NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of guantanamo?
Is this camp a new concentration camp or only legal prison?

Torchering a prisoner, innocent or not, will result in either false information or no information whatsoever.

Above all, torcher is lowering ourselves to the enemy.

guantanamo is an absoulutly necessary part of the war on terror. The people held there have provided info that stoped further attack. Ive heard people say, well shut it down. Oh yeah, if you shut down what are you gonna do with all those murders? Release them back into the US so they can attack some more? please.

guantanamo is an absoulutly necessary part of the war on terror. The people held there have provided info that stoped further attack. Ive heard people say, well shut it down. Oh yeah, if you shut down what are you gonna do with all those murders? Release them back into the US so they can attack some more? please.

*idea* Why doesn't your country stop breaking its own laws and stop torturing people?
Oooh, I'm on a roll--I have another idea; hold fair and just trials by the legal system of the United States to see if there is actually any evidence of the supposed "murders"...
Then, when the judgement is reached (undoubtedly innocent--there is no evidence of any wrong-doing), these people can be released and we should all hope that they sue the US.

*idea* Why doesn't your country stop breaking its own laws and stop torturing people?
Oooh, I'm on a roll--I have another idea; hold fair and just trials by the legal system of the United States to see if there is actually any evidence of the supposed "murders"...
Then, when the judgement is reached (undoubtedly innocent--there is no evidence of any wrong-doing), these people can be released and we should all hope that they sue the US.
You dont understand, the war on terror is not something that can be fought with traditional laws and regulations. If we dont bend the rules we will end up died.

You dont understand, the war on terror is not something that can be fought with traditional laws and regulations. If we dont bend the rules we will end up died.

I'm afraid it is you who does not understand. You are tragically incomprehensive of the reasons for which laws exist.

You dont understand, the war on terror is not something that can be fought with traditional laws and regulations. If we dont bend the rules we will end up died.

Funny you should say that. Maybe you can explain how we had information on 9/11 without all these stupid policies that "bend the rules". These new policies dont make up for incompetence.

You dont understand, the war on terror is not something that can be fought with traditional laws and regulations. If we dont bend the rules we will end up died.

you would swear the yanks were the first people to be attacked by terrorists the way some of them go on.

while gitmo isnt a concentration camp, it is utterly illegal (why else have it in cuba) strategically useless (as the us themselves admit that the minority there who are actually terrorists are footsoldiers) and a huge tactical blunder as it has alienated friends and provided a visual for how dirty the wests 'freedom bearers' are willing to play.

guantanamo is an absoulutly necessary part of the war on terror. The people held there have provided info that stoped further attack. Ive heard people say, well shut it down. Oh yeah, if you shut down what are you gonna do with all those murders? Release them back into the US so they can attack some more? please.

At least 80% of people held in Guantanamo are innocent. No fair trials? Sounds like one thing the USA was trying to stop in Iraq. Torture of innocent people? Hmm another thing they were trying to stop. Murders?Sounds like something I heard about the marines. Many of these people are held because the US government thinks these people have a link to terror. So being held for not committing a crime.

You dont understand, the war on terror is not something that can be fought with traditional laws and regulations. If we dont bend the rules we will end up died.

Those are the kind of words you hear from the Tsars of Russia when they unleash their cavalry to stop liberals from protesting against war and famine. It's like the rhetoric you get from Hitler and Goebles when they seek to isolate Jews and eventually exterminate them in death camps. This aproach is similar to how Pinochet tries to ban demonstrators and squish dissent. A ruler that bypasses the law or convienently goes soft on immoral activity is no leader. But that, Bush got to be president by flirting with the courts so I suppose that's tradition for him.

You all want to attack Guatanmo. But 9/11 taught us important lessons that you cant protect freedom by just sitting back and doin nothing ya know. We have to stay on the offense and get them before they get us. I would hope you guys would remember that before you attack me and my governments policy.

You all want to attack Guatanmo. But 9/11 taught us important lessons that you cant protect freedom by just sitting back and doin nothing ya know. We have to stay on the offense and get them before they get us. I would hope you guys would remember that before you attack me and my governments policy.You forget who's been taking any freedoms away since then. I hope you would remember that before you defend my government's policy.

You all want to attack Guatanmo. But 9/11 taught us important lessons that you cant protect freedom by just sitting back and doin nothing ya know. We have to stay on the offense and get them before they get us. I would hope you guys would remember that before you attack me and my governments policy.

you are making the assumption its 'them' in the camp, and the us government admits most arent.

besides, why not charge them with something, even conspiracy or membership of an illegal organisation?

I have no qualms about torturing a terrorist for information. Red is positive and black is negative. If torturing a raghead saves coalition, US, and iraqi lives, I'm all for it.

I would be very pissed if an innocent person was tortured.

That said, I will get flamed.

You all want to attack Guatanmo. But 9/11 taught us important lessons that you cant protect freedom by just sitting back and doin nothing ya know. We have to stay on the offense and get them before they get us. I would hope you guys would remember that before you attack me and my governments policy.

You want to defend freedom by the establishing a univeral system of unauthorised phone tapping that goes against both the judiciary and the constitution? It's a blatant paradox. I'm not going to condescend because I'm tired of the rants of so many on the political left that will criticise any measure embarked upon by any American adminstration through the hope of scoring points. That said, the fact that so many Americans are so willing to buy into the argument that "gee, these terrorists are bad chaps, we'd best sacrifice all our liberty to stop them" is very sad. I think the United States of America is one of the greatest countries in the world and I don't want to see it sell out through mindless fear.

You dont understand, the war on terror is not something that can be fought with traditional laws and regulations. If we dont bend the rules we will end up died.
Me no want died!

My only question is... how the hell did Guantanamo end up in Cuba? Especially considering all the tension between the U.S. and Cuba.

You dont understand, the war on terror is not something that can be fought with traditional laws and regulations. If we dont bend the rules we will end up died.So we need to fight the people "trying to take away our freedoms" by giving up our freedoms?

My only question is... how the hell did Guantanamo end up in Cuba? Especially considering all the tension between the U.S. and Cuba.At the time when Guantanamo was given to the US, the Estrella Solitaria still expressed Cuba's desire to become part of the US.

My only question is... how the hell did Guantanamo end up in Cuba? Especially considering all the tension between the U.S. and Cuba.
Spanish america war... how we've kept it?

No clue. maybe castro's really afriad of pissing us off?

My only question is... how the hell did Guantanamo end up in Cuba? Especially considering all the tension between the U.S. and Cuba.

an hour from miami with none of those pesky protestors or constitutional rights for the torturees.

and no way those commies in the red cross, the un or amnesty can get near any of the prisoners or guards

I have no qualms about torturing a terrorist for information. Red is positive and black is negative. If torturing a raghead saves coalition, US, and iraqi lives, I'm all for it.

Yep, only that's never going to be the case if these same ragheads can use it as propaganda.

I would be very pissed if an innocent person was tortured.



so are you pissed yet and what are you doing about it?

we know with 100% certainty that innocents have been rendered and tortured

so are you pissed yet and what are you doing about it?

we know with 100% certainty that innocents have been rendered and tortured
Well, all we have to do is just torture the bad people. And you find out if a person is bad by torturing them and getting them to confess.

Well, all we have to do is just torture the bad people. And you find out if a person is bad by torturing them and getting them to confess.
Kinda like the Spanish inquisition, right?

Kinda like the Spanish inquisition, right?
No, not at all. We are not communists.

Wait. What?

Well, all we have to do is just torture the bad people. And you find out if a person is bad by torturing them and getting them to confess.

and we find out how morally vacous and based on a lie the US is by crashing a few planes?

we could play this game all night....

You want to defend freedom by the establishing a univeral system of unauthorised phone tapping that goes against both the judiciary and the constitution? It's a blatant paradox. I'm not going to condescend because I'm tired of the rants of so many on the political left that will criticise any measure embarked upon by any American adminstration through the hope of scoring points. That said, the fact that so many Americans are so willing to buy into the argument that "gee, these terrorists are bad chaps, we'd best sacrifice all our liberty to stop them" is very sad. I think the United States of America is one of the greatest countries in the world and I don't want to see it sell out through mindless fear.

I can agree with you..the wiretapping, without a warrant is unconstitutional.

and we find out how morally vacous and based on a lie the US is by crashing a few planes?

we could play this game all night....
I can't fly a plane. And I wouldn't know how to use one to discover truth.

No, not at all. We are not communists.

Wait. What?

The Spanish inquisition wasn't preformed by cominuists! it was preformed by the catholic church!

Not normaly I don't give wiki as a source but hey...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

The Spanish inquisition wasn't preformed by cominuists! it was preformed by the catholic church!

Not normaly I don't give wiki as a source but hey...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition
Frickin, terrorists.

so are you pissed yet and what are you doing about it?

we know with 100% certainty that innocents have been rendered and tortured

There has been tribunals already, those who were "innocent" have been released. There are still many left to be tried.

I seriously doubt there are any 'innocent' people in Club Gitmo. If you ended up their it's because you were caught by US forces aiding and abetting terrorism.

Spanish america war... how we've kept it?

No clue. maybe castro's really afriad of pissing us off?

1901 Platt Amendment. Guantanamo Bay was 'given' to the US government by the new Cuban government as part of the treaty after the end of the Spanish-American War as a refueling station for naval operations.

The same Platt Amendment that restricted Cuba from making any foreign treaties with other nations, and ensured that the Cuban government was elected by the US Congress.

Yep, only that's never going to be the case if these same ragheads can use it as propaganda.

Yeah, because torture NEVER works! :headbang:

They'll use anything for propaganda. If only we had stricter secrecy on stuff that could give the enemy ammo to use against us...

I seriously doubt there are any 'innocent' people in Club Gitmo. If you ended up their it's because you were caught by US forces aiding and abetting terrorism.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Jesus. You actually believe that?

Yeah, because torture NEVER works! :headbang:

They'll use anything for propaganda. If only we had stricter secrecy on stuff that could give the enemy ammo to use against us...
How many nails would it take to be forced beneath your fingernail for you to admit you're a terrorist?

There has been tribunals already, those who were "innocent" have been released. There are still many left to be tried.

I seriously doubt there are any 'innocent' people in Club Gitmo. If you ended up their it's because you were caught by US forces aiding and abetting terrorism.

despite the fact the US govts OWN figures are that more than 80% of the detainees in gitmo were handed over by bounty hunters? less than 20% of them were, as you put it, "caught by US forces aiding and abetting" anything. that sir, is whats known in the business as a blatnat and direct piece of good old fashioned bullshit and you know it.

whether they are still there or not is besides the point. you said that you would be pissed if innocents were tortured. you acknowledge innocents ended up it gitmo (and we havent even gone near abu graib, baghram and the other black sites) and we know pople have been tortured there, so whats your answer?

and DM, no-one has been tried yet.

Frickin, terrorists.

Catholic church? Back in the day those guys were nuts, they refined torture and cruelty to a degree unseen in human history, save for the middle ages.

Catholic church? Back in the day those guys were nuts, they refined torture and cruelty to a degree unseen in human history, save for the middle ages.
All I'm saying is build a fence to keep those people out.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Jesus. You actually believe that?


Hell, if some of them are alqaida operatives from countries we haven't invaded, I'm fine.

Alqaida is a global terrorist organization, we can't invade EVERYONE. LIke an evil spider they have their web everywhere.

Asking me to be nice and care about Alqaida and it's people is like asking a Russian about what he thinks about the perpetrators of Beslan.

All I'm saying is build a fence to keep those people out.

Huh?

Ya lost me man.

Asking me to be nice and care about Alqaida and it's people is like asking a Russian about what he thinks about the perpetrators of Beslan.

that would be easier to take from a staunch neo-con supporter if they werent set up by the CIA

despite the fact the US govts OWN figures are that more than 80% of the detainees in gitmo were handed over by bounty hunters? less than 20% of them were, as you put it, "caught by US forces aiding and abetting" anything. that sir, is whats known in the business as a blatnat and direct piece of good old fashioned bullshit and you know it.

whether they are still there or not is besides the point. you said that you would be pissed if innocents were tortured. you acknowledge innocents ended up it gitmo (and we havent even gone near abu graib, baghram and the other black sites) and we know pople have been tortured there, so whats your answer?

and DM, no-one has been tried yet.


No, they did 10 tribunals with MIlitary officers on them. If I recall correctly some were released, some were sentenced to prison...

that would be easier to take from a staunch neo-con supporter if they werent set up by the CIA

beslan was set up by the CIA?

Or alqaida?

Neither was.

beslan was set up by the CIA?

Or alqaida?

Neither was.

Al Qaeda was.

No, they did 10 tribunals with MIlitary officers on them. If I recall correctly some were released, some were sentenced to prison...

thats not a trial. no evidence presented, no chance to cross examine.

its a review by soldiers and spooks.

thats not a trial. no evidence presented, no chance to cross examine.

its a review by soldiers and spooks.

And they let some of them go....


:eek:

Posted 8/23/2004 10:09 PM Updated 8/24/2004 10:38 AM
Guantanamo hearings start today
By Toni Locy, USA TODAY
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — Today, the Pentagon will kick off one of the Bush administration's most controversial creations in its war on terrorism by conducting preliminary hearings for four foreign terrorism suspects who face trials by military tribunal.
The hearings at the U.S. naval base here, where nearly 600 suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere are held, come nearly three years after President Bush set off criticism at home and abroad when he ordered the Pentagon to create a justice system for non-U.S. citizens accused of terrorism. During the next four days, a five-member tribunal will arraign the defendants and address pretrial issues with more than 60 media representatives, five human rights advocates and relatives of an Australian defendant looking on.

The sessions will provide the first hint of how the U.S. military will handle key questions looming over the tribunals: Can the military conduct "full and fair" trials for foreign terrorism suspects, as Bush promised? Or will the tribunals collapse under the weight of the military's emphasis on secrecy to protect national security, with defendants tried and convicted with evidence presented largely behind closed doors?

Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor, says the tribunal's debut has "huge significance" in U.S. legal history, and because the captives at Guantanamo have been held incommunicado for more than two years. "It's the first measure of due process for these people," says Silliman, a former Air Force lawyer.

Not since World War II has the U.S. government used military tribunals to try war crimes suspects. The Pentagon's new version of military tribunals — or commissions, as it calls them — has been criticized by U.S. allies and international human rights advocates as unfair because of the military's exclusive control of the process and the lack of appellate review by civilian courts.

Pentagon officials say the tribunals will be as foreign to the military officers involved as they will be for defendants..

Even before being called to order, the proceedings have had drama, discourse and confusion. The tribunal's "presiding officer," retired Army colonel Peter Brownback, has clashed with military-appointed defense lawyers over how much authority he has in the hearings.

The panelists — Brownback, Marine Col. Jack Sparks Jr., Marine Col. R. Thomas Bright, Air Force Lt. Col. Timothy Toomey and Air Force Col. Christopher Bogdan — might wear judge's robes even though only Brownback, an ex-military judge, has legal training.

Fearful for their safety, prosecutors and members of the tribunal didn't want the news media to use their names — but the Defense Department announced them on its Web site. Keeping such secrets is unheard of in civilian courts, where well-known prosecutors routinely bring charges against mobsters and drug dealers. Army Col. Robert Swann is the chief prosecutor; the initial cases will be prosecuted by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Scott Lang and Marine Lt. Col. Kurt Brubaker.

Pentagon officials have barred cameras from the courtroom, and a media sketch artist is not allowed to draw the faces of tribunal members, prosecutors and defendants. The media has asked officials to reconsider allowing sketches of defendants.

Late Monday, Brownback backed down on a change he wanted to make in the Pentagon's rules for media coverage of the trials. If classified information were inadvertently disclosed in court, he had wanted to seize reporters' notebooks, remove the information, then return the notebooks. Brownback reconsidered after reporters objected to the idea of giving up their notes.

Army Col. David McWilliams, a spokesman for the tribunals, says Pentagon officials concluded that the Geneva Conventions bar them from allowing the detainees to be exploited by being sketched. But the administration has said the detainees do not deserve prisoner-of-war status under Geneva because they did not wear uniforms and failed to abide by the laws of war.

The tribunal might be unable to achieve one of the goals of the hearings: setting trial dates. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Philip Sundel and Air Force Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer, the military-appointed lawyers for two defendants, have complained they have not been given enough translators and other resources to prepare for trial.

The trials also are complicated by the possibility that Sundel and Shaffer might leave their cases. Sundel — who represents Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman Al Bahlul, a Yemeni who is an alleged propagandist for al-Qaeda — has said he might leave the military soon because he was passed over for a promotion. And Shaffer — who represents Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud Al Qosi, 43, an alleged accountant for al-Qaeda from the Sudan — has been given orders to be a judge in the Air Force.

Meanwhile, Al Bahlul has said he wants to represent himself in court. The Pentagon's rules prohibit that, and legal analysts wonder how the panel will react if Al Bahlul demands to go it alone.

The other defendants are David Hicks, 29, of Australia, who allegedly trained with al-Qaeda and met Osama bin Laden; and Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, of Yemen, an alleged driver for bin Laden. (Related story: Bin Laden's driver arraigned)

The defendants are among 15 Guantanamo captives the president has designated for tribunal trials. The first four each will have a hearing and trial in a new, high-security courtroom. The defendants will not be shackled and may wear civilian clothes in court.

Traditional notions of American justice, including the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, will be part of the tribunals.

But there will be no independent judge. Instead, the tribunal will be judge and jury. Brownback will guide the other panelists through rules the Pentagon created for the tribunals.

The other panelists can overrule him on whether evidence has "probative value to a reasonable person." That is a lower standard of relevancy than what is used in U.S. civilian courts, and it allows the prosecution and defense to use hearsay and evidence from the battlefield.

The tribunal also will have broad discretion to hold parts of trials in secret when considering classified evidence. A vote of two-thirds of the tribunal — four members, in these cases — is needed to convict and impose a sentence. If convicted, the current defendants each could face up to life in prison.




U.S. To Quickly Resume Military Tribunals at Gitmo


Click Here!


The U.S. military is wasting no time in resuming military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Less than a week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that military tribunals were permissible, the trials of four captives are set to resume immediately with the government preparing charges against eight more detainees.

According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the tribunals will move forward 'as rapidly as is possible.'

The tribunals had not been convened since last December when a Federal District Court ruled that they were improper and stayed proceedings in one case.

The entire judicial situation began in June 2004 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had a right to contest their status in American federal courts.

As of late, members of both parties in Congress are growing impatient with the delay in filing charges against detainees and holding tribunals.

Under the Bush administration's present policy, the detainees are not guaranteed rights under the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war. Instead, they are treated as enemy combatants. As a result, they are held indefinitely without charges being filed against them and are not permitted access to lawyers or to cross examine witnesses against them in many cases.

Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, told reporters that Congress should pass a law that requires a hearing within six months and a decision within two years for detainees held at Guantanamo or similar facilities.

'We're strongest in the war on terrorism when we act in unison, with the Congress and the administration, and areas like we're in now are kind of a twilight zone,' Schiff told the 'Washington Post.' 'I understand why the administration wants to move forward. Even so, we have 12 people designated for tribunals out of 500. It begs the question about what will done about all the rest.'

Meanwhile, the defendant in the case that was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, has vowed to appeal the ruling. Hamdan was allegedly a driver for Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind who orchestrated the September 11 attacks on the United States. Bin Laden remains free almost four years after the attacks.

Despite the controversy, the Bush administration is eager to move ahead with the tribunals. At a news conference at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld told reporters, 'The court's ruling marks an advance in the global struggle against extremists and aids the effort to protect innocent life.'


Jodi Schneider

some selections:

The panelists — Brownback, Marine Col. Jack Sparks Jr., Marine Col. R. Thomas Bright, Air Force Lt. Col. Timothy Toomey and Air Force Col. Christopher Bogdan — might wear judge's robes even though only Brownback, an ex-military judge, has legal training.


Pentagon officials say the tribunals will be as foreign to the military officers involved as they will be for defendants..

Meanwhile, Al Bahlul has said he wants to represent himself in court. The Pentagon's rules prohibit

But there will be no independent judge. Instead, the tribunal will be judge and jury.

The other panelists can overrule him on whether evidence has "probative value to a reasonable person." That is a lower standard of relevancy than what is used in U.S. civilian courts, and it allows the prosecution and defense to use hearsay and evidence from the battlefield.

yeah, just what will reassure us you have nothing to hide. why not try them as every other civilised nation on earth does with terrorists, in open court with protections for sensitive intellegence data? no-one has explained this yet?

Have any of these 'trials' actually happened?

I have no qualms about torturing a terrorist for information. Red is positive and black is negative. If torturing a raghead saves coalition, US, and iraqi lives, I'm all for it.
"Raghead"... Yep, I can see your indignation at the possibility of innocent people being tortured.

There has been tribunals already, those who were "innocent" have been released. There are still many left to be tried.

I seriously doubt there are any 'innocent' people in Club Gitmo. If you ended up their it's because you were caught by US forces aiding and abetting terrorism.
I like how you write "innocent" :rolleyes:

4 Men Cleared of Terrorism Links but Still Detained (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901603.html)
No Explanation Or Timetable for Release Given.

They are men such as Zakirjan Hassam, an Uzbek refugee who was sold to U.S. forces in Afghanistan for $5,000 in May 2002 by people he mistakenly believed would shelter him. He ended up in Guantanamo Bay the following month and is still there today.

According to the U.S. military, Hassam is not an enemy, and a military tribunal decided in 2004 that his stay at Guantanamo Bay had been based on inaccurate information. There is no evidence that Hassam took up arms against anyone or that he ever supported terrorism, and his only apparent link to alleged terrorist groups were conversations with fellow detainees during his imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, according to testimony by Hassam that is not disputed by the government.

"He's lost four years of his life for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and for being sold to U.S. forces," said Christopher Moore, a New York lawyer who represents Hassam.

No, they did 10 tribunals with MIlitary officers on them. If I recall correctly some were released, some were sentenced to prison...
Some were released, yes. None have been sentenced as no court proceedings have taken place, only Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

No, not at all. We are not communists.

Wait. What?
Did you not expect the Spanish Inquisition? ;)

Guantanamo base doesn't exist yet!!!
--Monster Poland in A.D. 1650

beslan was set up by the CIA?

Or alqaida?

Neither was.

are you serious?

they funded and trained the group from the remanants of the Mujihadeen with help from the Pakistani ISI

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

osama bin laden recived treatment in an american hospital in dubai in july 01 where he met with cia operatives

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
[I][/IContacts between the CIA and bin Laden began in 1979 when, as a representative of his family's business, bin Laden began recruiting volunteers for the Afghan resistance against the Red Army. FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army, and that these explosives had been delivered threee years earlier to Afghan Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army.


DM, you have heard of the CIA term 'blowback'? when an asset turns against you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

are you serious?

they funded and trained the group from the remanants of the Mujihadeen with help from the Pakistani ISI

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

osama bin laden recived treatment in an american hospital in dubai in july 01 where he met with cia operatives

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
[I][/IContacts between the CIA and bin Laden began in 1979 when, as a representative of his family's business, bin Laden began recruiting volunteers for the Afghan resistance against the Red Army. FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army, and that these explosives had been delivered threee years earlier to Afghan Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army.


DM, you have heard of the CIA term 'blowback'? when an asset turns against you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

Blowback? Yes, it has popped up in my mind. However, stabbing the Russians back for Vietnam was well worth it.

There wasn't any problem with sending aid to the afghanis against the Russkies-it was the fact we weren't there to prevent the rise of the taliban. That's what came back to bite, and of course where did the hijackers come from....

Bin Laden Started Al qaida. We didn't. We sent him supplies (Along with the Mujahideen) to get back at the Russkies. The real travesty happened after it was all over...

are we still "torturing" the inmates with Harry Potter reading sessions and three square meals each day (they are a bit light on the meat)?

hehe

Blowback? Yes, it has popped up in my mind. However, stabbing the Russians back for Vietnam was well worth it.

There wasn't any problem with sending aid to the afghanis against the Russkies-it was the fact we weren't there to prevent the rise of the taliban. That's what came back to bite, and of course where did the hijackers come from....

Bin Laden Started Al qaida. We didn't. We sent him supplies (Along with the Mujahideen) to get back at the Russkies. The real travesty happened after it was all over...

OSAMA BIN LADEN RECIEVED TREATMENT IN A US HOSPITAL IN 2001 AT THE REQUEST OF THE CIA

this is after the cole got attacked and the 1st wtc attack. a little bit more going on than just aid.

OSAMA BIN LADEN RECIEVED TRATEMENT IN A US MILITARY HOSPITAL IN 2001 AT THE REQUEST OF THE CIA

this is after the cole got attacked and the 1st wtc attack. a little bit more going on than just aid.
Bullshit.

Bullshit.

is it?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

While he was hospitalised, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital room.

A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorised sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta, the CIA agent was called back to headquarters.

also

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html
Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent

and the washington post reported it too

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_treated_us_hospital.html

I can agree with you..the wiretapping, without a warrant is unconstitutional.
Hogwash. Stop being a hippie will ya. The President has special war time powers and in case you forget, we are at war with people who want to take our freedom.

you are making the assumption its 'them' in the camp, and the us government admits most arent.

besides, why not charge them with something, even conspiracy or membership of an illegal organisation?
because military law is more complicated than that. You wouldnt understand it.

Lots of you have claimed that torture is carried out at Guantanamo. I've never heard such an allegation, and I would like a source. Until then, I don't believe a word of it.

By the way, SR, what's this 'Globalization Research' group you keep citing? Their website seems absurdly polemic, saying such things as that we are developing mind control weapons, having the header about a US-focussed article be "POLICE STATE" etc. Now, they might be reporting facts, but I'd be chary of using them as a source independantly. They seem to have a very clear, avowed slant against the United States. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think that before we take their word as 'truth' we should see some outside sources such as you posted above.

Way I see it:
Guantanamo Bay is a detention facility for criminals who murder American soldiers afield. They ought to be charged and tried, not held without charges. On that note, they should be charged as civilians and treated as such rather than as POWs, which they clearly are not.

Here's my reasoning for that. They didn't wear uniforms, they just popped up and shot at Americans. Whether American presence there is valid or not, you can hardly claim that these people who masquerade as peaceful citizens until they start shooting ought be treated as uniformed soldiers fighting for a nation/government.

That said, they should be tried as civilians, rather than held as 'enemy combatants'. Although enemy combatants they may be, it does no good to detract from our legitimacy as a nation in the name of 'catching the bad guys'. Furthermore, they should be tried in either in a civilian court or by the military with civilian oversight. Everyone involved should have comprehensive legal training.

EDIT:
Also, that wiretapping business:

The only records that the government recieve contain who you called, and where you called them from. It's not the content of the conversation. I have to say, I don't see a problem with that. The government could get it anyway, there was a specific court that simply rubber stamped every motion. I believe that this court approved almost every motion that came before it in a matter of hours.

Essentially, it just generated paperwork and cost taxpayer money. Not a branch of government that I feel particularly attached to.

thanks for the patronising tone bobo.

more complicated than what? are you saying the us military can hold them forever simply bacause they are the military?

are you saying the us military can hold them forever simply bacause they are the military?
yes, actually. You figured it out.

yes, actually. You figured it out.

explain why?

and then explain why the rest of the world should take lectures in 'freedom' from you?

Don't be silly, Bobo. If we do that, we undermine the basic ideals of this nation. We simply must live up to the ideals that were set out by Jefferson and others, because without that we are nothing worth defending.

explain why?

and then explain why the rest of the world should take lectures in 'freedom' from you?
Because they are the military and they can do what they want.

I stand up for our military and they spread freedom, thats why you should lesson to me about freedom.

Because they are the military and they can do what they want.

I stand up for our military and they spread freedom, thats why you should lesson to me about freedom.

God. You're not even an amusing troll anymore. I never thought I'd say this, but 'Bring Back UNA!'

God. You're not even an amusing troll anymore. I never thought I'd say this, but 'Bring Back UNA!'
Do you mean USA? And why would you want to bring us back when we are country and always have been? Your not making any sense now.

Because they are the military and they can do what they want.

I stand up for our military and they spread freedom, thats why you should lesson to me about freedom.


Actually, your military spreads death, pestilence and famine. Not to mention wide spread hunger; cutting off medical supplies from entering warzones; refusing to let women and children leave areas before rampant bombings and artillery strikes via road blocks and barricades; Raiding hospitols, intentionally causing black/brown outs to disrupt "terrorist" activity, also causing widespread mayhem due to lack of electricity. Also your military has a bad habbit of killing innocent civilians. By the dozens.

But hey, all in the name of what you'd like to refer to as "freedom", right?

Do you mean USA? And why would you want to bring us back when we are country and always have been? Your not making any sense now.

UN Abassador - a poster/troll here. Much better than you are at this game.

Do you mean USA? And why would you want to bring us back when we are country and always have been? Your not making any sense now.

he isnt making sense? :p

is it militaries in general you would give unlimited power too or just the US one?

did you support the vietcong holding american battlefield detainees captured in what wasnt a war and held for years illegally and abused?

he isnt making sense? :p

is it militaries in general you would give unlimited power too or just the US one?

did you support the vietcong holding american battlefield detainees captured in what wasnt a war and held for years illegally and abused?
The US one, because we are reasonable with ours.

And no I dont support that because its wrong. Ive said before No one has the right to kill or torture american soliders.

The US one, because we are reasonable with ours.

And no I dont support that because its wrong. Ive said before No one has the right to kill or torture american soliders.

And by "reasonable", do you mean launching illegal "pre-emptive" strikes with depleted uranium bunker buster bombs? Or how about the use of chorline gas on both military and noncombatant individuals?

(Did I mention the use of chlorine gas is also illegal as stated by international conventions? Which the US is signatory to...)

Do you mean USA? And why would you want to bring us back when we are country and always have been? Your not making any sense now.
When was the U.S. founded?

And by "reasonable", do you mean launching illegal "pre-emptive" strikes with depleted uranium bunker buster bombs? Or how about the use of chorline gas on both military and noncombatant individuals?

(Did I mention the use of chlorine gas is also illegal as stated by international conventions? Which the US is signatory to...)
chlorine is used in kiddie pools. how bad could it be? I guessing it would just make your eyes sting a little, like in the pool.

When was the U.S. founded?
1677 if Im not mistaken

1677 if Im not mistaken
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA!

chlorine is used in kiddie pools. how bad could it be? I guessing it would just make your eyes sting a little, like in the pool.
Very dilute quantities of chlorine. Chlorine gas will burn up your lungs if you inhale it.

chlorine is used in kiddie pools. how bad could it be? I guessing it would just make your eyes sting a little, like in the pool.
Do some Goddamn research! http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/20.html#health

Do some Goddamn research! http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/20.html#health
edit: I read it. It doesnt seem so bad.

The US one, because we are reasonable with ours.

And no I dont support that because its wrong. Ive said before No one has the right to kill or torture american soliders.

very few consider abu ghraib resonable.

i agree no-one has the right to torture american soldiers, but any chance you could extend that to the rest of us?

whats the moral difference between gitmo and the vietcong pow camps?

very few consider abu ghraib resonable.

i agree no-one has the right to torture american soldiers, but any chance you could extend that to the rest of us?

whats the moral difference between gitmo and the vietcong pow camps?
vietcong pows were doin the morally rightous thing of spread freedom. Thats what the difference is.

chlorine is used in kiddie pools. how bad could it be? I guessing it would just make your eyes sting a little, like in the pool.
:D

You're funny...

Next you'll say that mustard gas isn't that bad, 'cause you eat mustard on your weinerdogs.

Go on, don't be shy! :p

vietcong pows were doin the morally rightous thing of spread freedom. Thats what the difference is.

in mai lai?

the vc captured enemy combatants and didnt allow them geneva protection because they werent technically at war, held them illegally and probably tortured them

the us captured enemy combatants and didnt allow them geneva protection because they werent technically at war, held them illegally and probably tortured them

the difference is all the yanks the vc caught were actually on a battlefield, unlike 92% (us govt figures) of those in gitmo.

is there any circumstance that you would criticise an american soldier?

is there any circumstance that you would criticise an american soldier?
Yes, if they didnt fight for freedom hard enough.

vietcong pows were doin the morally rightous thing of spread freedom. Thats what the difference is.

Oh yes. It's well known that the Hanoi Hilton was a bastion of democratic thought, and many VC and NVA soldiers were converted there.


Actually, I knew you seemed familiar. Claims that the US is the best country in the world. Claims that no-one has a right to kill US soldiers. Claims that Gitmo is alright whilst anything else isn't. Godawful history knowledge.


Ladies and Gentlemen, let me introduce to you...


UN Abassadorship!

UN Abassadorship!
UNA isn't a Christian.

UNA isn't a Christian.

I wouldn't put it past him to make a few new details up to make this new puppet look different. He's done it before - Vietnamexico.

Yes, if they didnt fight for freedom hard enough.
Fuck off. I call the "insurgents" in Iraq freedom fighters, because the coalition and especially the US soldiers shit on them from a great height whilst "spreading freedom". If they kill 100 US soldiers and the US packs up and leaves, saving thousands of "raghead" lives then it's a victory for them.

Look at Iraq now. It's in martial law, the government has no real control, and there's sectarian violence verging on a civil war. Would you not fight to rid yourself of that?

Yes, if they didnt fight for freedom hard enough.
Skinny87 is correct, though. This qoute could have been taken directly from UNA.

Fuck off. I call the "insurgents" in Iraq freedom fighters, because the coalition and especially the US soldiers shit on them from a great height whilst "spreading freedom". If they kill 100 US soldiers and the US packs up and leaves, saving thousands of "raghead" lives then it's a victory for them.

Look at Iraq now. It's in martial law, the government has no real control, and there's sectarian violence verging on a civil war. Would you not fight to rid yourself of that?
They arent freedom fighters in that they arent Iraqis fighting the US so they leave. That is just dead wrong. The Iraqis want us there, as edvince by the fact they voted and celebrated when we took down Saddam. The people who are fighting us are foreign fighters and terrorists who dont give two shits about protecting Iraqis. This is shown in that the terrorists intentionally target innocent Iraqi civilians to cause problems for Iraqs new government, our forces, and the Iraqis. They are trying to break our will so they can form their hardline Islam government. We can not, and will not let this happen. The US stands on the side of freedom always!