NationStates Jolt Archive

Chinese Muslims held in Guantanamo (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1549632.htm).

3 Chinese Muslims are still being held in Guantanamo, despite there being no reason to hold them.

3 Chinese Muslims are still being held in Guantanamo, despite there being no reason to hold them.

That be can said for all the people held there.

That place is clearly pretty fucked up. Perhaps in the future someone/people will be held accountable.

That place is clearly pretty fucked up. Perhaps in the future someone/people will be held accountable.
Unlikely, I can't tgink of a single example of members of the side who have "won" an armed conflict being held accountable for thier misdeeds.

Unlikely, I can't tgink of a single example of members of the side who have "won" an armed conflict being held accountable for thier misdeeds.
Blah, good point. This is true.

Chinese Muslims held in Guantanamo (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1549632.htm).

3 Chinese Muslims are still being held in Guantanamo, despite there being no reason to hold them.
Trying to kill Bin Laden is a good enough reason for me...

Chinese Muslims held in Guantanamo (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1549632.htm).

3 Chinese Muslims are still being held in Guantanamo, despite there being no reason to hold them.

Ohh booo hooo. :mad: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mp5:

Trying to kill Bin Laden is a good enough reason for me...


Thats cause your a NUG, thats right a NUG!:confused:
Whats a NUG you say, i dunno, dont have the slightest......

That be can said for all the people held there.

You're certain of that?

You're certain that none of the people held at Guantanamo actually have killed innocent people or are actually terrorists?

I loathe the situation as much as anyone, but even I think that some of the people held there deserve to be there, even though I think they deserve fair treatment under the law.

You're certain of that?

You're certain that none of the people held at Guantanamo actually have killed innocent people or are actually terrorists?

I loathe the situation as much as anyone, but even I think that some of the people held there deserve to be there, even though I think they deserve fair treatment under the law.

If there is reason to detain the people there, then try them! Present evidence to their culpability before a court of law. Holding them for 4 years without legal recourse is ludicrous. So far, all Guanatamo bay is is one big Kafkaesque travesty of the "values" the US claims to stand for.

You're certain of that?

You're certain that none of the people held at Guantanamo actually have killed innocent people or are actually terrorists?

I loathe the situation as much as anyone, but even I think that some of the people held there deserve to be there, even though I think they deserve fair treatment under the law.
Some of the people walking free today are terrrorists...

If there is reason to detain the people there, then try them! Present evidence to their culpability before a court of law. Holding them for 4 years without legal recourse is ludicrous. So far, all Guanatamo bay is is one big Kafkaesque travesty of the "values" the US claims to stand for.
Here here! Fass and myself are rarely on the same page, but kudos.

"If you can't convict, you must aquit!"

If there is reason to detain the people there, then try them! Present evidence to their culpability before a court of law. Holding them for 4 years without legal recourse is ludicrous. So far, all Guanatamo bay is is one big Kafkaesque travesty of the "values" the US claims to stand for.

*Hands you the Taco of Righteousness.* :)

...I think that some of the people held there deserve to be there...

Ahhh, the basis of all Western law- catch enough people and there are bound to be some guilty ones sprinkled throughout.

I rest easy at night knowing that.

Thats cause your a NUG, thats right a NUG!:confused:
Whats a NUG you say, i dunno, dont have the slightest......

Someone never learnt that if you don't have anything intelligent to say you should say nothing.

You're certain of that?

You're certain that none of the people held at Guantanamo actually have killed innocent people or are actually terrorists?

I loathe the situation as much as anyone, but even I think that some of the people held there deserve to be there, even though I think they deserve fair treatment under the law.

This strikes on my newest pet peeve: the term "innocent civilians". Civilians should be enough. It's not like you ever see in the news "Military forces wiped out a compound today, killing 18 civilians, but it's ok because they were all convicted felons." Do they do background checks on these people after they are killed to determine their innocence? On what charges were they indicted in the first place that would cause them to be found innocent?

It is an interesting twist on the way armed conflict rules work nowadays. Terrorists are considered to be unlawful combatants, therefore are not subjected to the rules and protection of the Law of Armed Conflict. Somehow, I don't think that they were given an opportunity to become lawful combatants either.

If there is reason to detain the people there, then try them! Present evidence to their culpability before a court of law. Holding them for 4 years without legal recourse is ludicrous. So far, all Guanatamo bay is is one big Kafkaesque travesty of the "values" the US claims to stand for.

I agree, and would repeat what you said if I hadn't just quoted you on it. ;)

Aren't you glad that America takes a consistent line on terrorism? linky (http://www.soaw.org/new/):rolleyes:

That be can said for all the people held there.
Really? You know for a fact that all of them are innocent?

Really? You know for a fact that all of them are innocent?

Innocent until proven guilty.

Really? You know for a fact that all of them are innocent?

Innocent until proven guilty.

If there is reason to detain the people there, then try them! Present evidence to their culpability before a court of law. Holding them for 4 years without legal recourse is ludicrous. So far, all Guantanamo bay is is one big Kafkaesque travesty of the "values" the US claims to stand for.
I agree with you there. Give them trials then lock them back up. The guilty ones only, of course. After being convicted of international terrorism nobody can really argue that they are being held illegally.

Innocent until proven guilty.
Presumed innocent. There's a difference between presumption and actual knowledge.

Presumed innocent. There's a difference between presumption and actual knowledge.

Except they're not presumed innocent.... they're presumed guilty.

Except they're not presumed innocent.... they're presumed guilty.
Yeah. They've been captured in Afghanistan aiding the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda. It's not like they were picked up in the US under suspicion of stealing a car. I'm not sure the presumption of innocence applys to people captured on a foreign battlefield.

Anyway, there should be trials.

I'm not sure the presumption of innocence applys to people captured on a foreign battlefield.


Does the US Constitution + Bill of Rights not apply to all on US soil? Foreign or otherwise?

Does the US Constitution + Bill of Rights not apply to all on US soil? Foreign or otherwise?
I'm not sure. I've heard that courts martial don't play by the same rules as civilian courts. Also, is Guantanamo considered US soil?

I've heard that courts martial don't play by the same rules as civilian courts.
Does that mean soldiers aren't protected by their own Bill of Rights?! :eek:

Also, is Guantanamo considered US soil?

I would have assumed so. Aren't all Embassies/consulates and 'leased' land (like G. Bay) considered sovereign soil?

Does that mean soldiers aren't protected by their own Bill of Rights?! :eek:



I would have assumed so. Aren't all Embassies/consulates and 'leased' land (like G. Bay) considered sovereign soil?
1) I don't really think so. I think that you temporarily sign away some of your rights when you join up. It would be nice to hear from someone who knows for sure though.

2) Good point there.

1) I don't really think so. I think that you temporarily sign away some of your rights when you join up. It would be nice to hear from someone who knows for sure though.

2) Good point there.

:eek: Eep.Would be nice to know that before anyone thought of joining up :D :p

I would have assumed so. Aren't all Embassies/consulates and 'leased' land (like G. Bay) considered sovereign soil?
I'm not sure, but I don't think that it applies to leased land. Embassies and consulates are different because the land is not leased, it's ceded to the foreign government in exchange to do the same in the other country.

There was a decision about this a couple of years ago. Let's see if I can find it.

I'm not sure, but I don't think that it applies to leased land. Embassies and consulates are different because the land is not leased, it's ceded to the foreign government in exchange to do the same in the other country.

There was a decision about this a couple of years ago. Let's see if I can find it.

Cheers.

But, G. Bay is an exception to the 'leased' land point surely? The stipulation of it ever being given back was a majority of the population of BOTH the US and Cuba had to agree------ so in essence, its yours (US's) for keeps :p

Cheers.

But, G. Bay is an exception to the 'leased' land point surely? The stipulation of it ever being given back was a majority of the population of BOTH the US and Cuba had to agree------ so in essence, its yours (US's) for keeps :pYeah, but we still have to make lease payments on the land. Cuba doesn't have to cash them, but we've got to send them.

Yeah, but we still have to make lease payments on the land. Cuba doesn't have to cash them, but we've got to send them.

Really? Wow, I didn't know you had to pay for it! How much is it? Is it like buying Alaska from Tsarist Russia :D

But, G. Bay is an exception to the 'leased' land point surely? The stipulation of it ever being given back was a majority of the population of BOTH the US and Cuba had to agree------ so in essence, its yours (US's) for keeps :p

Pfft... maybe most people in the US agreed, but Cuba was run by a dictator at the time (not that it isn't now, but the point is that it wasn't the Cubans agreeing to anything)

Ah, found it at http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm

In the end, the answer to the question presented is clear. Petitioners contend that they are being held in federal custody in violation of the laws of the United States. No party questions the District Court’s jurisdiction over petitioners’ custodians. Section 2241, by its terms, requires nothing more. We therefore hold that §2241 confers on the District Court jurisdiction to hear petitioners’ habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

Basically it says that US law applies there, thus opening the door to the claim of having the same rights as other people in the US.

Really? Wow, I didn't know you had to pay for it! How much is it? Is it like buying Alaska from Tsarist Russia :D
A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. Treasury Dollars, and added a requirement that termination of the lease requires the consent of both governments, or the abandonment of the base property by the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay

Here here! Fass and myself are rarely on the same page, but kudos.

"If you can't convict, you must aquit!"
AAHHHHH, the world of Black and White. You and Fass must have such fun frolicking in the sunshine and protecting the rights of people who blow up churches and marketplaces.

AAHHHHH, the world of Black and White. You and Fass must have such fun frolicking in the sunshine and protecting the rights of people who blow up churches and marketplaces.

Prove it.

Prove it.
We're working on that, but until we find out one way or another, we aren't letting them anywhere near a phone, a lawyer, or anything more deadly than a spork.

Deal with it.

We're working on that, but until we find out one way or another, we aren't letting them anywhere near a phone, a lawyer, or anything more deadly than a spork.

Deal with it.

Incidently, what is your stand on the American training camps for terrorists? SOA (http://www.soaw.org/new/)

We're working on that, but until we find out one way or another, we aren't letting them anywhere near a phone, a lawyer, or anything more deadly than a spork.

Deal with it.

All of which goes against the very documents you strive to protect.

Hypocritical, no?

Deal with what?

All of which goes against the very documents you strive to protect.

Hypocritical, no?

Deal with what?
Sorry partner, but the Constitution is meant to protect Americans, not people who try to kill us.

And as for the Scool of the Americas, I'm smart enough to know that I don't know enough about it to comment, which is a trait that about 90% of the people on this website lack severely.


By the way, nice unbiased website you directed me to! What a load of crap. :rolleyes:

Sorry partner, but the Constitution is ment to protect Americans, not people who try to kill us.


Noooo.....

The Constitution and BofR protects all on her lands- foreign or not.

Think again.

And as for the Scool of the Americas, I'm smart enough to know that I don't know enough about it to comment, which is a trait that about 90% of the people on this website lack severely.


By the way, nice unbiased website you directed me to! What a load of crap. :rolleyes:

Big Brother knows best eh? It can't be murder and terrorism if the US is doing it? Grow up.

Training manuals were released proving that the SOA trained paramillitaries to kidnap, torture and kill leftist leaders, trade unionists and anyone else that the US doesn't like. If you refuse to admit that is wrong then you are a hypocrite.

Let me just right out and say it. I'm the flag waving nationalistic prick that all the Dems love to hate. If it's good for my country, I say do it. If someone is trying to hurt my countrymen and women, nail the motherfucker to a stake and cut off their eyelids.

If the Middle East or South America can't get their shit straight, then we'll do it for them if it is in our best interests.

And frankly, the more leftist women who abort their future leftist babies, the better.

I'm not in the greatest mood today, and frankly, I could give two shits about some asshole in Afghanistan who was shooting at my brothers and sisters. Like they say in the Marine Corp, "Killem all, let God sortem out"


And BTW, you can quote me on that. :mad:

Chinese Muslims held in Guantanamo (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1549632.htm).

3 Chinese Muslims are still being held in Guantanamo, despite there being no reason to hold them.
Has more to do with the fact that no country will take them if they are released.

snip

Ok...ay..... then.......

Let me just right out and say it. I'm the flag waving nationalistic prick that all the Dems love to hate. If it's good for my country, I say do it. If someone is trying to hurt my countrymen and women, nail the motherfucker to a stake and cut off their eyelids.

If the Middle East or South America can't get their shit straight, then we'll do it for them if it is in our best interests.

And frankly, the more leftist women who abort their future leftist babies, the better.

I'm not in the greatest mood today, and frankly, I could give two shits about some asshole in Afghanistan who was shooting at my brothers and sisters. Like they say in the Marine Corp, "Killem all, let God sortem out"


And BTW, you can quote me on that. :mad:

It appears that I misjudged you. I thought you were simply naive and foolish, it appears that you are no better than the terrorists you claim to hate so much.

If there is reason to detain the people there, then try them! Present evidence to their culpability before a court of law. Holding them for 4 years without legal recourse is ludicrous. So far, all Guanatamo bay is is one big Kafkaesque travesty of the "values" the US claims to stand for.


i hate terrorists as much as the next guy,but you are 100% correct on this.

i bet many were just uneducated afghans that joined the taliban or some such group,because it was all they knew or were just raised to fight any invaders.

you could call most enemy combatants,and while a war is on,just like our pow's in ww2 or anyones for that matter,they stay interned until hostilities end.

but in this war...it could drag on forever,so you just keep these poor joes locked up forever?

thats total b.s. if you ask me.

if you can prove some are al quaida..then take them in front of a military tribunal,sentence them,and do something about the ones that were just fighters...what exactly,i just don't know.

cant let them go join the fight again,but this just rubs me as wrong..in alot of cases.

Chinese Muslims held in Guantanamo (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1549632.htm).

3 Chinese Muslims are still being held in Guantanamo, despite there being no reason to hold them.

Blatant liberal propaganda.

If these people were let go, then they'd tell their story. The administration has enough trouble overcoming the liberal echo chamber as it is without having to overcome even more absolute proof of how wrong they are. When our administration is trying desperatly to fight a war against the whole world and isn't even capable of waging a war against a single country, it is now more than ever that they need all the authority that we can give them to protect their image. ;)

snip.

Wow... I honestly never thought I'd hear you say that!

AAHHHHH, the world of Black and White. You and Fass must have such fun frolicking in the sunshine and protecting the rights of people who blow up churches and marketplaces.
If you can beyond a reasonable doubt, they unlwafully killed a human being, in the juristiction of the court. Then you can punish them as the law allows.

But don't you dare to try to squash the rights millions have fought and died for!