NationStates Jolt Archive

If il Bushio thinks they are guilty of anything... then he should charge them like the Law says...

January 24, 2006
Judge Orders U.S. to Supply Prisoner Names

A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to release the names and nationalities of hundreds of prisoners detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the government's argument that it would be a violation of their privacy and expose them to retaliation by terrorist groups.

The ruling, issued yesterday by Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan, came in a lawsuit brought by The Associated Press in April 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act. The suit sought to force the Pentagon to release transcripts of military tribunal hearings held to determine whether the detainees at Guantánamo had been properly categorized as "enemy combatants."

Oh, but the law is obviously flawed, which is why Bush shouldn't have to pay attention to it. He obviously knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. What if they are found innocent on a technicality, go free, and perform more acts of terrorism, and murder more kittens? We should just shot them all now.

And since it's impossible to use a tone of voice in my text, and just to make sure you all know, the above was coated a massive dose of sarcasm.

link:
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt005.html

In the good ol' days, we would have done just that.

Oh, but the law is obviously flawed, which is why Bush shouldn't have to pay attention to it. He obviously knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. What if they are found innocent on a technicality, go free, and perform more acts of terrorism, and murder more kittens? We should just shot them all now.

And since it's impossible to use a tone of voice in my text, and just to make sure you all know, the above was coated a massive dose of sarcasm.

*Grins* Obviously someone that cannot form a verbal sentance coherantly is obviously all knowing.:rolleyes:

Ok, yeah yeah, irony, I've had a few beers.

previous post: you forgot the second "e" in coherently

hehe

the title of this topic makes me scoff... "torture camp" is hilarious given how they're fed better than I am. cripes.

if you want to see torture, go to a place where people are being injured instead of here, where they're read Harry Potter books in attempts to elicit information.

If il Bushio thinks they are guilty of anything... then he should charge them like the Law says...

...and give them a chance to make bail?

no, no, no, you're still thinking that terrorists just want to play with us in the sandbox!

(kidding)

If il Bushio thinks they are guilty of anything... then he should charge them like the Law says...

Funny that you call them POWs and yet still think they should be charged with something. Last time I checked, you don't charge POWs.

Classic liberal delusions..

Classic liberal delusions..

What, innocent until proven guilty? That delusion?

It's sickening how many people are all, "Oh they're terrorists." Inevitably the reasoning given is "They're arrested for terrorism." So basically, if you get arrested tomorrow for terrorism, you're a terrorist and will always be known as such.

...except you won't be known as such, because no one will publically admit to where, or who you are, or where you came from. You just get swallowed up by history. But hey it's okay, you're a terrorist right?

What, innocent until proven guilty? That delusion?

It's sickening how many people are all, "Oh they're terrorists." Inevitably the reasoning given is "They're arrested for terrorism." So basically, if you get arrested tomorrow for terrorism, you're a terrorist and will always be known as such.

...except you won't be known as such, because no one will publicly admit to where, or who you are, or where you came from. You just get swallowed up by history. But hey it's okay, you're a terrorist right?
It has nothing to do with them being terrorists. they are ENEMY COMBATANTS! They CHOSE to fight a war against our soldiers, WITHOUT the consent of ANY national government, without ANY type of uniform to distinguish them from civilian non-combatants, without ANY oversight as to whether they are following the Geneva convention, which they AREN'T, which is why they AREN'T pow's, and are, instead, enemy combatants.

Enemy combatants can be held without trial until fighting has ceased, and some sort of peace deal has been reach. So if you have such a huge freaking problem with it, fly your ass to Iraq, sit down with Zarquawi, and talk him into giving up, so they can go home.

Just be careful they don't cut your fucking head off, k?

It has nothing to do with them being terrorists. they are ENEMY COMBATANTS! They CHOSE to fight a war against our soldiers, WITHOUT the consent of ANY national government, without ANY type of uniform to distinguish them from civilian non-combatants, without ANY oversight as to whether they are following the Geneva convention, which they AREN'T, which is why they AREN'T pow's, and are, instead, enemy combatants.

Enemy combatants can be held without trial until fighting has ceased, and some sort of peace deal has been reach. So if you have such a huge freaking problem with it, fly your ass to Iraq, sit down with Zarquawi, and talk him into giving up, so they can go home.

Just be careful they don't cut your fucking head off, k?

Dude, you need to lay off the coffee and Jolt. Get real. We have laws for a reason, and no one is above those laws NO ONE. It doesn't matter who they are/were, by the rules laid down by the american justice system these people are entitled to their day in court. Are you afraid of justice? Or just afraid?

Dude, you need to lay off the coffee and Jolt. Get real. We have laws for a reason, and no one is above those laws NO ONE. It doesn't matter who they are/were, by the rules laid down by the american justice system these people are entitled to their day in court. Are you afraid of justice? Or just afraid?
I'm not afraid, so much as sick to death of hearing people whine about something they obviously know nothing about. By law, we don't have to give them a trial. They aren't pow's. The only thing we have to do is treat them humanely,which we do. (except in a few cases, and those people are in jail)

Now if it ever gets to SCOTUS, and is held that we do, then I will be fine with it. But until then, just because you don't like something, doesn't make it illegal.

If il Bushio thinks they are guilty of anything... then he should charge them like the Law says...

They are not prisoners, they are detainees. That is why POW rules do not apply to them.

By law we could have them lined up and shot.

...and give them a chance to make bail?

no, no, no, you're still thinking that terrorists just want to play with us in the sandbox!

(kidding)

Prove they're terrorists.

Now if it ever gets to SCOTUS, and is held that we do, then I will be fine with it. But until then, just because you don't like something, doesn't make it illegal.

Maybe not, but the legality of the entire system is being questioned, and rightly so. Remember, if it goes to the Supreme Court and they find that holding these people as enemy combatants and denying them access to the courts was illegal, the administration will be guilty of massive breaches of national and international law. That is a very serious prospect.

And as to the claim that they are enemy combatants in the first place - how would we know?

By law we could have them lined up and shot.US law allows to line-up and execute prisoners? ..whit out trial?

The home of the brave.. Land of the Free.. :confused:

Free to torture the prisoners.. Brave enough to sexually assault the tied/blind-folded prisoners

It has nothing to do with them being terrorists. they are ENEMY COMBATANTS! They CHOSE to fight a war against our soldiers, WITHOUT the consent of ANY national government, without ANY type of uniform to distinguish them from civilian non-combatants, without ANY oversight as to whether they are following the Geneva convention, which they AREN'T, which is why they AREN'T pow's, and are, instead, enemy combatants.

Oh, so they're terrorists because they're enemy combatants because they're terrorists because they're enemy combatants. Good to know.

But maybe, just maybe, I'm skeptical about whether they're enemy combatants or whether someone just SAYS they are. Others are too.

So if you have such a huge freaking problem with it, fly your ass to Iraq, sit down with Zarquawi, and talk him into giving up, so they can go home.

Just be careful they don't cut your fucking head off, k?

Blah blah blah blah. Hey I have a revolutionary idea, how about you don't need to fly off to Iraq to talk with Zarquawi in order to have an opinion in this thread? You know, kind of like how you don't have to fly off to Iraq to fight a war just because you advocate the war.

They've already released quite a few people from Club Gitmo. As a result of military hearings that determined that they weren't combatants.

If you take up arms against the US, and they have you, and you aren't party to a High Contracting Party of the Geneva Conventions, you're ass belongs to the US.

Considering that the current population of Gitmo is much smaller than it used to be, it's likely that the remaining inmates are definitely enemy combatants.

I hear that the military recently revamped its rules on executions, allowing them to take place at other installations other than Ft. Leavenworth. I take this as a sign that not too long from now, the population of Gitmo is about to get much, much smaller.

I hear that the military recently revamped its rules on executions, allowing them to take place at other installations other than Ft. Leavenworth. I take this as a sign that not too long from now, the population of Gitmo is about to get much, much smaller.maybe it means that soon they will execute the POWs.. Without giving their names...

But it does NOT mean the executed POWs were guilty of anything .. and it does NOT mean that any Secret military Kangaroo Courts are Lawful...

It has nothing to do with them being terrorists. they are ENEMY COMBATANTS! They CHOSE to fight a war against our soldiers, WITHOUT the consent of ANY national government, without ANY type of uniform to distinguish them from civilian non-combatants, without ANY oversight as to whether they are following the Geneva convention, which they AREN'T, which is why they AREN'T pow's, and are, instead, enemy combatants.

Enemy combatants can be held without trial until fighting has ceased, and some sort of peace deal has been reach. So if you have such a huge freaking problem with it, fly your ass to Iraq, sit down with Zarquawi, and talk him into giving up, so they can go home.

Just be careful they don't cut your fucking head off, k?

Here's a little logic puzzle for you. Since the pentagon won't release information about who they're holding, we don't know who's in there. If we don't know who's in there, we can't make statements as to what they are (terrorist, enemy combatants, elementary schoolteachers, etc) If we can't make that determination, we don't know if they should actually be in there or not. Also, could you do me a favor and define "enemy combatants" for me in this context? When you wage a war against a country it's really easy, but I think we're in a gray area and I could use some clarification

What, innocent until proven guilty? That delusion?

...except, that none of the detainees at Guantanamo are American citizens, which makes all that a moot point.

Here's a little logic puzzle for you. Since the pentagon won't release information about who they're holding, we don't know who's in there. If we don't know who's in there, we can't make statements as to what they are (terrorist, enemy combatants, elementary schoolteachers, etc) If we can't make that determination, we don't know if they should actually be in there or not. Also, could you do me a favor and define "enemy combatants" for me in this context? When you wage a war against a country it's really easy, but I think we're in a gray area and I could use some clarification

Good point.

Here's a little logic puzzle for you. Since the pentagon won't release information about who they're holding, we don't know who's in there. If we don't know who's in there, we can't make statements as to what they are (terrorist, enemy combatants, elementary schoolteachers, etc) If we can't make that determination, we don't know if they should actually be in there or not. Also, could you do me a favor and define "enemy combatants" for me in this context? When you wage a war against a country it's really easy, but I think we're in a gray area and I could use some clarification

And don't forget that there are reasonably substantiated reports of Afghan warlords accusing anyone who got in their way of being in Al Quaeda and selling them to the US.

And don't forget that there are reasonably substantiated reports of Afghan warlords accusing anyone who got in their way of being in Al Quaeda and selling them to the US.

I hadn't heard that, but I'm not surprised...I mean, come on...they're "warlords"...not exactly a cuddly title.

What, innocent until proven guilty? That delusion?...except, that none of the detainees at Guantanamo are American citizens, which makes all that a moot point.poor Myotisinia, you are in-line with the NeoCon way..

"Only US citizens deserve Human rights.. all others are sub-Human"

"Only US citizens deserve a a fair Trial"
"Only US soldiers are Brave... not the enemy"
"Only US soldiers deserve to be honored heroes.. not the Insurgents"
"Only US citizens should be protected by the Law"

....Only US..

poor Myotisinia, you are in-line with the NeoCon way..

"Only US citizens deserve Human rights.. all others are sub-Human"

"Only US citizens deserve a a fair Trial"
"Only US soldiers are Brave... not the enemy"
"Only US soldiers deserve to be honored heroes.. not the Insurgents"
"Only US citizens should be protected by the Law"

....Only US..


Back up a minute, look at the tactics of the two sides. Which side is the closest to giving the other a fair Trial ( think about it before you react). Being held in by the US is preferable to being held by the other side. US soldiers are Brave, no doubt, the Countries they are in they protect and stand for the law, establish order for the people. The other side is there to tear down the government, harm anyone or anything that will stand in thier way. Ditto honored heroes, it's hard for the other side to claim honored hero status given the tactics they use. The law? what law does the other side follow???

...except, that none of the detainees at Guantanamo are American citizens, which makes all that a moot point.
It's also moot whether they are "guilty". The ones who have been determined to be non-combatants have been released (quite a few). With the exception of a few Chinese Muslims which no country will take (hence their continued stay), the rest are going through military tribunals.

If found guilty, they likely will be shot.

Back up a minute, look at the tactics of the two sides. Which side is the closest to giving the other a fair Trial ( think about it before you react). Being held in by the US is preferable to being held by the other side. US soldiers are Brave, no doubt, the Countries they are in they protect and stand for the law, establish order for the people. The other side is there to tear down the government, harm anyone or anything that will stand in thier way. Ditto honored heroes, it's hard for the other side to claim honored hero status given the tactics they use. The law? what law does the other side follow???

Really now, there is no "other side". There are hundreds and thousands of groups, some linked and others not, that the government chooses to lump together. As for the insurgents in Iraq, they are being somewhat gentler than most American citizens would be if anybody actually had the ability to invade us.

Edit - Hey now, that's not a bad idea. Someone should invade us so all our trigger happy criminals have someone else to attack.

Really now, there is no "other side". There are hundreds and thousands of groups, some linked and others not, that the government chooses to lump together. As for the insurgents in Iraq, they are being somewhat gentler than most American citizens would be if anybody actually had the ability to invade us.

Edit - Hey now, that's not a bad idea. Someone should invade us so all our trigger happy criminals have someone else to attack.


That's so random it's hard to respond to. What would we do if invaded? Might be an interesting thread. But we would not go killing other US citizens to frighten them into joining us. The other side does exactly that. The other side does think it is linked, when the linking helps with the subgroup's cause or if they can get money from some larger group or state. We choose to lump together those groups as a means to address a problem. We (the world) can't have random militant groups killing/targeting non-combatants.
Linked or not they are behaving in a way the US can't ignore.

What would we do if invaded? Might be an interesting thread. But we would not go killing other US citizens...we? ..we???
Speak for yourself !!!

this US citizen would not spare the other US citizens collaborating with the invading alien Army..
their lifes would not be saved by me.

I would want to kill them... as much as I would want to attack the Invading army.. If not more..

Back up a minute, look at the tactics of the two sides. Which side is the closest to giving the other a fair Trial ( think about it before you react). Being held in by the US is preferable to being held by the other side. US soldiers are Brave, no doubt, the Countries they are in they protect and stand for the law, establish order for the people. The other side is there to tear down the government, harm anyone or anything that will stand in thier way. Ditto honored heroes, it's hard for the other side to claim honored hero status given the tactics they use. The law? what law does the other side follow???

Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala, Vietnam, Cambodia.......


We (the world) can't have random militant groups killing/targeting non-combatants.

Of course not. Unless they've been trained properly in Fort Benning or some similar location. Or if they're members of the IDF. Or lackeys of Dictators America likes and is fond of.

So what if the US government captures people in Afghanistan, transports them to Cuba, don't release their names to the public, don't reveal to the detainees why they are there, don't allow the detainees to present evidence or witnesses for the military tribunal, and allows for the military to execute these unidentified people without ever having to present a justification except to say that they were right to do so...

They are the Government! Trust them when they say that everything they do is correct and within the law! If you can't trust them, who can you trust?
And if you're not with them you're with the terrorists, remember? You're not a terrorist, are you? Hmmm?
[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

<snip>

Well, are they criminals or soldiers?

If the former, they should be returned to Afghanistan (or Iraq) and tried for whatever crime they're accused of.

If the latter, then they should be treated as any other PoW.

As you mentioned, they don't wear uniforms, though the ones in Afghanistan fought for a government that didn't issue any. Those from Afghanistan would fall under the label of "PoWs": they were captured during a war between two governments. Given that one of the governments in question has collapsed, we should be engaging in returning those prisoners captured in Afghanistan to Afghanistan.

Those in Iraq would be criminals and should be tried in Iraqi courts for whatever crimes they are alleged to have committed.

Of course, the problem with the entire argument is...there ARE American citizens that were released from Gitmo. And there may still be citizens IN Gitmo. That entirely ruins the point that "only Americans deserve rights". What about these citizens, one of which NEVER left the United States in his entire lifetimeuntil the military transported him to Gitmo. If he's an enemy combatant, let God strike me now...

*waits 2 minutes*

Well, I guess he wasn't. Also, Canadian citizens have been held there, Canadian-Arabs who had never left Canada, until the US took them. I have a friend, who is Jewish, but looks Arab in origin, has an Arab-sounding name, and because of mass confusion, is known by 5-6 different given names in various nations, which sounds like a terrorist. It scares me to think that he may be taken, even as a Canadian citizen. If this is not a total violation of the Geneva Convention, then please explain what it is. EVERYONE has rights, even terrorists. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." That was the document that created the United States of America, and I'll be darned if I'm just going to stand by and let someone violate it.

Of course, the problem with the entire argument is...there ARE American citizens that were released from Gitmo. <snip>

Even going into Canada (or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Iraq....) to arrest an American expatriot is a grievious violation of a nation's sovereignty. I wish I could say the last time such a thing was attempted was during Napoleon's Consulate, but... I can't even say it's the first time since last week.