and I don't think 146 qualifies.

mul·ti·tude Audio pronunciation of "multitude" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mlt-td, -tyd)
n.

1. The condition or quality of being numerous.
2. A very great number.
3. The masses; the populace: the concerns of the multitude.

"War on Terror" is just a catchphrase. Like Reagan's "war on drugs," or LBJ's "war on poverty." It isn't a real war.

People are being killed and you don't think it is a real war? Please, define "real war" for me.

People are being killed and you don't think it is a real war? Please, define "real war" for me.

Would this do:

1 a conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force between countries or other large-scale armed groups. The warring parties hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organisation which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war.
2 (civil war) an armed conflict between two or more different factions within the same country.
3 (rhetorical) a campaign against something. E.g., the war on drugs is a campaign against the use of narcotic drugs; the war on terror is a campaign against terrorist crime.

Note that 3 is rhetorical and in order to make sense has to be defined in the context of 1, which it cannot be.

Not quite and I don't think 146 qualifies.

mul·ti·tude Audio pronunciation of "multitude" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mlt-td, -tyd)
n.

1. The condition or quality of being numerous.
2. A very great number.
3. The masses; the populace: the concerns of the multitude.

A limited definition, technically a multitude is that number which is greater than one - being multiple, as it were.

Not quite and I don't think 146 qualifies.

mul·ti·tude Audio pronunciation of "multitude" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mlt-td, -tyd)
n.

1. The condition or quality of being numerous.
2. A very great number.
3. The masses; the populace: the concerns of the multitude.

146 is not a very great number? Try throwing a party in your home with 146 people sometime. Its a multitude...perhaps two multitudes ;).

(Honestly doesn't care about semantics like this.)

:sniper: :sniper: I believe that we should release those folks being held at Guantanemo to half-way houses. To be sure properly funded and staffed half-way houses. :headbang: :headbang: Like for example all of those legislators that want to release them should take them in to ensure that they receive proper trreatment. :mp5: :mp5:

Would this do:

No. Try this:war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

Pay particular attention to 1.1. The war on terrorism is a real war.

146 is not a very great number? Try throwing a party in your home with 146 people sometime. Its a multitude...perhaps two multitudes ;).

(Honestly doesn't care about semantics like this.)

That would be one hell of a good pary. :eek:

Pay particular attention to 1.1. The war on terrorism is a real war.

The fact that we can both find definitions of war to suit our position proves that it's not a clear cut issue. Certainly a "war" is being prosecuted against terrorism, but as terrorism is not a place, a peoples, a specified organisation or anything of that sort it cannot be considered a "real" war.

"War on Terror" is just a catchphrase. Like Reagan's "war on drugs," or LBJ's "war on poverty." It isn't a real war. You can't wage a real war on a tactic. Otherwise WWII would have been the "war on naval engagements," and Vietnam the "war on jungle camoflage."
Thanks for pointing that very salient point out.

And Celtlund--California's two senators are Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, the latter of which I voted for last year. Duncan Hunter is a member of the House, and a not particularly distinguished one either. Just FYI.

That would be one hell of a good party. :eek:

Yeah, it would :)

...Unless it was the 146 we were just discussing. Extremists rarely make good dancers. ;)

Guantanamo is a Perpetual Motion Machine in the "War on Terror." It detains people who are labelled terrorists without proof, mentally and emotionally abuses them if not physically, then when they've exhausted every excuse to try and extract any useful information release them back home where they've become so embittered by the experience that they do actually sign up for terrorist organizations.

Much like a self-fulfilling prophecy, the "War on Terror" creates more terrorists that it can fight.

Looks like not all the Congressmen and Senators want Gitmo closed down. There are some who realize just how dangerous those people are.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160036,00.html

Here is an excerpt from the article for those of you who don't want to take the time to read the whole thing. However, you should read all of it.

"Of the people that we've released, we've captured a number of them or killed a number of them back on the battlefield in Afghanistan," Hunter, R-Calif., told FOX News on Sunday. "The question is, are we liberal enough in the application of our standards that determine who we release back into the world. I think some American parents who have kids out there would argue we're too liberal."

Citing a memo prepared for him by his staff, Hunter proceeded to discuss some of the at least 10 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, only to re-join the fight against the U.S. coalition bringing democracy to Afghanistan.

Methinks the Senator might be right.

FFS, either they are POWs, terrorists, or innocent...charge them, or let them go - it's that simple. No one has the right to just indefintely hold people without charging them.

It's no better than American POWs who were held illegally in Vietnam for years after the war ended...

FFS, either they are POWs, terrorists, or innocent...charge them, or let them go - it's that simple. No one has the right to just indefintely hold people without charging them.

You don't release enemy combatants until the conflict is over. That's always been the case in war. Whether it takes a single year or 50, America has the right to hold those people captive until Al Qaeda either wins or surrenders.

You don't release enemy combatants until the conflict is over. That's always been the case in war. Whether it takes a single year or 50, America has the right to hold those people captive until Al Qaeda either wins or surrenders.

In a war that has been stated to have no end, this might prove problematic. Considering Al qaeda has no right nor ability to surrender as a group, nor can they realisticly "win" in any measurable way (they cannot take or hold ground as such)...This argument is bankrupt of reason.

So, what you're saying is that after years of incarceration and torture, the DoD STILL can't get enough information out of these people to figure out which ones are terrorists?

What is this supposed to be indicitive of besides the uselessness of the tactics in use there?

Hmm. They've release 240 of them. I suppose that means that they were pretty close on who was a terrorist.

Of course, it has helped that some of them have adamantly claimed that they are al-Q, and can't wait to destroy America.

You don't release enemy combatants until the conflict is over. That's always been the case in war. Whether it takes a single year or 50, America has the right to hold those people captive until Al Qaeda either wins or surrenders.
But are they combatants? I thought the USA admin had gone to pains not to have them classified as prisoners of war, to get around rights issues...

But are they combatants? I thought the USA admin had gone to pains not to have them classified as prisoners of war, to get around rights issues...

An enemy combatant is not a prisoner of war.

If you read your Geneva Conventions, specifically Convention I, Article 2, in its entirety, the only people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions are soldiers fighting for a signatory of the Conventions (i.e., a High Contracting Party), or soldiers fighting for a party who has publicly expressed a willingness to abide by the strictures of the Conventions, and has demonstrated it by actually abiding by them.

Well, in this case, none of the Taliban or al-Qaeda conform to this.

Additionally, the soldiers in question must adopt a standard uniform, or must adopt a standard highly visible emblem, to identify them as soldiers. They must also have a publicly known chain of command. Once again, none of these are the case.

Technically, they are not entitled to any Geneva Convention protections at all. They fall through the cracks, so to speak.

It appears that under the Hague Conventions, we find them in complete violation of the laws of war - because they do not wear uniforms, and they attack civilians (terrorists preferentially attack civilians). Under rules that go back as far as the 18th century when dealing with piracy on the high seas, these detainees fall into the crack of "brigand" or "armed combatant".

Technically, these detainees have the same Geneva protections as a spy, saboteur, or soldier captured out of uniform - that is, they could have legally been shot on the spot without a trial - the soldiers who "captured" them were under no legal requirement to accept the surrender of spies, saboteurs, soldiers out of uniform, mercenaries, or brigands.

So they have defined them as "enemy combatant" or "armed combatant" since they definitely are not soldiers in the conventional sense. And, in a nod to the Geneva Conventions, under pressure the Bush administration has decided to try (with limited success) to adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

"Of the people that we've released, we've captured a number of them or killed a number of them back on the battlefield in Afghanistan,"

Most credible critics aren't arguing that it should be closed down, but that we should have real trials to see if we actually caught someone that did something. I like the word "number". It doesn't say how many, but let's assume it means most of them. That means that some haven't gone over to killing Americans. I'm sorry, but arresting people and detaining them in case they might kill Americans is arrogant and wrong. It's reminiscent of the Nazi idea to "Arrest 10 innocents rather than let one guilty man get away".

-snip-
You know, the Geneva Convention wasn't made to somehow hurt America. You don't have to go to all these lengths just to get around it.

It's Game Theory. As long as both sides play fair everyone wins, but as soon as one cheats, he'll get heaps of rewards. In the short term (for you guys it's the gratification you apparently get from seeing a Muslim suffer).
And then the other side cheats too and both lose. Until the end of time.

You are digging your own grave here. How dare you ever say anything bad about someone who captures a US-Soldier (or civilian, in which case it's an unlawful enemy something - they can figure that out) decides to just like that pull out all his/her toenails with rusty tongs.

You know, the Geneva Convention wasn't made to somehow hurt America. You don't have to go to all these lengths just to get around it.

It's Game Theory. As long as both sides play fair everyone wins, but as soon as one cheats, he'll get heaps of rewards. In the short term (for you guys it's the gratification you apparently get from seeing a Muslim suffer).
And then the other side cheats too and both lose. Until the end of time.

You are digging your own grave here. How dare you ever say anything bad about someone who captures a US-Soldier (or civilian, in which case it's an unlawful enemy something - they can figure that out) decides to just like that pull out all his/her toenails with rusty tongs.


I'm not going to any lengths "just to get around it". It's right there, in black and white.

You will notice that before any of this happened, they already violated the laws of war. Hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings isn't an accepted practice from a legal standpoint.

The problem is that we have the technological capability to eliminate them at any time. It is merely a matter of will and logistics, not of physical capability.

No, I don't want to see them suffer. But I do want the problem to be solved in my lifetime. I predict that if there is another major attack on the US, the US will definitely move to a final solution - the political climate will demand it.

I predict that if there is another major attack on the US, the US will definitely move to a final solution - the political climate will demand it.
How about you call it "Endlösung" then?

The spirit in which the Convention is written is clear. When it was written, there was no terror network like Al Qaeda, and therefore it isn't covered. You are violating the spirit of the law, which is really the same as breaking the law itself. You are doing something wrong, whether the law states it or not.

The people you captured and put into this gulag (hehe) are not the hijackers. They are fighters/soldiers on the other side. They aren't terrorists either, they haven't commited terrorist acts, nor have they planned to do so. They merely defended their camps and cities against a foreign invasion. How does that justify doing this to them?

How about you call it "Endlösung" then?

The spirit in which the Convention is written is clear. When it was written, there was no terror network like Al Qaeda, and therefore it isn't covered. You are violating the spirit of the law, which is really the same as breaking the law itself. You are doing something wrong, whether the law states it or not.

The people you captured and put into this gulag (hehe) are not the hijackers. They are fighters/soldiers on the other side. They aren't terrorists either, they haven't commited terrorist acts, nor have they planned to do so. They merely defended their camps and cities against a foreign invasion. How does that justify doing this to them?

I'd be glad to be Heydrich, and hold a little conference, in this case. It is, after all, the ultimate end of this sort of conflict - one started by them, with the aim of eliminating us. Osama has written (in fact, he has paraphrased Zangi) that there will be no quarter given, no surrender allowed, no conversion allowed, and no negotiation allowed with Americans. That the ultimate aim is to destroy America and to kill its inhabitants.

He wrote this long before Bush was in office. The men we captured were in training camps, being trained so that they could leave Afghanistan and wreak havoc worldwide.

How are you going to negotiate with men who are indoctrinated with the idea that there will be no negotiation, no quarter, and no surrender?

I might add that in the case of international law, and the Geneva Conventions, there is no "spirit" of the law.

The law reads as it reads. And historical precedence argues very strongly against a reading that implies a "spirit" of the law.

Perhaps we could add up the numbers. Let us count the ghosts of millions of people whose surrender was not accepted, on the ground that they were armed, fighting, and not in uniform. Perhaps accused of being spies, saboteurs, mercenaries, etc. - but not given a trial.

I have photos of UK troops in WW II beating and then shooting German snipers - because the snipers were caught wearing camouflage smocks - which were not considered by the UK to be standard uniforms. As such, their commanding officers refused to accept the surrenders and let the men abuse and kill them - and no one was EVER prosecuted, nor will they be.

I suggest to you that your "spirit" of the Geneva Convention is an absurdity beyond compare.

You know, if I listen to you, maybe hope for humanity is lost afterall.
One wants to be Heydrich, the other one is proud that they slowly butchered what could very well have been my grandfather.
I'm so proud of you right now.

You know, if I listen to you, maybe hope for humanity is lost afterall.
One wants to be Heydrich, the other one is proud that they slowly butchered what could very well have been my grandfather.
I'm so proud of you right now.

There is a difference between a people who were just trying to live their lives and had committed no crime at all (the Jews), and another people who have dedicated their lives to destroy Western civilization at all costs.

Should we then do what the French did? Is that your argument? That self-defense at all costs is immoral? That just because we want to avoid losing a few buildings in a city, we should surrender? That because we don't want to kill anyone in self-defense, or incarcerate their fighters forever, we should surrender?

That is the logic of your position. In that case, the terrorists have already won. And they will kill us despite our surrender.

This is not just war. This is war to the knife. If you can't understand that our very survival is at stake, then you need to take another look around.

This is not just war. This is war to the knife. If you can't understand that our very survival is at stake, then you need to take another look around.
*takes another look around*
.
.
.
*shrugs his shoulders, shakes his head and leaves*

Your defence of a lot of America's crimes seems to be 'but Al-Qaeda do it too.'

If you hate what these terrorists do so much then why are you emulating them?

...Considering Al qaeda has no right nor ability to surrender as a group, nor can they realisticly "win" in any measurable way (they cannot take or hold ground as such)...

You just made the point for not classifying them as POW's. Thank you.

But are they combatants? I thought the USA admin had gone to pains not to have them classified as prisoners of war, to get around rights issues...

Nooo, quite the opposite.

The people you captured and put into this gulag (hehe) are not the hijackers. They are fighters/soldiers on the other side. They aren't terrorists either, they haven't commited terrorist acts, nor have they planned to do so. They merely defended their camps and cities against a foreign invasion. How does that justify doing this to them?

Al Qaeda is just a social club consisting of a group of fun loving Muslims who get together for Friday prayer and social activities. They ran summer camps in Afghanistan for poor Muslim kids from around the world so they could teach the kids about their faith and survival skills. Some of the kids went for a joy ride in an airplane on 911 and accidentally crashed them into some buildings in the US.

The Taliban were friends of Al Qaeda. They provided them with the summer camps and nice lodgings in the caves in the mountains. The Taliban’s favorite sport was beating and killing women in the soccer stadium. They were just trying to teach the women how to respect the men.

Yeh, right! :mad:

Your defence of a lot of America's crimes seems to be 'but Al-Qaeda do it too.'

If you hate what these terrorists do so much then why are you emulating them?


Please take the time to actually READ what Whispering Legs wrote. Never once did he say 'well, Al-Qaeda does it too', so I don't know where you get off on saying that.

Secondly, Whispering Legs has said it best. There is no 'spirit' of the Geneva Convention, and combatants that do not fall under any 'protected' category of the Geneva Convention are NOT protected by it.

Terrorists, insurgents, spies, saboteurs, mercenaries, and any irregular fighter DOES NOT fall under any Convention protected status, PERIOD. And if you don't think that terrorism has been around for a long time, think again. In the 18th century, anyone not wearing a bright uniform and not fighting face to face was considered a 'terrorist' (they didn't use that word, but the same meaning applies).

So far, Whispering Legs has pretty much nailed the coffin shut on this thread. Stating the literal meaning of the Geneva Convention and stating that these people do not fall under any protected status is just about as much as you can say. It's pretty hard to refute what he says because it's all there in black and white. Read it (Geneva Convention) if you don't believe me.

Your defence of a lot of America's crimes seems to be 'but Al-Qaeda do it too.'

If you hate what these terrorists do so much then why are you emulating them?

Obviously, you haven't read my posts.

Please take the time to actually READ what Whispering Legs wrote. Never once did he say 'well, Al-Qaeda does it too', so I don't know where you get off on saying that.

Secondly, Whispering Legs has said it best. There is no 'spirit' of the Geneva Convention, and combatants that do not fall under any 'protected' category of the Geneva Convention are NOT protected by it.

Terrorists, insurgents, spies, saboteurs, mercenaries, and any irregular fighter DOES NOT fall under any Convention protected status, PERIOD. And if you don't think that terrorism has been around for a long time, think again. In the 18th century, anyone not wearing a bright uniform and not fighting face to face was considered a 'terrorist' (they didn't use that word, but the same meaning applies).

So far, Whispering Legs has pretty much nailed the coffin shut on this thread. Stating the literal meaning of the Geneva Convention and stating that these people do not fall under any protected status is just about as much as you can say. It's pretty hard to refute what he says because it's all there in black and white. Read it (Geneva Convention) if you don't believe me.
Seeing as the GC were written when countries fought countries, I can understand how you thing they do not apply. You are effectively waging war against a criminal organisation. This is a police action, not a war. I still don't get how you can consider this a conventionnal war. It was mentionned before in this thread but it bears repeating: you cannot fight a noun.

Seeing as the GC were written when countries fought countries, I can understand how you thing they do not apply. You are effectively waging war against a criminal organisation. This is a police action, not a war. I still don't get how you can consider this a conventionnal war. It was mentionned before in this thread but it bears repeating: you cannot fight a noun.

I DON'T consider it a conventional war, the actions of the terrorists made it non-conventional the day they flew planes into the WTC.

I DON'T consider it a conventional war, the actions of the terrorists made it non-conventional the day they flew planes into the WTC.
A criminal act of terrorism. NOT an act of war.

Seeing as the GC were written when countries fought countries, I can understand how you thing they do not apply. You are effectively waging war against a criminal organisation. This is a police action, not a war. I still don't get how you can consider this a conventionnal war. It was mentionned before in this thread but it bears repeating: you cannot fight a noun.

No, at the time they were captured we were fighting a war in Afghanistan. They were captured on the battlefield. They are not criminals but illegal combatants.

A criminal act of terrorism. NOT an act of war.
There are later adjustments to the Geneva Conventions added in the 1970s, but not ratified by all nations, that deal with insurgents fighting within the territory of a High Contracting Party - but nothing dealing with insurgents fighting across international boundaries.

If you treat the whole al-Qaeda thing as a criminal endeavor, you're going to fail to wipe it out.

We've probably assassinated far more al-Q people than we have captured or kidnapped around the world. Police can't do that.

Of course, we hear human rights organizations cry about the detentions - but I haven't heard too much about the assassinations.

I guess that sort of thing is difficult to report on. The reporter would have to be there when the people were whacked without a trial.

A criminal act of terrorism. NOT an act of war.

An attack by foreigners on the US is an act of war. :headbang:

No, at the time they were captured we were fighting a war in Afghanistan. They were captured on the battlefield. They are not criminals but illegal combatants.
Well, then, they rose up spontaneously to fight an invader. They are allowed to do that under GC.

An attack by foreigners on the US is an act of war. :headbang:
Oh please :rolleyes:

By that rationale, you should be at war with Saudi Arabia. not to mention that a criminal act is not an attack.

Well, then, they rose up spontaneously to fight an invader. They are allowed to do that under GC.

Only if they are native Afghan.

If they are Arabs or Chechens (which the al-Q people are), they are by definition mercenaries.

A criminal act of terrorism. NOT an act of war.


When it is sanctioned or supported by a government, it IS an act of war. Why do you think we attacked the Taliban? Hm?

When it is sanctioned or supported by a government, it IS an act of war. Why do you think we attacked the Taliban? Hm?
Was it?

I don't recall so. I specifically recall they didn't want to hand over al-quaeda operatives, but not that they sanctionned the attacks.

Was it?

I don't recall so. I specifically recall they didn't want to hand over al-quaeda operatives, but not that they sanctionned the attacks.

*sigh*

The Taliban was housing terrorists and terrorist training camps. Therefore the Taliban was directly tied to the terrorists, wether the Taliban ordered the attack or not. This makes them an accessory, and as with murder, rape, and other 'violent crime' cases they too are just as guilty.

By helping and housing the terrorists the Taliban made themselves just as guilty as the terrorists that flew the planes into the WTC. If you fail to see this logic then I'm not going to waste my time or efforts futher explaining it to you.

*sigh*

The Taliban was housing terrorists and terrorist training camps. Therefore the Taliban was directly tied to the terrorists, wether the Taliban ordered the attack or not. This makes them an accessory, and as with murder, rape, and other 'violent crime' cases they too are just as guilty.

By helping and housing the terrorists the Taliban made themselves just as guilty as the terrorists that flew the planes into the WTC. If you fail to see this logic then I'm not going to waste my time or efforts futher explaining it to you.

And what international court or body proved that

a. Al-Qaida flew the planes into WTC
b. that the Taliban were accessories

We killed more innoccents when we attacked Afghanistan then how many died in WTC. This cycle of violence only contributed to more attacks in the future on America.

You can not act unilateraly. By doing so, you justify others doing the same against you.

Well, then, they rose up spontaneously to fight an invader. They are allowed to do that under GC.

Sure. If you say so, I guess that's right. :D

*sigh*

Are we being sucked in by a Troll, or is EC just a little slow?

And what international court or body proved that

a. Al-Qaida flew the planes into WTC

Don't need a court, Al-Q admitted it and took credit for it. That proved it.

b. that the Taliban were accessories

Don't need a court, they were accessories as they refused to give Al-Q up so we could try them. That proved that.

We killed more innoccents when we attacked Afghanistan then how many died in WTC.

Not at all true unless you consider the Talaban and Al Q as innocent.

This cycle of violence only contributed to more attacks in the future on America.

So we should have gone over there, held their hands and sang Kumbya?

You can not act unilateraly.

We did not act unilateraly. There are NATO troops involved in Afghanistan, and allied troops in Iraq.

Don't need a court, Al-Q admitted it and took credit for it. That proved it.

untrue



Don't need a court, they were accessories as they refused to give Al-Q up so we could try them. That proved that.


Since the above is untrue, this statement is null.



Not at all true unless you consider the Talaban and Al Q as innocent.


Not true, over 3000 civilans died from our so called smart bombs.


So we should have gone over there, held their hands and sang Kumbya?


No, but if we can actually figure out why the hell people are intent on fighting aganist us, it might go a long way into figuring out what we can do to stop it, rather then continuing the cycle of violence.


We did not act unilateraly. There are NATO troops involved in Afghanistan, and allied troops in Iraq.

The only other troops that are in either Afghan or Iraq are those that America bribed or threatened into coming with us.

untrue

Since the above is untrue, this statement is null.

Not true, over 3000 civilans died from our so called smart bombs.

No, but if we can actually figure out why the hell people are intent on fighting aganist us, it might go a long way into figuring out what we can do to stop it, rather then continuing the cycle of violence.

The only other troops that are in either Afghan or Iraq are those that America bribed or threatened into coming with us.

Well, a person cannot argue with someone who is uneducated, mentally incapacitated, brainwashed, or brain-dead. So I won't. I know that's cold, but anyone who does not know that Al Q admitted and took credit for 911 either wasn't born at the time or is very likely one of the above. How sad.

Oh, yes I have broken my own rule of only attacking the argument but not the individual. However, there is no argument here.

Well, a person cannot argue with someone who is uneducated, mentally incapacitated, brainwashed, or brain-dead. So I won't. I know that's cold, but anyone who does not know that Al Q admitted and took credit for 911 either wasn't born at the time or is very likely one of the above. How sad.

Oh, yes I have broken my own rule of only attacking the argument but not the individual. However, there is no argument here.

This is usually what someone does, when they have no argument left.

Well, a person cannot argue with someone who is uneducated, mentally incapacitated, brainwashed, or brain-dead. So I won't. I know that's cold, but anyone who does not know that Al Q admitted and took credit for 911 either wasn't born at the time or is very likely one of the above. How sad.

Oh, yes I have broken my own rule of only attacking the argument but not the individual. However, there is no argument here.

Well, I'll admit the induvidual you are arguing with may be refusing to face facts. Still, Bin Laden DID play coy with admiting a role in 9/11 remember; claiming that he supported those who did it but did not actively participate. That is a distinction, and technically, if he were innocent of involvement with the 9/11 hijackings, the US couldn't convict him for it. (He is admitted to being guilty of a litany of other crimes, so that's not a big deal.)

But yeah, this poster is being a bit obtuse. Actually, I'm seeing parallels to the language that the Taliban used before the US attacked. The Taliban dragged its feet on the issue of extridition, eventually stating that it would "ask Al-queda to leave"

Within the context of the culture, that's fairly rude for a host to kick out a guest seeking sanctuary. But the US was in no mood for diplomacy, games, and honestly was looking for an excuse to kick the Taliban's butt too. They had been a thorn in the international community's side for a long time.

Thus when the US went in, nobody really complained about Afganistan; the Taliban had managed to normalize relations with a grand total of 3 other nations in its entire reign. And most of those nations were in no mood to back the Taliban against the US; like Pakistan. Pakistan's government was in turn well rewarded for its stance as mediator and supporter of US activities.

The only other troops that are in either Afghan or Iraq are those that America bribed or threatened into coming with us.
In Iraq that is true, but in Afghanistan (which is a UN-sanctioned operation - the only reason I'm okay with this revenge attack) there are troops from many nations that were neither threatened or bribed, but that are there to help the civilians.
Germany comes to mind.

Are we being sucked in by a Troll, or is EC just a little slow?
In my personal experience here, EC does not believe that anything that the US does at any time is justified. To him, the US is just wrong all the time, and things like terrorism don't exist.

If you argue with him long enough, he just puts you on his ignore list.

untrue

Since the above is untrue, this statement is null.

You DO realize that there are VIDEO TAPES of Osama Bin Laden ADMITTING to the 9/11 hijackings? You DID watch the news during 9/11, RIGHT?

Not true, over 3000 civilans died from our so called smart bombs.

In Afganistan?

No, but if we can actually figure out why the hell people are intent on fighting aganist us, it might go a long way into figuring out what we can do to stop it, rather then continuing the cycle of violence.

There will ALWAYS be someone to fight, no matter how much 'understanding' you throw around. There will ALWAYS be people out there who hate certain things and are willing to fight for their ideals. This is human nature, which you cannot change.

The only other troops that are in either Afghan or Iraq are those that America bribed or threatened into coming with us.

BULL. That is a flat out lie. Basic research will show you that troops from all over the world, ranging from England to Australia WILLINGLY came with us to hunt for Bin Laden. America NEVER ONCE bribed another nation or openly threatened them.

Perhaps if you posted some hard evidence to support these accusations of yours, you could prove me wrong. But I highly doubt it.

Nobody's guilty of anything; nobody's had a trial yet. You can call a person anything; it's another thing to prove that a person is something. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is not just a phrase, it's a universal human right.

Until I see DNA evidence that the people in Guatanamo Bay do not belong to the species of homo sapiens sapiens, I will be waiting for them to be proven guilty in accordance with this right.

Congratulations! You have proven in only your second post as incapable of contributing anything even worthy of consideration.

Note to self: File Moashe under dim bulbs.

And it is my opinion that WL is xenophobic with regards to Canada and France and that he has a gun fetish. He doesn't seem to understand a different opinion than his. Discussing with him goes nowhere except developping an ulcer. That is why he's on my ignore list. Instead of getting angry and being banned, I prefer act like he doesn't post. Better for me, the forum in general and probably him.

Maybe Moashe thinks that the people in Guantanamo were "arrested" by "police". In which case, they would be entitled to a trial.

As it is, they were not "arrested" they were "captured.

Not by "police" but by "military forces".

Big difference there. Please read up on your international law.

I suggest Geneva Conventions I, Article 2, in its entirety.

Maybe Moashe thinks that the people in Guantanamo were "arrested" by "police". In which case, they would be entitled to a trial.

As it is, they were not "arrested" they were "captured.

So, does America get to lock up anyone it feels like as long as it feels like as long as they are shooting at Americans? And does this policy go both ways?

So, does America get to lock up anyone it feels like as long as it feels like as long as they are shooting at Americans? And does this policy go both ways?


Um...you DO realize that Germany has been arresting suspected Al-Qaeda members for some time now, right? It's not just America.

So, does America get to lock up anyone it feels like as long as it feels like as long as they are shooting at Americans? And does this policy go both ways?

Oh, so we should never capture the enemy in wartime...

The policy doesn't "exactly" go both ways.

Although we are not bound by the Geneva Conventions to treat them according to the Conventions (See Convention I, Article 2 - the Conventions do not apply to them), we are applying them - Red Cross visits and all.

They, on the other hand, have stated that they are not going to abide by the Conventions (announced by the Taliban government before we invaded) and by action have demonstrated that they don't take prisoners (as evidenced by their actions during Operation Anaconda and other locations).

I don't see you holding them to task.

Point of fact, we are capturing them according to the rules of war - which state that we can hold them until the war ends. Without trial. Because it's a military action, not a police action.

I might add that we are also engaged in assassination - of the majority of al-Q leaders found (about 75 percent of the estimated total), most have been assassinated. If you compare that idea to the number confined in Guantanamo, you might get the impression that we've killed a lot of al-Q people.

If the military does it, it's legal combat.

If police were to do that, it would be state-sanctioned assassination - and would be illegal.

And no, I'm not splitting hairs.

BULL. That is a flat out lie. Basic research will show you that troops from all over the world, ranging from England to Australia WILLINGLY came with us to hunt for Bin Laden. America NEVER ONCE bribed another nation or openly threatened them.


NO, that is bull. As an Australian i can tell you this... Our government never asked the people if they wanted to go to war. They had to go or face loosing the american dollars that have kept them in power. (Massive advertising by usa kept the current government in office in the recent ellection) There were anti-war marches in every capital city.

NO, that is bull. As an Australian i can tell you this... Our government never asked the people if they wanted to go to war. They had to go or face loosing the american dollars that have kept them in power. (Massive advertising by usa kept the current government in office in the recent ellection) There were anti-war marches in every capital city.

Let's see if I got this straight...

People elected Howard even though they opposed the war - because of some slick advertisement?

That sounds specious to me. Could you explain how American dollars funding advertisement can prevent people in Australia from voting their conscience?

NO, that is bull. As an Australian i can tell you this... Our government never asked the people if they wanted to go to war. They had to go or face loosing the american dollars that have kept them in power. (Massive advertising by usa kept the current government in office in the recent ellection) There were anti-war marches in every capital city.

Um....NO government 'asks' their people if they want to go to war. The leader/leaders of the govnerment decide if they should go to war or not. Also, in the States there are anti-war marches all the time as well as other anti-war protests. Does that mean that because a small protion of the population is opposed to war that EVERYONE is?

No, therefore your point holds no water.

Let's see if I got this straight...
That sounds specious to me. Could you explain how American dollars funding advertisement can prevent people in Australia from voting their conscience?

Its funny how it happened actually.
A week before election Howard was behind...And this "FAMILY FIRST" party appears, with millions of dollars of advertising. They have these generic slogans, and some ideas you cant help but vote for. Good, wholesome people. They get a predictable 10%, or so. howard gets 40%. opposition gets 45%. The FF party cant get power so they give there votes to howard......howard gets 50% vs oppositions 45%.
very smart really
collected all the loose votes without connecting howards stained reputation to them.
I havent heard from family first since...i guess they disbanded, or are waiting for next election.

Um....NO government 'asks' their people if they want to go to war.
true, but they should.


Does that mean that because a small protion of the population is for war that EVERYONE is?

No, therefore your point holds no water.

Its funny how it happened actually.
A week before election Howard was behind...And this "FAMILY FIRST" party appears, with millions of dollars of advertising. They have these generic slogans, and some ideas you cant help but vote for. Good, wholesome people. They get a predictable 10%, or so. howard gets 40%. opposition gets 45%. The FF party cant get power so they give there votes to howard......howard gets 50% vs oppositions 45%.
very smart really
collected all the loose votes without connecting howards stained reputation to them.
I havent heard from family first since...i guess they disbanded, or are waiting for next election.

So you're saying that EVERYONE in Australia is opposed to the war, but that slick American advertising made them suddenly all drop to an IQ of 35 for the duration of the election, whereupon everyone woke up and was surprised that Howard had been elected?

Really?

So you're saying that EVERYONE in Australia is opposed to the war, but that slick American advertising made them suddenly all drop to an IQ of 35 for the duration of the election, whereupon everyone woke up and was surprised that Howard had been elected?

NO, im saying Family First had great policies. Lower taxes, better education, more jobs. You would be crazy not to vote for them. BUT they were a fraud, and never had any serious hope of putting these policies into play. And sadly a large percentage got duped.

BTW- was NOT suprised howard got elected just dissapointed, my fellow man seems to have 35 IQ.

true, but they should.

You're suggesting putting it to a vote? This is why elected leaders make decisions for the masses.

Does that mean that because a small protion of the population is for war that EVERYONE is?

No, therefore your point holds no water.

Actually, if you look at the polls and other surveys that were taken in the States, a majority of the people (somewhere around 80% if I recall) were in favor of the war in Afganistan. Iraq is a different topic, seeing as we have been discussing Afganistan for the past several posts. But even then over 60% of Americans were in favor of that war.

Therefore, yes, my point DOES hold water.

You're suggesting putting it to a vote? This is why elected leaders make decisions for the masses.



Yeah a vote, why not? All hail democracy. lol

These elected leaders are making decisions that are getting the masses killed.

Yeah a vote, why not? All hail democracy. lol

These elected leaders are making decisions that are getting the masses killed.

Masses?

Hmm. Let's see.

Doing absolutely nothing got us over 3000 killed in a single morning on our own soil.

Right now, even though we're in two countries (and have subjugated them), we have a casualty and death rate 1/8th of the rate we experienced in Vietnam.

Masses of Americans are definitely not being killed by comparison to doing nothing.

On the other hand, I've seen some interesting video shot at night of insurgents with rifles trying to hike into Iraq from Syria. You get to see several hundred men run for their lives in vain as helicopter gunships pick individual men off with 30mm cannon fire.

Yeah a vote, why not? All hail democracy. lol

These elected leaders are making decisions that are getting the masses killed.


And thus, one of the inevitable drawbacks of any society: no matter how careful you try to be, no matter how many people you try to please, people are still going to disapprove and people are still going to get killed.

And I wouldn't call the civilian casualties in Afganistan/Iraq 'the masses'. The accidental casualties we've inflicted are nowhere near the scale of innocent casualties from previous wars, such as Vietnam. I'd say we're actually doing quite well in the grand scale of things to avoid killing civilians, although in this human world nobody is perfect and mistakes will be made.

You also have to take into account that the irregulars we are fighting against love to fight in civilian sectors and use innocents as shields. Almost every attack on US forces in Iraq are done in highly public areas, so it is very hard to minimize civilian losses in such an environment.

On the other hand, I've seen some interesting video shot at night of insurgents with rifles trying to hike into Iraq from Syria. You get to see several hundred men run for their lives in vain as helicopter gunships pick individual men off with 30mm cannon fire.


Which video is this? Telegram me if you have a link, as I don't think posting it publicly would be wise.

Looks like not all the Congressmen and Senators want Gitmo closed down.
lol you americans don't use the word "git" do you? :p

is this a standardly used abbreviation? if so i love 'gitmo' even more!
.... gonna have to use it next time i insult someone :D

You DO realize that there are VIDEO TAPES of Osama Bin Laden ADMITTING to the 9/11 hijackings? You DID watch the news during 9/11, RIGHT?



In Afganistan?



There will ALWAYS be someone to fight, no matter how much 'understanding' you throw around. There will ALWAYS be people out there who hate certain things and are willing to fight for their ideals. This is human nature, which you cannot change.



BULL. That is a flat out lie. Basic research will show you that troops from all over the world, ranging from England to Australia WILLINGLY came with us to hunt for Bin Laden. America NEVER ONCE bribed another nation or openly threatened them.

Perhaps if you posted some hard evidence to support these accusations of yours, you could prove me wrong. But I highly doubt it.

What does watching the news on 9/11 have to do with anything?
On 9/11 we had no idea what the heck was going on...
and as far as the video tape... have you read the book 'Rising Sun'
Who can speak to the authenticty to the tape as well as the translation ?

Yeah, in afghan, more then 3000 folks civilians died, before our troops even went in... far more iraq's have died...

And if you don't call the statement 'if you aren't with us, you're against us ' a threat.. then you are fooling yourself. Far more countires were threatened with having econmic sanctions if they didnt' come as well.

As you say yourself.. i have not seen any hard evidence to support what you say either....