NationStates Jolt Archive

Not really. Skinny is actually quite intelligent.

LMAO, good one. If he's intelligent, everyone else is steven hawking.

.............or to anyone else apparently.
Talk to me child. I'll open my twelve ears for you...

LMAO, good one. If he's intelligent, everyone else is steven hawking.
Ok Steven.

LMAO, good one. If he's intelligent, everyone else is steven hawking.
We all know Steven Hawking's IQ is not at par with yours...

We all know Steven Hawking's IQ is not at par with yours...

So I take it, you feel it is at par with your own? Well, don't let me stop you from holding such an asinine belief.

The fact that if a child picks up a weapon and shoots to kill someone without the full understanding of its impact it is meaningless to me. Given the circumstances the outcome would be the same. Whether you fully understand it or not if it is you against me I will win.

It is also a fact that the charge of actually picking up a weapon and shooting to kill was never applied to these children, nor was it ever proven. For all we know, they could have been picked up for nothing more than their names and parentage.

Given how much bungling the CIA has done so far, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the latter.

Don’t just read the articles, read the whole constitution, it does clearly state=====
We the People of the United States of America
Thus the constitution applies to We the People of the Unites States, not we the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, France, Mexico and so on….
Oh any if you’re not sure where to look, try the preamble.

So obviously by your logic, any other country with a similar sounding constitution can nab Americans in their country and incarcerate/torture/execute them without any due process whatsoever. That includes tourists and diplomats too.

So the fact that the enemy does it means you too can, and should, do it? So...what's the difference between the two of you then?

I’m not saying it is okay I’m saying it happens on both side. We just hear about it more because of our media.

What about the non-combatants that are/were taken by the Iraqis and shot in the head or beheaded? What about the non-combatants that have just disappeared without a trace.
Okay for those of you that read but do not absorb let me break it down for you:

'The Iraqis'....?
....fine I'll bite, what about those non-combatants?

After reading a statement, the man in the centre, believed to be Mr Zarqawi himself, appeared to pull what looked like a knife. Following the broadcast of the killing, the US recovered a body, which it named as Eugene Armstrong.
One hostage, Italian freelancer Enzo Baldoni, was executed by his captors last year.
For 118 days we lay in a tomb — Norman Kember, Harmeet Sooden and me. Tom Fox too, for 104 days, until he was murdered in the early morning hours of March 9, 2006.
U.S Prisoners of war held by the Iraqis were taken from an ambushed 507th Maintenance Company on March 23rd, and from a shot down Apache helicopter. Several members of the 507th were executed after capture.
Hostage Kenneth Bigley, was decapitated by his captors The 62-year-old civilian engineer was kidnapped on September 16 along with two U.S. colleagues, Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley, who have since been beheaded by their captors,

Nearly 150 foreigners have been kidnapped, and 30 killed, in Iraq since April when violence swept the country amid dual Sunni and Shiite revolts against the U.S. presence in the country.
Nick Berg. He was executed by his captors while Arabic reporters taped the killing. He was only 24 years old, he was working on getting the Iraqi infrastructure back to norm.
Besides those still missing, five Halliburton workers are known to have died in the attack. The bodies of four workers, Tony Johnson, 47, of Riverside, Calif.; Stephen Hulett, 48, of Manistee, Mich.; Jack Montague, 52, of Pittsburg, Ill.; and Jeffery Parker, 45, of Lake Charles, La., were found in a shallow grave near Abu Ghraib. Steven Scott Fisher of Virginia Beach, Va., was also killed in the attack.

Do I really need to go on? Wait we ain’t done yet.

The bodies of more than 50 men, women and children have been recovered from the River Tigris in the town of Suwayra, south of Baghdad.
We discovered bags with the slaughtered children inside them - there were two girls, one was a student and the other was very young

While we are investigating Iraq prisoner abuse the other side continues to kill our men in brutal savage methods. No rules or guidelines. We are the ones that are apologizing. Apologizing for mistreating terrorists, who rather cut our throats, cut our stomachs, let us bleed. Parade us through the town square. I don't remember hearing any apologies from them. Apologize for Daniel Perl, the recent Americans civilians that were tortured and killed and dragged around the streets.

They could care less about their own children as they use them as human shields, send them into crowded areas to detonate bombs. Shit they even bomb their own people to get to a few soldiers. To be worried about a few children that could grow up to be potential terrorist when in my opinion you are the only ones that care.

...
Are you aware that you are not making any point?

Please think about what you keep posting. What did you post that you think anyone here didnt know before you posted?

It seems you want us to 'get the point', but have you wondered why it is that you dont just state outright this point of yours? It seems you think we all sould be able to get it, I expect you think you get it, so why not just state it?

Please understand that you are not making a point. You are simply regurgitating a bunch of info (info I doubt anyone here didnt know prior to your posting it). It is not possible to make a point unless you demonstrate some logical relationship or other (usually it takes more than one).

So we all already know the info you are posting, it's pointless to just keep on posting it. If you want to make a point, if you actually have a point, you must and you can demonstrate the logical relationships that are necessary for a point to exist...

*snip*

To sum it up. They did nasty shit. So we can do nasty shit too. Fine, go ahead.

But if you ever dare call your nation a bastion of liberty and human rights, you're nothing but a big mouthed hypocrite.

To sum it up. They did nasty shit. So we can do nasty shit too. Fine, go ahead.

But if you ever dare call your nation a bastion of liberty and human rights, you're nothing but a big mouthed hypocrite.
And giving them the right to do what ever the hell they want to our kids...

And giving them the right to do what ever the hell they want to our kids...

I won't dispute it's nasty shit. I won't really say much about rights either, as it is the ones with power who determine rights to give or take.

If you destroy the image of "America the righteous" to the American people, that will do more good than any number of arguments about rights. When people believe they live in a totaliratarian state, only then will they start doing something about it.

Otherwise, they will remain bleeting sheep.

Everybody sees these children as victims of American aggression. I could give a rat’s ass honestly, too bad for them. Do not pick up arms; do not take an aggressive stance. And don’t say there is/was no proof that they were armed. Do you know that captured Iraqi soldiers carried razor blades up their ass?
Honestly I have no qualms about shooting anybody that threatens my life or anyone around me. That means men, women and yes,even children.

Given the chance they would do whatever they wanted to our children, our women and you. That is the problem. They use their own children to commit acts of violence. They are so bent on our destruction that they even kill their own children to kill us. They view us as lesser being that should be wiped from the face of the earth. We are the Infidels. Men and women are dying everyday and all you worry about is the fate of some children because you think it is wrong.
Get captured sometime and tell me how it felt as you were begging for your life.
I do not condone what these soldiers did and I believe the ones responsible should be punished. I for one would not treat a prisoner that way, but then again who is to say I would take prisoners anyway.
I spent too much time in the military fighting for my freedom and your freedom to just stand back and watch it be given away.

We can sit here and argue until we are blue in the face about what is right and what is wrong. That is because we are safe at home typing away at our computers.

Everybody sees these children as victims of American aggression. I could give a rat’s ass honestly, too bad for them. Do not pick up arms; do not take an aggressive stance. And don’t say there is/was no proof that they were armed. Do you know that captured Iraqi soldiers carried razor blades up their ass?
Honestly I have no qualms about shooting anybody that threatens my life or anyone around me. That means men, women and yes,even children.

Given the chance they would do whatever they wanted to our children, our women and you. That is the problem. They use their own children to commit acts of violence. They are so bent on our destruction that they even kill their own children to kill us. They view us as lesser being that should be wiped from the face of the earth. We are the Infidels. Men and women are dying everyday and all you worry about is the fate of some children because you think it is wrong.
Get captured sometime and tell me how it felt as you were begging for your life.
I do not condone what these soldiers did and I believe the ones responsible should be punished. I for one would not treat a prisoner that way, but then again who is to say I would take prisoners anyway.
I spent too much time in the military fighting for my freedom and your freedom to just stand back and watch it be given away.

We can sit here and argue until we are blue in the face about what is right and what is wrong. That is because we are safe at home typing away at our computers.

Your Logic fu is strong tonight. Master DM approves of this post.

I won't dispute it's nasty shit. I won't really say much about rights either, as it is the ones with power who determine rights to give or take.

If you destroy the image of "America the righteous" to the American people, that will do more good than any number of arguments about rights. When people believe they live in a totaliratarian state, only then will they start doing something about it.

Otherwise, they will remain bleeting sheep.

Earlier today some one posted something about a second American revolution.
For some strange reason that idea is starting to Appeal to me.

Earlier today some one posted something about a second American revolution.
For some strange reason that idea is starting to Appeal to me.

Alas, we need to ditch this government and get a better one.

Everybody sees these children as victims of American aggression.
No, not everybody sees that at all.
I could give a rat’s ass honestly, too bad for them. Do not pick up arms; do not take an aggressive stance. And don’t say there is/was no proof that they were armed. Do you know that captured Iraqi soldiers carried razor blades up their ass?
You have my sympathy - perhaps it is only a temporary dysfunction, or maybe just a stage of pre-functionality.
I'm not sure why you think telling posters not to post something will prevent them from doing so.
There is not proof in the public domain that the people detained at Guanatanamo Bay were armed, or engaged in aggression against the USA.
A necessary implication of absence of proof is the impossibility of making a determination that all, some, any were armed.

Please direct your attention to your question regarding Iraqi soldiers and razor wire. It appears to me that you are positing by implication the argument
Iraqi soldiers had razor wire blades in butts when capture,
therefore no one should say there is/was no proof that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were armed.
The argument presented is not a strong one. It has a particular form that can also be expressed as so;

Tomatoes are red when ripe
therefore no one should say that bananas are not red when ripe.

a further example

Every candle I have is green
therefore no one should say that my neighbour's candles are orange.

What leads you to believe that because a group of people had razor blades in their rearos, that a mutually exclusive bunch of people must therefore have been armed?

Honestly I have no qualms about shooting anybody that threatens my life or anyone around me. That means men, women and yes,even children.
This has no bearing on the issue at hand. Can you explain why you thought there was any point posting this with regards to the discussion at hand?

Given the chance they would do whatever they wanted to our children, our women and you. That is the problem. They use their own children to commit acts of violence. They are so bent on our destruction that they even kill their own children to kill us. They view us as lesser being that should be wiped from the face of the earth. We are the Infidels. Men and women are dying everyday and all you worry about is the fate of some children because you think it is wrong.
Whatever makes you imagine that this is all anyone person anywhere on the earth is worried about?
The problem with reductionist thinking is that it necessarily distorts often to the point of defeating the point of thinking.
This 'they' you refer to, who exactly is that?
I'd like you to consider the following points.
Osama and co wished to destroy the USA. They wanted to change it - crucially they wanted to make it over in an image likened to their own.
Words cannot express my desire to never see this war won in their favour. But my heart is heavy with fear and the diminishment of hope every time I view a battle won by them.
I see such a victory in you. The chance that Osama and co could destroy the USA through a superior ability to inflict physical damage is so close to nill no sensible person should so concern themselves. Please do not believe Osama and co are too stupid to know this.
Before 9/11, the USA was much less like the enemies that came against it, with the desire of making it more like them. Go back through your own posts detailing the enemy. This is what they want you to be, go back through your own words and see their victory for yourself.
Guantanamo Bay is not a balwark against your enemy, it's not even merely non-effective in combating the enemy, it is a battle won against you, a step down a path that leads to that enemies ultimate victory over you.

Get captured sometime and tell me how it felt as you were begging for your life.
I've been at gun point. I dont wish such things on anyone and regret that avoiding greater harms cannot always be achieved short of such things and worse.
But please, tell me how you think this supports your argument?

I do not condone what these soldiers did and I believe the ones responsible should be punished. I for one would not treat a prisoner that way, but then again who is to say I would take prisoners anyway.
I spent too much time in the military fighting for my freedom and your freedom to just stand back and watch it be given away.
I cannot reconcile your this statement with your apparent willingness to do just that. Guantanamo Bay is a strike at your freedom whether or not those responsible for it intended so.

We can sit here and argue until we are blue in the face about what is right and what is wrong. That is because we are safe at home typing away at our computers.
I dont see the point of you stating this obvious fact.

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece


I should like to point out that there is no such thing as an innocent Jihadi.

I should like to point out that there is no such thing as an innocent Jihadi.

Wise words.

I should like to point out that there is no such thing as an innocent Jihadi.
Your luck is in, it appears you have fufilled your desire.

I'd like to know why you wanted to point this out. Just a random spur of the moment urge for its own sake....?:confused:

Everybody sees these children as victims of American aggression. I could give a rat’s ass honestly, too bad for them. Do not pick up arms; do not take an aggressive stance. And don’t say there is/was no proof that they were armed. Do you know that captured Iraqi soldiers carried razor blades up their ass?
Honestly I have no qualms about shooting anybody that threatens my life or anyone around me. That means men, women and yes,even children.

Given the chance they would do whatever they wanted to our children, our women and you. That is the problem. They use their own children to commit acts of violence. They are so bent on our destruction that they even kill their own children to kill us. They view us as lesser being that should be wiped from the face of the earth. We are the Infidels. Men and women are dying everyday and all you worry about is the fate of some children because you think it is wrong.
Get captured sometime and tell me how it felt as you were begging for your life.
I do not condone what these soldiers did and I believe the ones responsible should be punished. I for one would not treat a prisoner that way, but then again who is to say I would take prisoners anyway.
I spent too much time in the military fighting for my freedom and your freedom to just stand back and watch it be given away.

We can sit here and argue until we are blue in the face about what is right and what is wrong. That is because we are safe at home typing away at our computers.
Have you ever questioned yourself why these people hate the US so much?
Did you find any answers, aside the usual BS of "they want to destroy our values of freedom, etc., etc."?
Have you ever questioned why they didn't do a major strike on Europe instead (before 9/11)?
Don't you find it strange? Are you not curious to know why?

Your luck is in, it appears you have fufilled your desire.

I'd like to know why you wanted to point this out. Just a random spur of the moment urge for its own sake....?:confused:

I'd say I spotted a rather odd usage of the word 'innocent' here.
Being 14 does not mean you are innocent - no more than being 41 means you are innocent.
Being an Arab does not mean you are innocent - no more than being a Swede means you are innocent.
And being tortured ( if true ) does not mean that you are innocent - no more than it would mean you are guilty...

I should like to point out that there is no such thing as an innocent Jihadi.

I'd like to point out for approximately the 348th time, that we dont know how many of these people were armed, fighting, or what they were doing when they were captured, so your statement is irrelevant.

I should like to point out that there is no such thing as an innocent Jihadi.

I should like to point out that there is no such thing as a guilty before proven innocent.

I should like to point out that there is no such thing as a guilty before proven innocent.

I'm afraid that is a legal fiction of US law.
It also is not to the point.
We know that people were given inapropriate treatment in certain cases.
( Quite often, I'm afraid. )
What we do not know is their guilt or innocence.

But when dealing with any person armed, other than as duely uniformed and documented, the presumption of guilt is there.
If said persons were members of any States' duely designated military, there certainly would have been the appropriate appeals from said States.

I'd say I spotted a rather odd usage of the word 'innocent' here.
:confused:

Being 14 does not mean you are innocent - no more than being 41 means you are innocent.
Being an Arab does not mean you are innocent - no more than being a Swede means you are innocent.
And being tortured ( if true ) does not mean that you are innocent - no more than it would mean you are guilty...
I'm no less confused about the intention behind your previous post. Additionally I now have the confusion of wondering what the point of this one is.

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece

Boldening by me...

Boldening by me...
Aha!

O K I C now...;)

To be honest the interpretation you are positing didnt occur to me.

I infered that innocent was derived from legal innocence - which wouldnt be an odd usage since the referent is a group of people who have not been proven guilty.

If the poster intended innocents to convey 'persons not proven guilty' then it isnt odd. If the poster intended innocents either as 'persons not guilty in fact' (as opposed to legalistically) or 'persons of purity, free from stain', it's not impossible that the usage is correct...but the chances of every single person refered to being not guilty in fact of any of the suspected activities, arent high enough that I'd confidently employ the term to refer to them.

As the for the usage to convey 'purity, freedom from stain', well it is not a logical impossibility, but as someone who very rarely gambles and never wages, I'd be confident betting my money against it being an accurate description...

Perhaps the OP will clarify which meaning was intended...

Maybe we should just stick then all in front of a camera and have them beg for their lives. Put a ransom on their head say... two camels and a goat, one camel and a chicken depending on age. It has happened, it is done, live with it, get over it. Your lives were normal before you knew and will be the same since. We only hear more of this stuff today because the media has become more sensationized when reporting the news. It happened years ago and will happen years latter. You cry and wine over these children that don’t know you don’t care about you and would if given the opportunity shoot you dead where you stand. He is your president, you elected him, you allowed him to invade another country and when things get a little messing you whine. What about the kids getting killed by roadside bombs that are intended for soldiers. Does that bother you also? Have they made any attempt to free those children, or negotiate for their release?
NO because they view them as participants in a just cause. If they die it will be at the hands of the enemy and they will achieve paradise. No word bending is going to change what happened, no investigation is going to make it go away. The people in charge will take a look find some poor saps to take the fall and six months down the road it will be long forgotten.:headbang:
so lets all just:fluffle: and make up.

Guantanamo Bay is not a balwark against your enemy, it's not even merely non-effective in combating the enemy, it is a battle won against you, a step down a path that leads to that enemies ultimate victory over you

No Guantanamo Bay is a detention center for those captured in an unconventional war . Its the alternative to just shooting those captured on the spot or letting them go back to what they were doing before they got captured .

Can I make that any clearer ?

Can the oversite be improved and can the system of determining the actual guilt or innocence of those captured on the "fringe " or while under " suspision of terrorist activity be improved on ? Thats a big affirmative .

can I make that a clearer .

Guantanamo Bay or a place just like it HAS to exist as long as the US is involved in an unconventional war on terrorist . I dont think many sane and objective people would deny the US has a right to detain those caught and held prisoner while engaged in acts of war against US troops or civilians in the theater of operations .


Can that be made any clearer ?

And despite the bleatings of the bleeding hearts COMBATANTS under the age of 18 exist throughout the world ..they are nothing special..they are soldiers and if captured deserve the same treatment their fellow soldiers / rebels / terrorist or whatever you deem the need to describe them as recieve .
"Children " is not on that list ...a 17 year old who has more than likely killed more people and has already beeen in more battles than you have years on this earth yourself is no longer a child .

can that be made any clearer ?

Here's from the article in the OP:

As for other sources, search the thread. But it seems to be statements from former detainees, former interregators and guards, and reports from NGOs backing up the allegations.
From that article is says some under the age of 18 were arrested. I see no problem with that. Why is this wrong? Are you suggesting that people under the age of 18 are incapable of being terrorists?

But they didn't get to go where they wanted, they only got to see some parts of the complex - so they felt that it was better to refuse to go to Guantanamo rather then being presented with a charade. I can understand them.
They got to see most of the complex. And that is better than none. The UN has no business saying something should be closed if they refuse to even check it out to see if there is any abuse going on. If they won't even do that; then they should just be quiet until they have factual information to base their proclamations on.

In this case, it might be months or years. And that is problematic.
It could be. Once again though, I must ask for evidence. Is there any evidence of this? I'm afraid if there's not, I'm going to have to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. If you expect anyone to believe that torture is going on, then you need evidence, not unconfirmed assertions by disgruntled former employee's.

*shakes head in disgust*

this is just downright sickening. now if anyone needs me i'll just be sitting in a corner until bush is out of office

can I make that a clearer .

Guantanamo Bay or a place just like it HAS to exist as long as the US is involved in an unconventional war on terrorist . ?

The US is not engaged in a "war on terror" but is using that excuse to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy than hitherto. This has led to more "terrorists" than before and therefore is self defeating. Having blown the support that existed before the Iraqi disaster, the US would be best advised to actually engage somebody with a brain to think long and hard about what to do next, as opposed to rampaging around like a child having a tantrum and bleating its self righteous hypocrisy at the rest of us. The US is not the moral mark against which the world must measure itself, its not the worlds policeman (though possibly a well armed vigilante) and yes, we could all survive without you.

Can I make that any fucking clearer?

?


They got to see most of the complex. And that is better than none. The UN has no business saying something should be closed if they refuse to even check it out to see if there is any abuse going on. If they won't even do that; then they should just be quiet until they have factual information to base their proclamations on.
.

They are denied unfettered access. Theres no point going to see what they want to show you. Otherwise we could just admire the North Korean parades and well rehearsed clapping.

From that article is says some under the age of 18 were arrested. I see no problem with that. Why is this wrong? Are you suggesting that people under the age of 18 are incapable of being terrorists?
No.
And the arresting of children is not the issue at hand here. The indefinate detention of children and the conditions unde which they are detained is, however.

They got to see most of the complex. And that is better than none. The UN has no business saying something should be closed if they refuse to even check it out to see if there is any abuse going on. If they won't even do that; then they should just be quiet until they have factual information to base their proclamations on.
See what Nodinia said.

Seeing just some of the complex and not being allowed to interview the detainees would constitute a waste of both time and resources.

And they do have factual information in the form of eyewitness testimony and different reports.

It could be. Once again though, I must ask for evidence. Is there any evidence of this? I'm afraid if there's not, I'm going to have to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. If you expect anyone to believe that torture is going on, then you need evidence, not unconfirmed assertions by disgruntled former employee's.
I disagree. The Bush administrations refusal to allow a truly independent investigation of the claims, the fact that they have been caught being less than truthfull (like the initial denial that there were any persons below the age of 18 at Guantanamo, before a later recantation), and their general behavior concerning the detainees at Guantanamo, combined with the testimony of released detainees and reports from NGOs, results in me being extremely sceptical towards th US government in this matter.

I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt as they have done little to deserve this - rather the opposite. Note that this does not mean that I unquestionably believe those allegations, I am calling for an independent investigation to discover the truth of the charges made. I see no reason why such an investigation should not be made a reality.

Aha!

O K I C now...;)

To be honest the interpretation you are positing didnt occur to me.

I infered that innocent was derived from legal innocence - which wouldnt be an odd usage since the referent is a group of people who have not been proven guilty.

If the poster intended innocents to convey 'persons not proven guilty' then it isnt odd. If the poster intended innocents either as 'persons not guilty in fact' (as opposed to legalistically) or 'persons of purity, free from stain', it's not impossible that the usage is correct...but the chances of every single person refered to being not guilty in fact of any of the suspected activities, arent high enough that I'd confidently employ the term to refer to them.

As the for the usage to convey 'purity, freedom from stain', well it is not a logical impossibility, but as someone who very rarely gambles and never wages, I'd be confident betting my money against it being an accurate description...

Perhaps the OP will clarify which meaning was intended...


Plain and simple.
Either they were the duely designated-and-all-that military - or they were franc-tirreurs.
Simple, wot?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html

Well, Considering they are enemy combatants personally i say screw jailing them. They are combatants.. not in a designated military uniform. Shoot them. They are spies.

But then, everybody would complain about how the USA was killing children, of course all the news stories would leave out the fact that they were combatants.

And if you notice from the date on that article. This is not exactly new news, just stuff dug up again to try and make bush look bad.

Seriously, some 16 year old terrorist charges you with a gun, shoots your friend and when you shoot back you dont kill him but wound him. what do you want to do? follow US law, put him in JuV for 2 years and release him when he becomes an adult? or put him somewhere with the rest of the people cought in a warzone, shooting at soldiers, not wearing uniforms.

No Guantanamo Bay is a detention center for those captured in an unconventional war . Its the alternative to just shooting those captured on the spot or letting them go back to what they were doing before they got captured .
No it is not the alternative, it is an alternative. It is not the best alternative, it is not the only alternative that would generate all the benefits attached to it, it is an alternative that offers no better benefit than alternatives that cost a lot less.
Can I make that any clearer ?
Can you make a fiction any clearer? Why would you want to?

Can the oversite be improved and can the system of determining the actual guilt or innocence of those captured on the "fringe " or while under " suspision of terrorist activity be improved on ? Thats a big affirmative .

Exactly! But then it wouldnt be what it is. It's so simple that I fail to see how the disconnect is occuring for you other than some ideologically inspired desire to avoid comprehension.
The detainees are not at Guantanamo Bay because they need to be questioned and/or so they dont have to be either shot on the spot or let free. They are there to facilitate a lack of oversight...they are there so that no consideration of guilt or innocence can be required. Guantanamo Bay is the lack of oversight and the irrelevence of guilt and innocence.
The only thing achieved by Guantanamo that wouldnt be achieved by an acceptable 'not-Guantanamo Bay' alternative is the lack of oversight and the irrelevence of guilt or innocence that Guanatanamo Bay was specifically established to provide.

can I make that a clearer .
You tell me, only keep in mind that it's to yourself that you need to address this effort. I am entirely clear that since there is no reason whatsoever for there to be a lack of oversight, nor for guilt or innocence to be irrelevent, yet this is the only effect of having Guantanomo Bay rather than an equally possible facility equal in every other respect, that Guantanamo Bay doesnt exist for the reasons you state, it exists to prevent oversight and to prevent the innocence of any detainee from having any binding relevence.

Guantanamo Bay or a place just like it HAS to exist as long as the US is involved in an unconventional war on terrorist .
That is not true. Nothing you have said indicates a single reason why a lack of oversight and the irrelevency of innocence are necessitated by US involvement in a war of any kind.

I dont think many sane and objective people would deny the US has a right to detain those caught and held prisoner while engaged in acts of war against troops or civilians in the theater of operations .
Yes, and how does that explain the need for a lack of oversight and the irrelevence of innocence? I dont see that it does, apparently you do, so please explain.

Can that be made any clearer ?
The distinction between the Bay and an acceptable alternative is the lack of oversight and the irrelevence of innocence that is the entire point of the Bay. Nothing you have said makes it clear that these things are necessary. Rather you suggest they could be improved even though they are the purpose for which the Bay exists.

And despite the bleatings of the bleeding hearts COMBATANTS under the age of 18 exist throughout the world ..they are nothing special..they are soldiers and if captured deserve the same treatment their fellow soldiers / rebels / terrorist or whatever you deem the need to describe them as recieve .
Despite the assertions of those determined to avoid reality international law distinguishes between combatants under 18 years of age, so whether or not you approve of it being so, it is true that they are 'special'.
Now you can argue the merits or lack there of until the cows come home, but the fact is this doesnt explain why it is necessary to have establish a lack of oversight nor to ensure that innocence is rendered irrelevent.

"Children " is not on that list ...a 17 year old who has more than likely killed more people and has already beeen in more battles than you have years on this earth yourself is no longer a child .
How so? I fail to see how killing people and/or being in a battle necessarily has any effect whatsoever on the timing and speed of the maturation processes that define stages in the human growth cycle.
can that be made any clearer ?
I'm certainly very clear in my understanding and subsequent veiw. I understand that Guantanamo Bay facilitates the very things that you agree (big affirmative) are problems not as a side effect of its intended functioning, but rather because that is the intended functioning. If this isnt clear to you, I the most likely cause is because you dont want it to be.