NationStates Jolt Archive

According to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-chief-brands-suicides-acts-of-warfare/2006/06/11/1149964396421.html).

"They are smart, they are creative, they are committed," Harris said.

"They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
Huh?

According to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-chief-brands-suicides-acts-of-warfare/2006/06/11/1149964396421.html).


Huh?

Psychological Warfare. Dirty Suiciding bastards! :mad:

;)

Psychological Warfare. Dirty Suiciding bastards! :mad:

;)
Yeah, I guess. Is this a case of "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like an Arab terrorist, I mean nail?"

Yeah, how dare they show the world they are treated so poorly that they would rather choose death than further Kafkaesque "detention" by the US? Don't they know the US is trying to fool... I mean, convince, people that Guantanamo is a five star resort?

Yeah, how dare they show the world they are treated so poorly that they would rather choose death than further Kafkaesque "detention" by the US? Don't they know the US is trying to fool... I mean, convince, people that Guantanamo is a five star resort?

But... they get three meals a day! Bedsheets! Habeus corpus! oh wait... let's not get too carried away with this 'human rights' stuff, everyone...

Sigh...I feel bad that the military has morons like this representing them.

Maybe this guy is related to Designated Marksman. They both think every Dead Muslim is a propaganda strike against the United States.

Maybe this guy is related to Designated Marksman. They both think every Dead Muslim is a propaganda strike against the United States.
I imagine they think all the Muslims in Iraq are like "Holy shit, an American bullet *jump* woo hoo, I die to screw with the Americans!"

I imagine they think all the Muslims in Iraq are like "Holy shit, an American bullet *jump* woo hoo, I die to screw with the Americans!"
And since they think that way, I wonder why they are so eager to make war on them. You'd think they'd be following the Iraqis/Muslims/A-rabs around like guardian angels making sure they don't get hit by buses or choke on a falafel or anything. Every Damned-Filthy-Non-Christ-Worshipping-A-rab(tm) would be hand-fed like a baby bird just to make sure they wouldn't be able to wage "asymmetrical warfare"* against the US.



*WTF?

Well, naturally! We all know that Arabs have suicide in their blood. It's a genetic trait.


Seriously, though, the military is just mad because they can't stop themselves from creating martyrs. Well, they could (release the Gitmo captives), but they ain't gonna.

According to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-chief-brands-suicides-acts-of-warfare/2006/06/11/1149964396421.html).


Huh?

They're trying to make the US look bad. They don't have a problem blowing themselves up in crowds of people. This shouldn't suprise you or us.

i think that its attention-whoring
if the the us gov was smart they would not reprt this kinda thing, theses guys killed them selves cuz the knew that it would make the news and it wouls seem like they were "marters" for their cause

i think that its attention-whoring
if the the us gov was smart they would not reprt this kinda thing, theses guys killed them selves cuz the knew that it would make the news and it wouls seem like they were "marters" for their cause
Bingo and those on the left are picking up and running with it. I think it's safe to say liberals hate America and want us to fairl.

i think that its attention-whoring
if the the us gov was smart they would not reprt this kinda thing, theses guys killed them selves cuz the knew that it would make the news and it wouls seem like they were "marters" for their cause

+1

Bingo and those on the left are picking up and running with it. I think it's safe to say liberals hate America and want us to fairl.

I think it's safe to say that hating America and hating what it has come to stand for are two different things.

Disclaimer: Not a liberal.

I think it's safe to say liberals hate America and want us to fairl.

You say that like it were a bad thing.

You say that like it were a bad thing.
some of us see it that way

but in the end some things are going to fail

some of us see it that way

Strangely.

but in the end some things are going to fail

Oh, honey, they've already failed. Wake up and smell the decaff cafe latte.

Strangely.



Oh, honey, they've already failed. Wake up and smell the decaff cafe latte.

not every thing
i still have a gun in my room
i can still get an abortion if i need one
i realiz that these arnt thetwo most imprtiant things
the one thing that pisses me off is that too many pople are willing to traid comfort and safty for freedom:headbang:

if it was espresso i might take notice:)

Sigh...I feel bad that the military has morons like this representing them.


The military is The Moron

They're trying to make the US look bad. They don't have a problem blowing themselves up in crowds of people. This shouldn't suprise you or us.


We're doing that quite well enough ourselves. We don't really need their help.

i think that its attention-whoring
if the the us gov was smart they would not reprt this kinda thing, theses guys killed them selves cuz the knew that it would make the news and it wouls seem like they were "marters" for their cause

"Attention-whoring?" Perhaps. But oh, yes. Let's not report anything that might look bad. That would be honest. Can't have that.

Bingo and those on the left are picking up and running with it. I think it's safe to say liberals hate America and want us to fairl

We don't hate America. We just hate you fascists, I mean conservatives and the way you're destroying the country we love. Like it or not, not everyone's going to agree with you. I'd suggest you grow up and learn to live with that.


-- P.S. And for the record, we would like to see conservatives fail. Not the nation, just you conservatives. I just pray that your downfall doesn't take the rest of us with you.

not every thing
i still have a gun in my room
i can still get an abortion if i need one
i realiz that these arnt thetwo most imprtiant things
the one thing that pisses me off is that too many pople are willing to traid comfort and safty for freedom:headbang:

if it was espresso i might take notice:)


Not if the Fundies have their way, you can't.

not every thing
i still have a gun in my room

Oh, you minx, you.

i can still get an abortion if i need one

Oh, enjoy it while it lasts.

i realiz that these arnt thetwo most imprtiant things
the one thing that pisses me off is that too many pople are willing to traid comfort and safty for freedom:headbang:

I'd assume you mean that the other way around, but, then again, these days, you never know...

if it was espresso i might take notice:)

Espresso is for Euro Trash.

Bingo and those on the left are picking up and running with it. I think it's safe to say liberals hate America and want us to fairl.
No, that's not "safe to say." It's damned bigoted. Who do you think you are to question my patriotism, beeyotch?



Disclaimer: Liberal. Wanna make something of it?

Oh, you minx, you.[QUOTE]
thanks i try


[QUOTE=Fass]Oh, enjoy it while it lasts. [QUOTE]
i wont but i know a few friends that inevitably will


[QUOTE=Fass]I'd assume you mean that the other way around, but, then again, these days, you never know...[QUOTE]
oops, i did mean it the other way around

[QUOTE=Fass]Espresso is for Euro Trash.

at leat i dont drink crapy american coffee..lattes just dont do it for me

They're trying to make the US look bad. They don't have a problem blowing themselves up in crowds of people. This shouldn't suprise you or us.
Are you actually capable of cogent thought?

They're trying to make the US look bad. They don't have a problem blowing themselves up in crowds of people. This shouldn't suprise you or us.
You, sir, are a total cretin.

They killed themselves because they've been having to put up with torture for a few years. Wouldn't you?

And for a country that's up its own arse about freedom, this is pretty disgusting.

Close the camp if you want the US to have any kind of reputation as a kind nation in the international world.

I'll cast aside all the well known examples of Islamists putting their zeal for life ahead of spiting those they consider enemies of their sandy, tyrannical poverty cult. Or rather I'll just assume examples of this exist, somewhere, and move on.

You, sir, are a total cretin.
Well now you're credible. I can't tell you how much more convinving an out of the blue attempt at character assassination makes your position on the issue. So I won't. I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader.

They killed themselves because they've been having to put up with torture for a few years.
If they are, they're pussies and they've lost for sure. You know the American Indians who were tortured made sport out of it? They'd even frequently offer their torture's tips on how to impove their techniques or just flat out new amazing ideas in the degredation of the human condition. There was a foe that could be fucking respected. None of this passive agressive "Pity me, hug me! I stab you!" Islamist bullshit.

And for a country that's up its own arse about freedom, this is pretty disgusting.

Close the camp if you want the US to have any kind of reputation as a kind nation in the international world.
Way to misunderstand US History. We're all about being up our own asses about freedom true. But that freedom is contingent on buying into the social contract. Can't do that? Want your cake and to eat ours too? Then we're about smoking you, burying you in a shallow grave (or not), and leaving the recriminations to the anthropologists. Ruthless in war, generous in peace. At some point, I imagine we'll stop trying so hard to be nice and embrace our more classical American ideals. Kindness is nice, but it's hardly universally appropriate.

Close the camp if you want the US to have any kind of reputation as a kind nation in the international world.
Too late. Woopsie!

I'll cast aside all the well known examples of Islamists putting their zeal for life ahead of spiting those they consider enemies of their sandy, tyrannical poverty cult. Or rather I'll just assume examples of this exist, somewhere, and move on.


Well now you're credible. I can't tell you how much more convinving an out of the blue attempt at character assassination makes your position on the issue. So I won't. I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader.


If they are, they're pussies and they've lost for sure. You know the American Indians who were tortured made sport out of it? They'd even frequently offer their torture's tips on how to impove their techniques or just flat out new amazing ideas in the degredation of the human condition. There was a foe that could be fucking respected. None of this passive agressive "Pity me, hug me! I stab you!" Islamist bullshit.


Way to misunderstand US History. We're all about being up our own asses about freedom true. But that freedom is contingent on buying into the social contract. Can't do that? Want your cake and to eat ours too? Then we're about smoking you, burying you in a shallow grave (or not), and leaving the recriminations to the anthropologists. Ruthless in war, generous in peace. At some point, I imagine we'll stop trying so hard to be nice and embrace our more classical American ideals. Kindness is nice, but it's hardly universally appropriate.
So saith another member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

Nothing to say in response then.... It's ok, I understand.
So saith another member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.
But I might also note plenty of missles work just fine with a keyboard.

Well now you're credible. I can't tell you how much more convinving an out of the blue attempt at character assassination makes your position on the issue. So I won't. I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader.
Nice use of elitism to put me down there, too. I think everyone's impressed.
If they are, they're pussies and they've lost for sure.
Aye, well try being tortured illegitimately for a few years without a trial and we'll see how your mental condition is, yeah?
You know the American Indians who were tortured made sport out of it? They'd even frequently offer their torture's tips on how to impove their techniques or just flat out new amazing ideas in the degredation of the human condition.
Oh the comedy derived from genocide and torture!
There was a foe that could be fucking respected.
Shame your ancestors shot pretty much all of them, eh?
None of this passive agressive "Pity me, hug me! I stab you!" Islamist bullshit.
Oh yeah, which goes on where, exactly?
Way to misunderstand US History. We're all about being up our own asses about freedom true. But that freedom is contingent on buying into the social contract.
Since Iraq isn't really an American state yet, asking people to "buy into the social contract" is a bit stupid. The two cultures are very, very different.
Want your cake and to eat ours too?
I have a question for you - do you know exactly how many of the people on the planes on September 11th were Iraqis?

And thus how much Iraq was involved?
Then we're about smoking you, burying you in a shallow grave (or not), and leaving the recriminations to the anthropologists. Ruthless in war, generous in peace.
And there's that irritating militarist attitude the rest of the Western world despises. You might also want to remember quite how well the US fights "Assymetrical warfare".

You might be brilliant at blowing the crap out of people on an open battlefield, but when everyone in the town you're in resents your presence, you've got a harder time of it.

Because as Fallujah and Haditha showed, if you step one foot out of line, the rest of the world will criticise you to the death.
At some point, I imagine we'll stop trying so hard to be nice and embrace our more classical American ideals. Kindness is nice, but it's hardly universally appropriate.
Nor is "spreading democracy". Some countries work better in a dictatorship than with an elected government. See Iraq.

Too late. Woopsie!
I'll rephrase that.

"If, at any time, the US desires international respect ever again, and wishes to have any friends apart from the arse-licking British and Australian Government (although the populace of both nations generally hates you), you need to close Guantanimo, very quickly"

Thank you.

Are you actually capable of cogent thought?
Surely that's a retorical question.
Hasn't his posts proven what he is and isn't capable of?

As for the original article, I read the same on BBC and my immediate thought was, "Just when you thought the world couldn't get any more bizarre and the US military couldn't get any more Kaftaesque."

Then I was reminded of the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad at the end of "Life of Brian".
"That showed 'em, huh? Oooh."

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/inlines/31_otto.jpg

If they are, they're pussies and they've lost for sure.
I take it you have a great deal of experience in being systematically tortured for years, both physically and psychologically, being threatened and being degraded on a more or less daily basis? And no, highschool doesn't count.

i think that its attention-whoring
if the the us gov was smart they would not reprt this kinda thing, theses guys killed them selves cuz the knew that it would make the news and it wouls seem like they were "marters" for their cause


Seriously, stop posting if you're going to make an idiot out of yourself. It's the governments job to report the good and the bad at its prisons. These guys killed themselves because they are being tortured and denied a chance to clear their names. Learn to spell, learn some grammar, and please...stop making a jackass out of yourself.


And DesignatedMarksman....people like you make me ashamed to call myself an American.

Nothing to say in response then.... It's ok, I understand.

Nothing to respond to, but then again, I'm sure that's just what you were going for. It's easy to talk smack from the safety of your apartment, after all. (See, I'm giving you credit by not assuming that you still live with your parents.)

*chuckles*

Americans...priceless... :D

If they are, they're pussies and they've lost for sure. You know the American Indians who were tortured made sport out of it? They'd even frequently offer their torture's tips on how to impove their techniques or just flat out new amazing ideas in the degradation of the human condition. There was a foe that could be fucking respected. None of this passive agressive "Pity me, hug me! I stab you!" Islamist bullshit.
Rigghttt....They were tortured so much they ended up getting used to it, and thus gained your respect.
Too bad they weren't respected enough for the US to stop torturing them during that period.:rolleyes:
Basically, these men were tortured until the only way they could keep themselves alive and sane was by making a game of it (Which shows how indominitable and strong the will to survive is).
And this is good, how?
Because the people your army captured and tortured ended up enjoying being tortured in order to stay alive makes you proud of your country?


So, does this mean that the only way for you to have any respect for Muslim terrorists is to torture them until they thank you?
This makes you better than them...how exactly?


It's been 5 years of degradation, interrogation and/or torture, total isolation from their friends and family, not knowing if they're alive or dead, not knowing whether their family/friends know where they are or even if they're still alive, never knowing whether it'll ever end and they'll be released and being forcibly fed against their wishes. And the fact it took them 5 years of this before cracking means nothing to you.
I'd love to see how long it'd take you to crack in those circumstances.


I also guess you have no respect for the US soldiers who were tortured by the Vietcong? Seeing as very few of them that I'm aware of 'made a game of it' nor 'gave tips on how to improve torture techniques'.

Likewise the poor sods who were tortured by the Japanese during WWII. What a bunch of pansies, eh? Not enjoying being tortured. Pfft. How can you have any respect for them, eh?

Indeed, I have to assume you have a great deal of respect for the WWII Japanese soldiers and Vietcong, who went to such imaginative lengths to torture and degrade US and Allied soldiers, thus giving our boys a chance to 'make a game of it'.


Tell me - those soldiers that were tortured by the Japanese or Vietnamese; Do you think they have any respect or tolerance towards their captors and/or their captors' culture?


You really haven't got a fucking clue, have you?

What exactly is "Assymetrical Warfare" in this context, and why is it bad?

According to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-chief-brands-suicides-acts-of-warfare/2006/06/11/1149964396421.html).


Huh?
That explains quite a lot about Guantanamo and how it is run, actually.

Loony bugger, that admiral.

What exactly is "Assymetrical Warfare" in this context, and why is it bad?

Well it contains the word Ass, which as we all know is bad, mkay? ;)

What exactly is "Assymetrical Warfare" in this context, and why is it bad?
It is unconventional warfare - ie the sort that is waged by the weak against the strong. According to Americans, the suicides were an unconventional attack on America.

What exactly is "Assymetrical Warfare" in this context, and why is it bad?
I think it means that because only soldiers on one side are killing themselves, it creates an imbalance - or assymetry - in the usual course of warfare.

This may lead to confusion amongst US soldiers. Faced with hordes of enemy killing themselves, your average GI may become so befuddled he starts shooting his own comrades and then himself.

Damn muslamic terrorists! What next insidious mindfuck will they try?

Damn muslamic terrorists! What next insidious mindfuck will they try?
Getting out of their foxholes and doing a striptease while "You Can't Touch This" plays from a ghetto blaster?

Getting out of their foxholes and doing a striptease while "You Can't Touch This" plays from a ghetto blaster?

http://cache.tias.com/stores/krazycat/pictures/845780d.jpg

Those Bedouins certainly have the pants for it already...

Getting out of their foxholes and doing a striptease while "You Can't Touch This" plays from a ghetto blaster?
Oh, I would so pay money to see that!

http://www.handango.com/include/pictures/693459/75x100_mchammer.gif

According to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-chief-brands-suicides-acts-of-warfare/2006/06/11/1149964396421.html).


Huh?

Well, I think we can safely say dear Harry is a few cards short of a full deck.

As he sees the suicides of three despairing human beings in a detention centre (of an illegal standing under international law and in breach of human rights), as a declaration of war, I really and honestly would not be surprised if he ordered the slaughter of the Guantanamo Bay detainees to stop them from 'declaring warfare' again.

Yes, dear, dear Harry really is not the full biscuit. Too much time in the sun perhaps.

More stars and medals than brain cells, it seems.

But you would have to be to run that place and think nothing is wrong.

I think it means that because only soldiers on one side are killing themselves, it creates an imbalance - or assymetry - in the usual course of warfare.

This may lead to confusion amongst US soldiers. Faced with hordes of enemy killing themselves, your average GI may become so befuddled he starts shooting his own comrades and then himself.

Damn muslamic terrorists! What next insidious mindfuck will they try?
:eek: They are EBIL!!!1!

:D

Nice use of elitism to put me down there, too. I think everyone's impressed.
No this crowd demands people bust out the dusty latin to be impressed. A priori, ad hominem. You're the one pandering to, appearently divine, moral authority. I'm just having a little fun with how funny the idea of you running around with an Unofficial NS "cretin" stamp is. If you think it casts you in a bad light, perhaps you might want to avoid doing it. I enjoy the theater of it myself, so I'd be disappointed, but I could live without it if I had to.
Oh the comedy derived from genocide and torture! Shame your ancestors shot pretty much all of them, eh?
Well if you can't laugh at the dead.... Besides, far more were killed by disease and starvation. There were plenty of sabres too. And I can't say it was a shame for me. Or well anyone alive. We're all quixotically beneficiaries of the vanquished.

Interesting example. If not for Hiroshima, I wouldn't be here at all. My father's father was a Catholic priest, he was sent to Hiroshima as a missionary, no one in the family knows the whole story as he never talked about it in detail. He was so awed by the destruction wrought that it caused him to leave the priesthood, and he eventually settled down and had children.

Oh yeah, which goes on where, exactly?
Oh spare me. That's all the islamist world ever does. The are the scorpion from the fable. To sting and drown their benefactors is their nature.

Since Iraq isn't really an American state yet, asking people to "buy into the social contract" is a bit stupid. The two cultures are very, very different.
Yup. That's why Iraq is a stupid war, and letting them suffer and starve to death under unspeakable tyranny was the smart play. Afganistan, well, they waged war against the US. They didn't keep the contract. So they demanded intervention. Not going a whole lot better, but that's a combination of factors including the foolishness of Iraq. That said, once those people came under control of the US forces they had a choice to make. Start a new life happily complying with the US forces every request or not. It's a tough choice particularly when US control is fleeting and diffuse and the insurgents make it into a mutually exclusive dilemma. Oh well.

I have a question for you - do you know exactly how many of the people on the planes on September 11th were Iraqis?
I know the answer. But a more interesting question which I don't know the answer to is "Do you always try to change the subject when someone doesn't roll over for your dutifully recited party lines?"

And there's that irritating militarist attitude the rest of the Western world despises. You might also want to remember quite how well the US fights "Assymetrical warfare".
1. It's a pervasive cultural attitude. Let me tell you a story that happened near me a while back. A guy was trying to steal another man's car. This was noticed by the man who owned the car. He and his friend ran out and scuffled with the would-be thief. In the scuffle, the thief got his neck broke and died. The public reaction, "Well dying sucks, but you shouldn't steal cars." No charges were filed of course.

2. When the US does fight asymmetricaly it's among the best. (The Vietcong used to say beware the chicken men, refering to the eagle patch the green berets would wear on their shoulders, for instance. Tactically the US hasn't met it's match yet.) Where America fails in this endevour is politically. Both in meddling in the prosecution of conflicts, and the selection of them. The polical process is both slow and particularly ugly, both of these are an awful burden when they interfer with the poor souls actually charged with doing the fighting.

2. a. Our asymmetric options are a little more full-fledged and quite a bit more awful than what the islamists have at their disposal. It's not a question of whether America has the power to realize the administration's political aims, irregaurdless of all the mistakes and interference that they have made (and have yet to make). It's a question of whether or not the country has the will to see it through. Furthermore, the answer to that question is likely subject to change without notice.

You might be brilliant at blowing the crap out of people on an open battlefield, but when everyone in the town you're in resents your presence, you've got a harder time of it.
Always a thorny problem. What would William Techumsa Sherman do? The Romans? Genghis Khan? It not the obvious solution that eludes people. It's compassion's demand for a better, non-obvious solution. When it is decided the search is fruitless, the obvious will remain. And boohoo a town, cry for Dresden or an all wood Tokyo recently? Didn't think so.

Because as Fallujah and Haditha showed, if you step one foot out of line, the rest of the world will criticise you to the death.
Good reason to give the political objectives to the armed forces, and stay the hell out of their way. If foriegn policy needs to be dealt with, deal with it without adding to the soldier's burden.

Nor is "spreading democracy". Some countries work better in a dictatorship than with an elected government. See Iraq.
See, we can agree. Savages deserve to suffer in the stew of their own savagery. Some of the smart, bold and lucky will escape.

Nothing to respond to, but then again, I'm sure that's just what you were going for. It's easy to talk smack from the safety of your apartment, after all. (See, I'm giving you credit by not assuming that you still live with your parents.)
See, that's appropriate kindness. Thank you, Nazz.

Getting out of their foxholes and doing a striptease while "You Can't Touch This" plays from a ghetto blaster?

To prevent that we should round 'em up, put 'em in a field, and BOMB THE BASTARDS!

It is unconventional warfare - ie the sort that is waged by the weak against the strong. According to Americans, the suicides were an unconventional attack on America.

That kinda makes sense.

But the term confused me. Surely the US (and indeed other countries through out history) also engages in assymetrical warfare. Just that it is the strong going after the weaker.

Rigghttt....They were tortured so much they ended up getting used to it, and thus gained your respect.
Or they had a fanatical warrior code which absolutly embarrasses any modern standard of ferocity.

Too bad they weren't respected enough for the US to stop torturing them during that period.:rolleyes:
They were respected enough to be remembered centuries later in a world they couldn't possibly imagine. I doubt we'll be able to make the same claim. I'll just respond to the rest, since it revolves mainly with your repeating your misunderstanding in different ways with variety of strawmen. They had a warrior ideal which was an important, and quite amazing cultural element. What's significant about it is their integrity. It put them at odds with a more technologically powerful more united foe, and doomed them. But they never changed their story, they kept to that ideal (those that had it to keep), and they wanted to be judged by it. No matter how much it cost them, and I can't imagine they actually did enjoy it. However, they did greatly shock and intimidate those who had been cruelly set upon them. And while it couldn't survive with the culture of their new foe, it is beyond remarkable, and worthy of respect. (It's also a good lesson in why torture won't be effective against a determined adversary.)

The Islamists don't have that metal in them. They want to, through deception, send other people's Islamic children to die for the chance to kill a few other people. They're not scary warriors. That's their culture. Americans on the otherhand have too much compassion. When that well runs dry, what's the result. Chief Joseph knows. For all the strengths of the various Native American cultures, when they decided to make it a war of survival for the US, there was no protection for them. No relief, no defense. And it wasn't fair. Everyone alive today is a beneficiary of that. Yet, no one really cares what happened to 25 million of them. And they had a lot of interesting things going on. Islamists, haha. Yeah. More of them, not so much going on.

You really haven't got a fucking clue, have you?
Unlike you, if I felt like it, I could make a decent strawman. The extremes a person will endure for the sake of an ideal is something respected the world over. I know full well you're clever enough to understand that. But not so clever you can subtly misrepresent it, it would seem.

-snip-

My god.. The Right-Wing Conservative American Steriotype actually exists in person? This is worse than Hell.

My god.. The Right-Wing Conservative American Steriotype actually exists in person? This is worse than Hell.
Except I'm an Atheist Democrat. In so far as the democrats are appropriately liberal. (Their protectionist pro DRM, long term copyright, entertainment content regulation crap is a major annoyance.) One of these days you'll guess and you'll be right, and that day will totally kick ass for you!

Getting out of their foxholes and doing a striptease while "You Can't Touch This" plays from a ghetto blaster?So that's what the song, "Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em" is all about. :p

2. When the US does fight asymmetricaly it's among the best. (The Vietcong used to say beware the chicken men, refering to the eagle patch the green berets would wear on their shoulders, for instance. Tactically the US hasn't met it's match yet.). Where America fails in this endevour is politically. Both in meddling in the prosecution of conflicts, and the selection of them. The polical process is both slow and particularly ugly, both of these are an awful burden when they interfer with the poor souls actually charged with doing the fighting..).

So great at fighting wars that should never have been embarked on...I think most of us got the idea that the third world had met its match in America without you pointing it out.


See, we can agree. Savages deserve to suffer in the stew of their own savagery. Some of the smart, bold and lucky will escape.

Social darwinism a la failed foriegn policy endavour....fucking marvellous that.

Does this show a causal link between terrorism and emo kids, then? Just wondering...

Does this show a causal link between terrorism and emo kids, then? Just wondering...

No, because they weren't kids, nor were they necessarily terrorists (having not been proven so yet, for some strange reason).

Had they been kids and had they been trialed and proven guilty of terrorism, then it could be debated.

You know, I think it's quite lovely how they dehumanise the "enemy".

There once was a word... "Empathy".

THANK FUCK FOR THAT.

Americans do have their own minds, after all.

I thought that after the stupid remark claiming that it was an "act of warfare", (which was obviously just to get Americans on Bush's side, as well as to help prevent guantanamo bay from closing, and to get people hating arrestees (innocent or not) even more, as well as to help cause further war against foreign countries) there would be loads of idiotic, narrow-minded, blind patriots on here supporting Bush with stupid statements like "the bastards! they killed themselves to make us look bad! burn foreigners!".

Glad to see I was wrong. The American government haven't managed to brainwash you all after all.

THANK GOD.

What I dont understand is how the president has been allowed to decide to waive the constitution/geneva convention - isn't there a governmental watchdog or something in the US?

This is a little sad --->

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html

"The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees."

Apparently, Al-Qaida detainees don't count as people, becuase the president determined it. Right. Even Blair has said Gitmo should be closed: what the hell is going on?

What I dont understand is how the president has been allowed to decide to waive the constitution/geneva convention - isn't there a governmental watchdog or something in the US?

This is a little sad --->

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html

"The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees."

Apparently, Al-Qaida detainees don't count as people, becuase the president determined it. Right. Even Blair has said Gitmo should be closed: what the hell is going on?
I think the only things that they are getting is their daily beating, I guess that Osama shoudl've joined the Geneva convention, too bad, cuz his underlings aren't people any more

Translation: "The sand niggers all want to die on purpose so it's okay to keep killing them."

What I dont understand is how the president has been allowed to decide to waive the constitution/geneva convention - isn't there a governmental watchdog or something in the US?

This is a little sad --->

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html

"The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees."

Apparently, Al-Qaida detainees don't count as people, becuase the president determined it. Right. Even Blair has said Gitmo should be closed: what the hell is going on?




Simple..the TALIBAN are Government militia ...COVERED under the geneva convention.

Al - Queda fighters are terrorist ..NOT covered under the geneva convention..and in other wars simply executed in the field or hung from trees in the middle of the village square.

Because we do not just shoot spies , guerilla fighters and terrorist any more...we need to keep them someplace when we capture them....we cant just send them home to fight again....or worse wrap a bomb belt around themselves and get on a bus .

How would you feel if your family was blown up by a terrorist that was released fgom GITMO...because of a bunch of crybabies worring about their " rights " ?

What rights to captured terrorist have ? Terorist who BTW have declared war against the US and a bunch of other countries but HAVE no legitimate standing as military or militia ?

Thats the huge question..in this type of war ..what do we do with them ?

They are not " criminals" in the civilian sense of the word and they are NOT soldiers..in any sense of the word...so what are they ?

They do not deserve the rights given a civilian nor the rights given a soldier... someone has to make up some new rights for captured terrorist , especially those captured OUTSIDE the US . And in battle or in other countries.

Just sticking them in cages...well...IMO ...there needs to be some form of oversite and at least a military tribunal if only to determine the proper status of the people in the prison . Because thats the way we SHOULD do things and I dont trust any government period .

But then what ? What do you do with captured Al Queda operatives ...all these " number two guys " we have been capturing...well except the one who hung himself...what about the Taliban ? If you wait until the war is over...they may be in prison for life . So what do you do with them ?

Ihear a bunch of pissing and moaning and crying...but what about a bit of constructive critisism ?

What do you do with them ?

What do you do with them ?

ummm, give them a trial maybe? you know, just to make sure they are actually al-quida and not some poor schmuck who happen to own a weapon when the marines came calling.

a bunch of crybabies worring about their " rights "



Crybabies? Personally I have never been imprisoned without trial and been mentally and physically tortured for several years. Maybe you have. But if not, then how can you call them crybabies for wanting human rights? Although, I'm sure that you would cope much better, right?

Simple..the TALIBAN are Government militia ...COVERED under the geneva convention.

They're not any more government than say, the ETA or the IRA are.

Al - Queda fighters are terrorist ..NOT covered under the geneva convention..and in other wars simply executed in the field or hung from trees in the middle of the village square.

In other wars, worse wars, wars that we don't want to repeat.

They're still citizens of a nation, and therefore, if that nation is covered by the geneva convention (a very high likelihood), then they should be considered as covered by the geneva convention.


Because we do not just shoot spies , guerilla fighters and terrorist any more...we need to keep them someplace when we capture them....we cant just send them home to fight again....or worse wrap a bomb belt around themselves and get on a bus .

You usually also try to figure out if someone is a spy, guerilla fighter and terrorist. Once that's done, you'd have a good argument for keeping them there. However, they're innocent until proven guilty. You've no idea if releasing them will make them end up saving someone's life. Fact is, they're not terrorists until you prove that they are.

How would you feel if your family was blown up by a terrorist that was released fgom GITMO...because of a bunch of crybabies worring about their " rights " ?

How would you feel if you were imprisoned for dozens of years, without reason or trial? Now, imagine if your entire family was imprisoned for dozens of years, without reason or trial?

All because someone decided that your rights weren't important.


What rights to captured terrorist have ? Terorist who BTW have declared war against the US and a bunch of other countries but HAVE no legitimate standing as military or militia ?

But terrorists are still civilians. Therefore, if they are armed, you are still permitted to shoot them. If they are unarmed, you are not permitted to shoot them.


Thats the huge question..in this type of war ..what do we do with them ?

This war is a joke. It would have been better and far easier not to have gone on this type of war in the first place. Now that you have, how about, you know, treating them like any other civilian that commits terrorist acts? You know, trial and all that. Innocent until proven guilty for example.

And in a firefight, then an armed terrorist is as much a target as any other soldier, because the moment a civilian takes up a weapon and proves to be hostile, he is fair game, much like every soldier is.


They are not " criminals" in the civilian sense of the word and they are NOT soldiers..in any sense of the word...so what are they ?

They are criminals. That's what terrorists are: Criminals.

When they are fighting in Iraq, they are resistance fighters. This makes them soldiers. Have you any idea of the many atrocities resistance fighters have comitted throughout history?


They do not deserve the rights given a civilian nor the rights given a soldier... someone has to make up some new rights for captured terrorist , especially those captured OUTSIDE the US . And in battle or in other countries.

Yes they do deserve both, because they are either civilians or they are soldiers.

Whether they're captured in the US or outside of the US is irrelevant. Treat people equally - whether they're terrorists or not, prove it first, then either release them (if they're not) or imprison them (if they are). Don't torture them anymore than you'd torture any other regular criminal (never).

Just sticking them in cages...well...IMO ...there needs to be some form of oversite and at least a military tribunal if only to determine the proper status of the people in the prison . Because thats the way we SHOULD do things and I dont trust any government period .

Eh, you're such a hypocrit. I suggest you stick to the innocent until proven guilty and only when they are proven guilty, then you can go on and try to figure out what to do with them.

But then what ? What do you do with captured Al Queda operatives ...all these " number two guys " we have been capturing...well except the one who hung himself...what about the Taliban ? If you wait until the war is over...they may be in prison for life . So what do you do with them ?

You treat them like any other criminal or war criminal, maybe?


Ihear a bunch of pissing and moaning and crying...but what about a bit of constructive critisism ?

What about a trial? Where's that trial? That would be constructive. We're critical of the fact that you still haven't trialed them. How about you take that criticism to heart?

What do you do with them ?

You treat them like you would treat any other criminal.

They're either Criminals OR Enemy combatants. You have to treat them like one or the other.

Are they terrorists? Prove it in a court of law.

Are they soldiers? Treat them in accorance with the Geneva Convention.

There's no grey area in a nation claiming to be an example of idealism as the United States should be.

And DesignatedMarksman....people like you make me ashamed to call myself an American.

Why do you feel shame? Isn't this what is making so much of a hubbub lately, the idea of free speech? Or have all sides turned against it?

Indeed. This is all just propaganda anyway....

Indeed. This is all just propaganda anyway....
Except that four people imprisoned without criminal charges for four years just hung themselves. If it were in any other jail anywhere else in the country, it'd still be big news.

Except that three people imprisoned without criminal charges for four years just hung themselves. If it were in any other jail anywhere else in the country, it'd still be big news.
You're right, but I just had to make a small correction. :)

*Cough*Three, not four*cough*

You're right, but I just had to make a small correction. :)

*Cough*Three, not four*cough*

Oops. :p

Simple..the TALIBAN are Government militia ...COVERED under the geneva convention.

Al - Queda fighters are terrorist ..NOT covered under the geneva convention..and in other wars simply executed in the field or hung from trees Try again (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html). This was debated ad nauseam back when Guantanamo was first used to house Taliban and al Qaeda detainees, and nothing has changed.

However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them. As well, Canadian regulations on prisoner-of-war status dictate that detainees must be brought before a military tribunal to determine whether they're prisoners of war or not.

Lawyers for prisoners held at the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as those representing two U.S. citizens held in a navy brig as enemy combatants, have challenged the policy before the United States Supreme Court. A decision is expected in mid-summer.

Even if they are found to be "unlawful combatants" they still have rights under international humanitarian law – to humane treatment, to a fair trial if charged with a crime, and not to be tortured.

But Bush is the decider, at least according to him, so he gets to make the rules up as he goes along apparently. And schlocks like you just let him because you've bought into the fear. You put your fear above your duty to your country, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

They're not any more government than say, the ETA or the IRA are.

Bullshit..the Taliban was the GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan until overthrown and still claim legitamacy and are still at war with the current government of Afghanistan .



In other wars, worse wars, wars that we don't want to repeat.

Thats why we throw them in GITMO

They're still citizens of a nation, and therefore, if that nation is covered by the geneva convention (a very high likelihood), then they should be considered as covered by the geneva convention.

Bullshit they are terrorist and part of an organized terror group with stated aims and have declared war or jihad . They are not covered by Geneva .




You usually also try to figure out if someone is a spy, guerilla fighter and terrorist. Once that's done, you'd have a good argument for keeping them there. However, they're innocent until proven guilty. You've no idea if releasing them will make them end up saving someone's life. Fact is, they're not terrorists until you prove that they are.

When catured on the field of battle after a fight with opposing forces..its kind of OBVIOUSE what the fuck they are . When captured in an Al queda safe house full of documents and bomb making equipment and weapons...its also kinda fucking obviouse what they are...fuck innocent until proven guilty for what ..TERRORIST in a time of war ??? ARE you insane ?
Dont fire on that group of guys carrying the RPG's And the machine guns until we can prove them guilty of something "
Its a WAR ...not a game . Not a gang fight. CIVILLIAN RULES DO NOT COUNT .




How would you feel if you were imprisoned for dozens of years, without reason or trial? Now, imagine if your entire family was imprisoned for dozens of years, without reason or trial?

Whats that got to do with GITMO ? Do you think they got there because they were beamed up by scotty on the Enterprise by random choice ?
You are presuming and assuming they are a bunch of innocent unlucky wanderers who got snatched up for no reason...the delusion is all yours .

All because someone decided that your rights weren't important.

They DECIDED their rights were not as important as the cause they choose to fight for .




But terrorists are still civilians. Therefore, if they are armed, you are still permitted to shoot them. If they are unarmed, you are not permitted to shoot them.

Thats how they ended up alive and in GITMO I suspect .




This war is a joke. It would have been better and far easier not to have gone on this type of war in the first place. Now that you have, how about, you know, treating them like any other civilian that commits terrorist acts? You know, trial and all that. Innocent until proven guilty for example.

There you go...your views on the war itself mean that everything else must be wrong about it ....you could have save a whole bunch of time and effort .
All the families in the US and Spain and great Britain grieving over their lost loved ones might think you are the joke .

Terrorist cuaght in the US are tried under US law...we are fighting a GLOBAL war on terror ..they get treated like the terrorist they are .

And in a firefight, then an armed terrorist is as much a target as any other soldier, because the moment a civilian takes up a weapon and proves to be hostile, he is fair game, much like every soldier is.

And when captured after an action he is as a member of a terrorist organization that he belongs to and should be judged as such .





They are criminals. That's what terrorists are: Criminals.
Criminals for sure but also unlawfull combatants and to be treated as such.

When they are fighting in Iraq, they are resistance fighters. This makes them soldiers. Have you any idea of the many atrocities resistance fighters have comitted throughout history?

Bullshit..Al Queda isnt fighting FOR IRAQ they are fighting AGAINST Iraq .
I have more than a good idea of the atrocities commited by " resistance ' fighters.




Yes they do deserve both, because they are either civilians or they are soldiers.

They are neither they are unlawfull combatants and terrorist .

Whether they're captured in the US or outside of the US is irrelevant. Treat people equally - whether they're terrorists or not, prove it first, then either release them (if they're not) or imprison them (if they are). Don't torture them anymore than you'd torture any other regular criminal (never).

Prove they are being tortured or STFU ..I'm tired of hearing about solitary confinement and sleep deprivation and humiliation...etc...being described as torture...if thats the fact EVERY prisoner in the US criminal justice system is being TORTURED ...show me some nails in testicles and some real saddam type physical torture or go away .



Eh, you're such a hypocrit. I suggest you stick to the innocent until proven guilty and only when they are proven guilty, then you can go on and try to figure out what to do with them.


right I am a hypocrit for calling for military tribunals and judicial oversight. to sort out the POWS (legitamate ) and the terrorist and those caught on the margins...:rolleyes:



You treat them like any other criminal or war criminal, maybe?

Why they are terrorist so treat them like terrorist .




What about a trial? Where's that trial? That would be constructive. We're critical of the fact that you still haven't trialed them. How about you take that criticism to heart?

some deserve some sort of trial..some deserve to rot until the war is over..just like every other " PRISONER OF WAR " in recent history .
Thats what a military tribunal is for .



You treat them like you would treat any other criminal.

Your insulting criminals when you say that .

Try again (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html). This was debated ad nauseam back when Guantanamo was first used to house Taliban and al Qaeda detainees, and nothing has changed.



But Bush is the decider, at least according to him, so he gets to make the rules up as he goes along apparently. And schlocks like you just let him because you've bought into the fear. You put your fear above your duty to your country, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

nazz you can be such an asshole...I guess you missed all the five hundred post where I advocate a system of military tribunals and judicial oversite because I do not personally trust the government.


Shlocks like you should learn to fucking read . If you have any shame .


ALL you had to do is read the damm post you quoted me from ..


Just sticking them in cages...well...IMO ...there needs to be some form of oversite and at least a military tribunal if only to determine the proper status of the people in the prison . Because thats the way we SHOULD do things and I dont trust any government period .

nazz you can be such an asshole...I guess you missed all the five hundred post where I advocate a system of military tribunals and judicial oversite because I do not personally trust the government.


Shlocks like you should learn to fucking read . If you have any shame .


ALL you had to do is read the damm post you quoted me from ..
You should fucking pay attention to what your own president has done--he's fought every step of the way to keep these people from having a legitimate day in court, and he's still denied them that right, even though the Supreme Court has said that the government must provide them with that ery thing. And yet you still support him. Toss all the other bullshit aside, what you believe ought to be done, etc. If you still support Bush, then it doesn't matter what you believe ought to be done--you stand with the man who actively opposes what is right in this case. Make a choice.

When catured on the field of battle after a fight with opposing forces..its kind of OBVIOUSE what the fuck they are . When captured in an Al queda safe house full of documents and bomb making equipment and weapons...its also kinda fucking obviouse what they are...fuck innocent until proven guilty for what ..TERRORIST in a time of war ??? ARE you insane ?
Dont fire on that group of guys carrying the RPG's And the machine guns until we can prove them guilty of something "
Its a WAR ...not a game . Not a gang fight. CIVILLIAN RULES DO NOT COUNT ..

I know this is difficult for you to get, but here we go again. The majority of people there were not caught on any field of battle, or with any evidence whatsoever. They were rounded up by the local yahoos for USD.


Whats that got to do with GITMO ? Do you think they got there because they were beamed up by scotty on the Enterprise by random choice ?
You are presuming and assuming they are a bunch of innocent unlucky wanderers who got snatched up for no reason...the delusion is all yours ...

2000 USD, to be precise. That was why they were grabbed. Most are either Afghans who are not from the major tribes, or foriegners that were in Afghanistan/Pakistan. That way they could be handed over without starting a feud.


Terrorist cuaght in the US are tried under US law...we are fighting a GLOBAL war on terror ..they get treated like the terrorist they are .
...

But they havent been tried, and now cannot have any expectation of a fair one.


And when captured after an action he is as a member of a terrorist organization that he belongs to and should be judged as such ....

The majority weren't captured in such a manner.


Bullshit..Al Queda isnt fighting FOR IRAQ they are fighting AGAINST Iraq .
I have more than a good idea of the atrocities commited by " resistance ' fighters.....

You've no fucking idea. Trust me on that one.


Prove they are being tortured or STFU ..I'm tired of hearing about solitary confinement and sleep deprivation and humiliation...etc...being described as torture...if thats the fact EVERY prisoner in the US criminal justice system is being TORTURED ...show me some nails in testicles and some real saddam type physical torture or go away ......


Its been pointed out to you again and again. Until you redirect your sexual frustration away from prisoners you've never met and towards something more productive, I fear it will never sink in.

I know this is difficult for you to get, but here we go again. The majority of people there were not caught on any field of battle, or with any evidence whatsoever. They were rounded up by the local yahoos for USD.



2000 USD, to be precise. That was why they were grabbed. Most are either Afghans who are not from the major tribes, or foriegners that were in Afghanistan/Pakistan. That way they could be handed over without starting a feud.



But they havent been tried, and now cannot have any expectation of a fair one.



The majority weren't captured in such a manner.



You've no fucking idea. Trust me on that one.




Its been pointed out to you again and again. Until you redirect your sexual frustration away from prisoners you've never met and towards something more productive, I fear it will never sink in.



What proof do you have of anything you just typed ?

Who excactly knows the compisition of the detainees in GITMO ?

Your pulling stuff from out of thin air and presenting it as facts...THEN basing and argument on it..

I fear it will never sink in . You have been so thoroughly brain washed .

The majority weren't captured in such a manner.

86%, actually, were not captured on the field of battle, but rather handed over by Afghan and other bounty-hunters.

(And that number is based on data supplied by the US Defense Department)
The whole report. (http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf)
Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive
affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a
large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist
watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a
large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the
Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States
custody.
This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the
United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected
enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly
Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to
be enemy combatants.

You should fucking pay attention to what your own president has done--he's fought every step of the way to keep these people from having a legitimate day in court, and he's still denied them that right, even though the Supreme Court has said that the government must provide them with that ery thing. And yet you still support him. Toss all the other bullshit aside, what you believe ought to be done, etc. If you still support Bush, then it doesn't matter what you believe ought to be done--you stand with the man who actively opposes what is right in this case. Make a choice.


Blah blah blah etc...
YOU fuck up and its all Bush's fault .
I support the courts decision not Bush.
Go rave like a looney toon at someone else.
You have no credibility at all . Your just stuck on your bleating heart adgenda and cant see the grass for the bush .

86%, actually, were not captured on the field of battle, but rather handed over by Afghan and other bounty-hunters.

(And that number is based on data supplied by the US Defense Department)
The whole report. (http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf)


The authors are counsel for two detaineees held in GITMO.
And is BASED on conclusions they have arived at . READ the fine print bucko...

I read the same reports I have a different conclusion..BASED ON DATA SUPPLIED BY THE US DEFENSE DEPARTMENT .

The authors are counsel for two detaineees held in GITMO.
And is BASED on conclusions they have arived at . READ the fine print bucko...

I read the same reports I have a different conclusion..BASED ON DATA SUPPLIED BY THE US DEFENSE DEPARTMENT .
I don't know, I find the report compelling.

But what percentage would you estimate then?

And do you dispute the presence of bounty hunters selling detainees for money to the US?

And you are of course welcome to back up any statement you'd like to present. :)

Bullshit..the Taliban was the GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan until overthrown and still claim legitamacy and are still at war with the current government of Afghanistan .

Afghanistan had no standing government. The Taliban were a bunch of warring warlords, so no government.



Bullshit they are terrorist and part of an organized terror group with stated aims and have declared war or jihad . They are not covered by Geneva .

They are either civilians or enemy combatants = resistance fighter. Either makes them covered by the Geneva Convention.


When catured on the field of battle after a fight with opposing forces..its kind of OBVIOUSE what the fuck they are . When captured in an Al queda safe house full of documents and bomb making equipment and weapons...its also kinda fucking obviouse what they are...fuck innocent until proven guilty for what ..TERRORIST in a time of war ??? ARE you insane ?

Tell me, how many were captured in this way? You don't know do you? Guess why, it's because they haven't been tried because you're too afraid you haven't got the evidence.

Dont fire on that group of guys carrying the RPG's And the machine guns until we can prove them guilty of something "
Its a WAR ...not a game . Not a gang fight. CIVILLIAN RULES DO NOT COUNT .

A group of armed civilian that are hostile count as an enemy, uniformed or otherwise. They are therefore just as fair game as any other soldier. You need to be sure they are hostile first, however, because there are plenty of mercenaries that can go either way.

Whats that got to do with GITMO ? Do you think they got there because they were beamed up by scotty on the Enterprise by random choice ?
You are presuming and assuming they are a bunch of innocent unlucky wanderers who got snatched up for no reason...the delusion is all yours .

Because you haven't tried them, so yes, I am holding you to your standards.

Your standards are, as per your law: INNOCENT until proven guilty.

They haven't been proven guilty, they are innocent.


They DECIDED their rights were not as important as the cause they choose to fight for .

They maintain their human rights, regardless of what they do. Even a serial killer has a rights.



Thats how they ended up alive and in GITMO I suspect .

Or maybe they were just sold, for 2000 USD.


There you go...your views on the war itself mean that everything else must be wrong about it ....you could have save a whole bunch of time and effort .
All the families in the US and Spain and great Britain grieving over their lost loved ones might think you are the joke .

Uh huh... the war on Iraq might be a joke, but it's very real. I don't consider it very funny.

The war on terror, however, that's the real joke.



Terrorist cuaght in the US are tried under US law...we are fighting a GLOBAL war on terror ..they get treated like the terrorist they are .

So, you've got double standards? predictable.



And when captured after an action he is as a member of a terrorist organization that he belongs to and should be judged as such .

Yes, but then you have enough evidence to trial and convict him. Why haven't you done so already?



Criminals for sure but also unlawfull combatants and to be treated as such.

Yeah, which puts them under the Geneva Convention. Don't try bullshitting around it with words that don't exist. Unlawful combatants are criminal civilians and/or soldiers. It follows from the word unlawful.



Bullshit..Al Queda isnt fighting FOR IRAQ they are fighting AGAINST Iraq .
I have more than a good idea of the atrocities commited by " resistance ' fighters.

You misread my words. I say fighting In Iraq and you make it a for and against situation.

So, I am sure you know of the many civilians that died during WWII as a result of the action of resistance fighters? because that's what I was referring to. Resistance fighters in general cause atrocities.


They are neither they are unlawfull combatants and terrorist .

Which, in turn, makes them either a civilian or a soldier. An unlawful combatant is either a civilian or a soldier. A terrorist is either a civilian or a soldier.


Prove they are being tortured or STFU ..I'm tired of hearing about solitary confinement and sleep deprivation and humiliation...etc...being described as torture...if thats the fact EVERY prisoner in the US criminal justice system is being TORTURED ...show me some nails in testicles and some real saddam type physical torture or go away .

The torture here is never ever being tried in a court. That's torture. Not knowing what's going to happen to you. Great idea isn't it?



right I am a hypocrit for calling for military tribunals and judicial oversight. to sort out the POWS (legitamate ) and the terrorist and those caught on the margins...:rolleyes:

You're a hypocrit because you're saying how these people are already guilty, and then you pretend you want to trial them. If you had your way, they wouldn't get a trial and would merely be executed, I think that's fairly clear from everything else you've said.



Why they are terrorist so treat them like terrorist .

Which means treating them like criminals, which means trying them for their crimes.



some deserve some sort of trial..some deserve to rot until the war is over..just like every other " PRISONER OF WAR " in recent history .
Thats what a military tribunal is for .

The war on terror is a joke. You can try these prisoners without any risk.



Your insulting criminals when you say that .

Not really. Think: Pedophiles, serial killers... those are just two people that can easily be more despicable than terrorists. They're criminals.

The authors are counsel for two detaineees held in GITMO.
And is BASED on conclusions they have arived at . READ the fine print bucko... Pity those lawyers don't have trials to go to, then maybe they wouldn't have time to form conclusions about what kind of place Gitmo is.

By the way, whay are you typing it GITMO? I wasn't aware the term was an acronym.
I read the same reports I have a different conclusion..BASED ON DATA SUPPLIED BY THE US DEFENSE DEPARTMENT .
What are these conclusions?

Oh and the shouting implied by those all caps parts is really unnessecary.

I don't know, I find the report compelling.

But what percentage would you estimate then?

And do you dispute the presence of bounty hunters selling detainees for money to the US?

And you are of course welcome to back up any statement you'd like to present. :)

go to the source material...the defense attorneys HAVE to make the material compelling or they SUCK ..:)


U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript


On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041001-1344.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presenter: Secretary of the Navy Gordon England Friday, October 1, 2004 10:59 a.m. EDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Defense Department Briefing

SEC. ENGLAND: Good morning.



Q Good morning.



SEC. ENGLAND: How is everybody this morning? It is nice to be here.



If we haven't met, again, one more time, Gordon England, secretary of the Navy, here for another function. But first let me comment as secretary of the Navy.



In case you missed the battle of the titans last night, just to let you know that the Naval Academy did beat the Air Force Academy last night in that great -- (applause) -- right -- first leg -- first leg of the trophy, Commander in Chief Trophy. So last night was also a big night for the Naval Academy.



But today I'm not here -- except for that announcement, I'm not here as the secretary of the Navy. I'm here as Secretary Rumsfeld's designee for the Guantanamo detainees and for the two processes we have going on at Guantanamo.



Again, a reminder. We have two different processes. One of them is what we call the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, the CSRTs, that we refer to as the tribunals. And this is the tribunal to determine that the detainees are or are not enemy combatants. So this is a review of their status in terms of enemy combatant.



We also have the Administrative Review Boards, and that's the board, given you are an enemy combatant. Then we have the boards annually. Detainees go before the board, and that's to determine if they are retained at Guantanamo or if they're released to their home country with conditions or if they're just released outright.



So we have those two processes. I'll just give you an update. I don't believe there's anything profound, but this is the seventh time we've met just to provide you status of where we are in these two processes.



So as of this morning, we have conducted 115 tribunals. We have 350 cases open, and that includes all stages of the process, from opening the case to the convening authority's review. So we have 350 cases. Of the 115 tribunals we have held -- I know you're always interested -- we have had 71 of the detainees personally appear. So about 60 percent of the cases, the individual has appeared personally before the tribunal.



Also, as you know, the tribunals are open to the press. The press periodically participates; not all the time because this has become quite routine. And we don't see the press too much anymore, but they do still come by. It's open -- every one is open to the press.

Of the 115 tribunal decisions, keep in mind, those decisions go to Admiral McGarrah, who's here today. And the Admiral is a convening authority. And they go to him for review, sufficiency review. He reviews; makes sure that we have met all the criteria in our procedures. And he then either concurs with or sends the cases back for further work. So of the 115, 64 have now been reviewed by Admiral McGarrah, and 63 of those he's concurred with were indeed enemy combatants. One he has concurred with was not an enemy combatant. The last time I was with you, I announced at that time we had one case that was not an enemy combatant. So one not an enemy combatant; 63 are enemy combatants, of the 64 cases reviewed of the 115. So there are still now some in the Admiral's office, obviously, waiting for that review process.



I am pleased to tell you that the rate has gone up appreciably in the last couple of weeks. Last week we conducted 25 hearings or tribunals. This week, as of this morning, we have conducted 21. So we'll have hearings yet today. We'll have hearings tomorrow. So this week will be the high week in terms of the number of detainees whose cases have been heard.



We had a number of problems obviously, among those a number of hurricanes that came near the island. And that's not an excuse; it's just a factor. But I believe we resolved the issues that were slowing us down. Like I say, we've gotten to a pretty high rate last week and this week. So we will have all of the CSRTs or all the tribunals completed by the end of the year. We are well on track to do that.



Now, the Administrative Review Boards -- or Annual Review Boards, the ARBs, those procedures were signed out by me on September 14th. So again, a reminder, you go through the tribunal process, CSRTs. If you are determined to be an enemy combatant, you then go into the next process of the Annual Review Boards, and that's a very similar process. We've had about a dozen cases have now gone to State Department to notify countries. This is the case, you'll recall, on the ARBs, Annual Review Board, that you can bring in information, families can provide information, countries can provide information. So we have started that process, and we expect in about 30 days we'll actually be holding the first tribunal. Sometime in November, we will start the first ARB, because we need to provide about 30 days for people to give us a response.



So very shortly we will have both processes going on at the same time, but only for a short time, because the CSRT should be finished by the end of the year. So for a matter of a month or two, we'll have them both in operation. Then we'll be down just to the annual review boards.



So the process is proceeding well. There are no problems. Again, detainees largely are appearing. About two-thirds of them appear. And we expect this will continue to accelerate in terms of numbers. We're maintaining a pretty high, steady pace now.



But I also will tell you, we have not been rushing this. This has been very orderly. It's been very methodical. It's been very fair. And doing it quick has been the second priority. We're doing this right, and that's why it's been slower than we anticipated, because it's just taken more time to do it right.



That's where we are today. And questions?



Q On a slightly different topic, one of the enemy combatants there, Moazzam Begg, is alleging he was tortured and abused. Can you -- do you know anything about this? He said this in a letter to his lawyer that apparently got out uncensored.



SEC. ENGLAND: Know nothing about it. It'll be investigated. I mean, if that was the allegations, they'll be investigated. Again, you know, ICRC is there. We've had people there. We've had independent assessments. So I don't know of any cases like that, but again, if there's an allegation like that, it'll certainly be investigated.



Yes, sir?



Q Two questions. First, the number of -- you said, in terms of the tribunal, the tribunals conducted and the open cases, they should be about a hundred, 120 short of the total number of detainees at Guantanamo. Is -- are they -- what happens to them?



SEC. ENGLAND: Oh, we just haven't opened those cases yet.



Q (Off mike.)



SEC. ENGLAND: No, we just -- I mean, we'll get to those. We have about 350 open. So as we work through, we open new cases. So they'll all be accounted for.



Q Okay. Second question is -- I think they said in the last week 10 new detainees were transferred to Guantanamo, and that's the first time that's happened in almost a year. Will these be subject to the same procedures; have the same rights as everyone else?



SEC. ENGLAND: Yes, they will. Yes, they will. Identically. They'll just fit at the end of the ones there now. So we'll have those also through the process by the end of the year.



Yes, ma'am?



Q Sir, are all three of the tribunal panels, up and running, or is it still only going through one panel?



SEC. ENGLAND: No, there are three panels up and running. And Admiral, we were thinking about a fourth. Is it three or --



ADM. : We're working on fourth right now.



SEC. ENGLAND: Working on a fourth. So three are up and running, and we're trying to put a fourth in place.



Q And if you say 25 was kind of the high-water mark for a week to date. Before that approximately how many might have been going through in a week, just as a comparison?



SEC. ENGLAND: Well, it varied. Some days, one or two in a day. Again, the hurricane, some days we didn't do any. At times a witness will appear, bring out some data we then need to go back and check. So it's very hard to keep a high rate unless you have a lot in the queue, frankly, so you can substitute new people. It's taken a while to build up the quantity that we can do that, but now we have, I believe, enough of the data compiled, cases ready, that we'll be able to continue at the 25, maybe a little bit more. This week we'll get somewhat more. We're 21 as of this morning. We can go through six, seven a day, potentially. So by the end of the week we could be at 30, perhaps, this week, maybe a little more. It depends on the specific cases. But I expect we'll stay at 25, 30, now for the remainder of the year.



Yes, sir?



Q When you announced last time the finding that one was not actually an enemy combatant for the first time, you said you couldn't provide any details until the State Department had gone and talked to the home country. Can you tell us more now about who that person was, what they were accused of doing, what evidence led to --



SEC. ENGLAND: I can't do that. I can tell you he went back to Pakistan and he returned to his country in September. And I believe that was announced earlier. But he was returned -- what date?



STAFF: (Off mike.)



SEC. ENGLAND: The 18th of September. So he was returned to his country on the 18th of September, was returned to Pakistan.



Q Can you tell us anything more about what was thought to be the evidence against him and what was the conclusion that decided that evidence wasn't enough?



SEC. ENGLAND: No, I can't. I can tell you this. Press, I believe, actually sat in on that case. I'm not sure. But again, a lot of the data is classified, so you can't really discuss all the information in public. For the unclassified portion, that is available and that can be discussed because that's open, obviously. People sit in on that. But not the classified portion of it. So we can provide you the unclassified summary.



Q Sir, was he released by Pakistan or is he being detained in Pakistan now?



SEC. ENGLAND: I don't know.



Okay. One more?



Q Yes. Sixty-three out of 64 were deemed combatants. Is that a very high success rate? At Nuremberg, less than half the Germans were convicted. I know it's not a trial, but that's a pretty high rate.



SEC. ENGLAND: Well, this is only to determine, again, if you're an enemy combatant. And there's already been prior determinations. This is a much more formal process, but there's been a number of determinations in the past, so I would expect that most would indeed be enemy combatants, just because of prior reviews. This is a more formalized review, it's later, there's more data available, so I would expect that you'll get some people to be non-ECs, non-enemy combatants. But remember now, this is strictly an administrative review to determine if the people are indeed classified appropriately, still classified right, in terms of enemy combatants.



Q What's your latest target date for when you -- the tribunal process as opposed to the board --



SEC. ENGLAND: I'm sorry?



Q What's the latest target date for when you expect the Combatant Status Review Tribunal to be completed?



SEC. ENGLAND: We'll be completed before the end of the year. That's our objective, sometime before the end of the year.



Maybe one last question.



Q Yeah. In the case of the individual was found not to be an enemy combatant, do they receive any kind of compensation for their, you know, length of incarceration?



SEC. ENGLAND: No, I don't believe they do.



Okay. Go ahead.



Q Yeah, on a different subject. Today it was reported that the Seventh Fleet has begun patrolling the Sea of Japan near North Korea. Can you confirm that? And is -- was that -- is that part of the initial operating capability of the ballistic missile defense system?



http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041001-1344.html


knock yourself out ....:)


http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/index.html


Its ironic as HELL we are arguing over a judicial review board about detainee status.....

WTF this is nation States...why should it make sense ?

Pity those lawyers don't have trials to go to, then maybe they wouldn't have time to form conclusions about what kind of place Gitmo is.

By the way, whay are you typing it GITMO? I wasn't aware the term was an acronym.

What are these conclusions?

Oh and the shouting implied by those all caps parts is really unnessecary.



Q Yes. Sixty-three out of 64 were deemed combatants. Is that a very high success rate? At Nuremberg, less than half the Germans were convicted. I know it's not a trial, but that's a pretty high rate.



Why do lawyers see numbers differently than others ?

Caps are for emphasis computers cant scream ( yet ) .

read all the source material and see what conclusions you draw on the tribunals that SOME on this thread do not even know exist ..:)

let me know if you can figure out how those two lawyers came up with the conclusions they drew.:D


Q On a slightly different topic, one of the enemy combatants there, Moazzam Begg, is alleging he was tortured and abused. Can you -- do you know anything about this? He said this in a letter to his lawyer that apparently got out uncensored.



SEC. ENGLAND: Know nothing about it. It'll be investigated. I mean, if that was the allegations, they'll be investigated. Again, you know, ICRC is there. We've had people there. We've had independent assessments. So I don't know of any cases like that, but again, if there's an allegation like that, it'll certainly be investigated.



Yes, sir?



Q Two questions. First, the number of -- you said, in terms of the tribunal, the tribunals conducted and the open cases, they should be about a hundred, 120 short of the total number of detainees at Guantanamo. Is -- are they -- what happens to them?




you mean the lawyers representing who ?

With the reccuring theme of liberals as evil, i feel entitled to display a definition:

Traditionally, the word liberal means to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others. To be liberal politically, is to emphasize political and economic freedom. They tend to favor gradual changes in society and promote government programs to solve problems.

Thankyou.

go to the source material...the defense attorneys HAVE to make the material compelling or they SUCK ..:)



http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041001-1344.html


knock yourself out ....:)

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/index.html


Its ironic as HELL we are arguing over a judicial review board about detainee status.....

WTF this is nation States...why should it make sense ?
1) The quote you provided is irrelevant to my questions.
2) The material in the link you provided does not seem to contradict the report.

With the reccuring theme of liberals as evil, i feel entitled to display a definition:

Traditionally, the word liberal means to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others. To be liberal politically, is to emphasize political and economic freedom. They tend to favor gradual changes in society and promote government programs to solve problems.

Thankyou.
No, thank you.

Afghanistan had no standing government. The Taliban were a bunch of warring warlords, so no government.




They are either civilians or enemy combatants = resistance fighter. Either makes them covered by the Geneva Convention.




Tell me, how many were captured in this way? You don't know do you? Guess why, it's because they haven't been tried because you're too afraid you haven't got the evidence.



A group of armed civilian that are hostile count as an enemy, uniformed or otherwise. They are therefore just as fair game as any other soldier. You need to be sure they are hostile first, however, because there are plenty of mercenaries that can go either way.



Because you haven't tried them, so yes, I am holding you to your standards.

Your standards are, as per your law: INNOCENT until proven guilty.

They haven't been proven guilty, they are innocent.



They maintain their human rights, regardless of what they do. Even a serial killer has a rights.




Or maybe they were just sold, for 2000 USD.



Uh huh... the war on Iraq might be a joke, but it's very real. I don't consider it very funny.

The war on terror, however, that's the real joke.




So, you've got double standards? predictable.




Yes, but then you have enough evidence to trial and convict him. Why haven't you done so already?




Yeah, which puts them under the Geneva Convention. Don't try bullshitting around it with words that don't exist. Unlawful combatants are criminal civilians and/or soldiers. It follows from the word unlawful.




You misread my words. I say fighting In Iraq and you make it a for and against situation.

So, I am sure you know of the many civilians that died during WWII as a result of the action of resistance fighters? because that's what I was referring to. Resistance fighters in general cause atrocities.



Which, in turn, makes them either a civilian or a soldier. An unlawful combatant is either a civilian or a soldier. A terrorist is either a civilian or a soldier.



The torture here is never ever being tried in a court. That's torture. Not knowing what's going to happen to you. Great idea isn't it?




You're a hypocrit because you're saying how these people are already guilty, and then you pretend you want to trial them. If you had your way, they wouldn't get a trial and would merely be executed, I think that's fairly clear from everything else you've said.




Which means treating them like criminals, which means trying them for their crimes.




The war on terror is a joke. You can try these prisoners without any risk.




Not really. Think: Pedophiles, serial killers... those are just two people that can easily be more despicable than terrorists. They're criminals.


if you actually made any sense and had a legitamate argument that has not been already asked and aswered I would take the time to repeat myself ad nauseum .

1) The quote you provided is irrelevant to my questions.
2) The material in the link you provided does not seem to contradict the report.


Excuse me and how would that be ?


I gave you the source material for the report. I guess you have not had time to read it .


Finding 64 out of 65 to be unlawfull combatants is just a start for the " contradictions " .

Here's some more to digest .

On May 16, 2003, the US Department of Defense announced the release of one detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the transfer of four Saudi detainees for continued detention by the Government of Saudi Arabia, on May 14, 2003; US officials having determined that these detainees either no longer posed a threat to U.S. security or no longer required detention by the United States.

On July 18, 2003, the Department of Defense announced the transfer of 27 detainees for release from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to their countries of origin, after determining that these detainees either no longer posed a threat to U.S. security or no longer required detention by the United States. DOD also announced the arrival of approximately 10 enemy combatants to Guantanamo Bay.

On November 24, 2003, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred 20 detainees for release from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to their home countries on Nov. 21. Additionally, approximately 20 detainees arrived at Guantanamo from the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility on Nov. 23, putting the number of detainees at GTMO at approximately 660.

On January 29, 2004, the US DoD announced that it had released three teenagers, believed to be aged 13 to 15, and returned home to Afghanistan. The three had been held at the Iguana House facility. Two had been detained as a result of two in raids on Taliban camps while the third was captured while reportedly trying to obtain weapons. The release brought to 87 the number of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay, in addition to 4 detainees which were transferred to the care of Saudi Arabia.

On July 27, 2004, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred four detainees, all French nationals, from Guantanamo Bay, to the control of the government of France. The transfer brought to the number of detainees who have left Guantanamo to 151. This followed the announced transfer of a Swedish detainee earlier that month.

On August 2, 2004, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred five detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the control of the government of Morocco as these detainees were Moroccan nationals.

On September 18, 2004, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred 35 detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The transfer included 29 to the control of Pakistan for continued detention and six to Pakistan for release. The transfer also included the one detainee approved for release by DoD and subsequently found to not be an enemy combatant by Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

On September 22, 2004, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred 11 detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Afghanistan for release. This transfer brought the number of detainees who have left Guantanamo Bay to 202 and the number of detainees held there at approximately 539 detainees.

That same day, the Department of Defense issued another release in which it announced that it had transferred 10 detainees from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This transfer increased the number of detainees held there to approximately 549 detainees.

On January 16, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred one detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Kuwait for prosecution.

On January 25, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred four British detainees from U.S. facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) to the custody of the United Kingdom.

On January 28, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred one Australian detainee from U.S. facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, (GTMO) to the custody of Australia.

On March 07, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred three detainees from Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba, to France for prosecution. This transfer increases the number to 211 detainees who have departed GTMO. As a result of the transfer, there were no longer any French citizen held at Guantanamo Bay, from a total of seven French prisoners initially held by the U.S. at the facility.

On March 12, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it had transferred three detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Afghanistan, Maldives and Pakistan for release.

On April 19, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it transferred 17 detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Afghanistan for release and one detainee to Turkey for release. This brings the number of detainees at Guantanamo to approximately 520.

On July 20, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it released or transferred eight detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This movement included the releases of one detainee to Sudan, two to Afghanistan, three detainees to Saudi Arabia, one to Jordan and one detainee transferred to the government of Spain.

On August 22, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it released three detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This detainee movement included the release of one detainee to Yemen, one detainee to Tajikistan, and one detainee to Iran.

On September 12, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it released one detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the government of Afghanistan.

On October 1, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it released one detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Egypt.

On November 3, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it transferred five detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Kuwait.

On November 5, 2005, the Department of Defense announced that it released or transferred four detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This movement included the release of one detainee to Saudi Arabia and the transfer of three detainees to Bahrain. This brings the number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to approximately 500.

On February 7, 2006, Mark Denbeaux, professor at Seton Hall University Law School and counsel to two Guantanamo detainees, and Joshua Denbeaux released a report on the Guantanamo detainees. This report used information contained in the Combatant Status Review Board Letters, released by the Department of Defense, to compile a profile on the detainees. It provides a more detailed picture of who the detainees are, how they ended up at Guantanamo, and what evidence there is to support their classification as enemy combatants. Some of the information contained in the report include the fact that only 8% of the detainees are classified as Al Qaeda fighters and only 5% were actually captured by US forces (most were arrested by Pakistan and the Northern Alliance and then turned over to the United States).

On February 9, 2006, the Department of Defense announced that it transferred four detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This movement included the transfer of three detainees to Morocco and one detainee to Uganda.

On February 9, 2006, the Department of Defense announced that it released seven detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Afghanistan. This movement included five detainees recommended for release by the Administrative Review Board. Approximately 490 detainees remain at Guantanamo.

On February 9, 2006, the Department of Defense announced the completion of the first round of Administrative Review Board (ARB) decisions. All of the hearings for this first round were conducted from Dec. 14, 2004, to Dec. 23, 2005. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, the Designated Civilian Official (DCO) for the ARB process, has made final decisions on all 463 board recommendations; these decisions consist of 14 releases (3 percent), 120 transfers (26 percent) and 329 continue to detain (71 percent).

On February 16, 2006, the United Nations released a report on the status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This report comes following an 18-month study by experts into the situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The report calls for the detention camps to be closed immediately and that all detainees should be brought before a tribunial or released. The report's findings are based on information from the United States Government, interviews conducted by the experts with former Guantánamo Bay detainees currently residing or detained in France, Spain and the United Kingdom and responses from lawyers acting on behalf of some current detainees. It also relies on information available in the public domain, including reports prepared by non-governmental organizations, information contained in declassified official United States documents and media reports. The experts did not accept the invitation go down to Gunatanamo Bay because the United States government would not give them free access to the base nor allow them to interview detainees while they were there.

On February 24, 2006, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York ordered the Department of Defense to release the names of all the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Department of Defense has until March 3, 2006 to release the identities of the detainees to the Associated Press. The Department of Defense has indicated that they do not plan to appeal and will comply with the ruling.

On June 10, 2006, three detainees housed at Camp 1 were found shortly after midnight after having reportedly committed suicide. Two of the detainees in question were Saudi nationals while the third was from Yemen. According to the JTF-GTMO commander, all three detainees had previously participated in a hunger strike at one time with the Yemeni detainee a long-term hunger striker who had begun his strike in 2005 and ended it in May 2006. The other two detainees had participated in one hunger strike in 2005 and another short one in 2006. According to DoD, all three detainees were not charged under military commissions and were not being actively interrogated. All three detainees left suicide notes in Arabic.




http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm


You need to go to the link and follow the links provided to get source information and such .

Excuse me and how would that be ?


I gave you the source material for the report. I guess you have not had time to read it .


Finding 64 out of 65 to be unlawfull combatants is just a start for the " contradictions " .

Perhaps you didn't read it either, since it was 63 out of 64. And I don't see how that contradicts anything in the other report.

Did you know in 2001 3,971 American teens declared war on the United States? It's true.

Yeah, how dare they show the world they are treated so poorly that they would rather choose death than further Kafkaesque "detention" by the US? Don't they know the US is trying to fool... I mean, convince, people that Guantanamo is a five star resort?

didnt you know that a few weeks ago Bush said he wanted to close Gitmo. He needs the supremem CT. to decide on how to try them first. huh huh...he wants it gone as much as the rest of the world does...its hurts the party.

didnt read first 7 pages but why dont they just close the damn place, give them a proper trial and then send them home (after the brits who were in there were extradited they were realesed almost immediatly)

Perhaps you didn't read it either, since it was 63 out of 64. And I don't see how that contradicts anything in the other report.



if in this one case 63 persons out of 64 were found to be unlawfull combatants...99.xx percent...whats that alone say about the conclusions in the report ?

63 belong in jail one was not. As determined by the tribunal .


Why would a sane person want a captured terrorist " sent home " ?

Those captured in Afghanistan...Taliban / Afghanis should be sent back to Afghanistan as soon as its safe. But Al -Queda ?? No frickin way . Build a hole someplace else and stick them in it . Until of course Al -Queda surrenders and declares their war over .

if in this one case 63 persons out of 64 were found to be unlawfull combatants...99.xx percent...whats that alone say about the conclusions in the report ?

63 belong in jail one was not. As determined by the tribunal .
That doesn't contradict the report because it made no claims about how many had been determined to have been unlawfull combatants. Try reading the words after the numbers, they tell you what the numbers represent.

Excuse me and how would that be ?


I gave you the source material for the report. I guess you have not had time to read it .


Finding 64 out of 65 to be unlawfull combatants is just a start for the " contradictions " .
86%, actually, were not captured on the field of battle, but rather handed over by Afghan and other bounty-hunters.

(And that number is based on data supplied by the US Defense Department)
The whole report. (http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf)
You're free to find anything to disprove this number, that they weren't captured by bounty hunters, or that nobody got payed for the detainees.

I have not questioned the CSRT. (Even if, as you say, 63 out of 64 were found to be illegal combatants - in 2004 - and still only 10 are charged with anything today)

Blah blah blah etc...
YOU fuck up and its all Bush's fault .
I support the courts decision not Bush.
Go rave like a looney toon at someone else.
You have no credibility at all . Your just stuck on your bleating heart adgenda and cant see the grass for the bush .I didn't fuck up, so what the fuck are you talking about?

I didn't fuck up, so what the fuck are you talking about?
Possibly the best question asked thus far.

That doesn't contradict the report because it made no claims about how many had been determined to have been unlawfull combatants. Try reading the words after the numbers, they tell you what the numbers represent.

Again that is the whole point being made by the lawyers...you are to assume by the percentages they put forth that somehow these people are innocent..and only the smaller percentages are guilty ..if that even .
They do not mention that Northern Alliances troops working closely with the American special forces captured the MAJORITY or the MINORITY of prisoners...they just say ..NORTHERN ALLIANCE forces turned over x amount of prisoners...:D They didnt lie...they told the truth...most of it ..:D

And that Pakistani forces acting on itteligence captured by US special forces in raids conducted in Afghanistan captured Al -Queda operatives and turned them over to the US...

They said ..Pakisstan turned over x amount .

Again ...lawyers....they know that the reason and the way most of the detainees is classified that they can say what they want without fear of being contradicted...

No military or police organization is going to give up its secrets and its sources or its informants..so why not ask anyway..

" Please sir can you tell us who ratted out Al Zamboobytoon " ?

As if that person would be alive three seconds after his name and country was released..

" Please tell us what frequency and what type of communications you monitored to capture Salim El kabob " ? :D :D :D

Again that is the whole point being made by the lawyers...you are to assume by the percentages they put forth that somehow these people are innocent..and only the smaller percentages are guilty ..if that even .
They do not mention that Northern Alliances troops working closely with the American special forces captured the MAJORITY or the MINORITY of prisoners...they just say ..NORTHERN ALLIANCE forces turned over x amount of prisoners...:D They didnt lie...they told the truth...most of it ..:D

And that Pakistani forces acting on itteligence captured by US special forces in raids conducted in Afghanistan captured Al -Queda operatives and turned them over to the US...

They said ..Pakisstan turned over x amount .

Again ...lawyers....they know that the reason and the way most of the detainees is classified that they can say what they want without fear of being contradicted...

No military or police organization is going to give up its secrets and its sources or its informants..so why not ask anyway..

" Please sir can you tell us who ratted out Al Zamboobytoon " ?

As if that person would be alive three seconds after his name and country was released..

" Please tell us what frequency and what type of communications you monitored to capture Salim El kabob " ? :D :D :D

Since the vast majority of these people have yet to be proven guilty of anything they are innocent. Your own law states this, the lawyers have no need to. Unless of course there are more people like you that seem to think that suspected terrorists have no rights.

I'm having some difficulty following your thoughts...

They do not mention that Northern Alliances troops working closely with the American special forces captured the MAJORITY or the MINORITY of prisoners...they just say ..NORTHERN ALLIANCE forces turned over x amount of prisoners...:D They didnt lie...they told the truth...most of it ..:D
They say: "the Afghanistan Northern Alliance was the source of at least 11%" of all detainees. In 44% of the cases the captor was unidentified.

And that Pakistani forces acting on itteligence captured by US special forces in raids conducted in Afghanistan captured Al -Queda operatives and turned them over to the US...

They said ..Pakisstan turned over x amount .
"Pakistan was the source of at least 36% of all
detainees."

But I don't think I see your point at all here...

I'm having some difficulty following your thoughts...

They say: "the Afghanistan Northern Alliance was the source of at least 11%" of all detainees. In 44% of the cases the captor was unidentified.

"Pakistan was the source of at least 36% of all
detainees."

But I don't think I see your point at all here...
I'm beginning to wonder if there is a point.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is a point.
Actually, I seriously doubt it.

Just think if more of them offed themselves it would not be to long until GITMO was closed. I mean no terrorists to watch over, no need for the camp at all. :sniper:

if you actually made any sense and had a legitamate argument that has not been already asked and aswered I would take the time to repeat myself ad nauseum .

I am making sense:

Afghanistan did not have a government. Loose factions warring each other is not a government.

Address that one, for example.

And then address the rest.

Just think if more of them offed themselves it would not be to long until GITMO was closed. I mean no terrorists to watch over, no need for the camp at all. :sniper:
Hye you're right. Hey, why even wait till they kill themselves, just kill them all now. Pfft, human rights, shmuman rights. And while you're at it, why not kill all the refular prisoners in other prisons too. Ah screw, just go all the way and start nuking yourself into oblivion.










:rolleyes:

I cant help it if you have aleady made up your minds and could care less about what is true and what is not .

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm

This is true .
Prisoners of war and terrorist are true .
The need to keep prisoners confined is true .
I doubt if even 2 percent of the prisoners now held in detention DO NOT belong there .

I cant help it if you have aleady made up your minds and could care less about what is true and what is not .

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm

This is true .
Prisoners of war and terrorist are true .
The need to keep prisoners confined is true .
I doubt if even 2 percent of the prisoners now held in detention DO NOT belong there .
Strange, that link has absolutley nothing to do with any of your arguements so far.

Oh what a wonderful way to win an arguement. I could tell you how stupid it is, but you won't listen.

Three fewer assholes in the world to worry about.

I wonder if they allow the remaining ones to receive packages? I'd like to send each of them about 20' of rope. :D

[QUOTE=Ifreann]Hye you're right. Hey, why even wait till they kill themselves, just kill them all now. Pfft, human rights, shmuman rights. And while you're at it, why not kill all the refular prisoners in other prisons too. Ah screw, just go all the way and start nuking yourself into oblivion.


Good Idea, glad you came up with it, so much better then any I ideas I could have come up with.

I could careless how a terrorist dies, as long as they are DEAD.
:sniper:

Three fewer assholes in the world to worry about.

I wonder if they allow the remaining ones to receive packages? I'd like to send each of them about 20' of rope. :D


LOL..Great idea, maybe we should all send them a rope, large numbers of various pills and maybe even some plastic bags, and instead of a “care” package call it a “care to meat Allah package. :p

I am making sense:

Afghanistan did not have a government. Loose factions warring each other is not a government.

Address that one, for example.

And then address the rest.

The Taliban after defeating the militias and the government of Afghaninstan BECAME the government and were recognised as such by other countries ,
the Taliban was the GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan when they refused to turn over Bin Laden after 9-11 .
This is a historical FACT . the northern alliance in a very small segment of the country was the only slightly noticable resistance .

For more on the Taliban see Timeline: The Taliban.


The Taliban ("Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement") ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. They came to power during Afghanistan's long civil war. Although they managed to hold 90% of the country's territory, their policies—including their treatment of women and support of terrorists—ostracized them from the world community. The Taliban was ousted from power in December 2001 by the U.S. military and Afghani opposition forces in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S.
Related Links



The Taliban's rise to power


The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.


Afghanistan under the Taliban


The Taliban's popularity with the Afghan people surprised the country's other warring factions. Many Afghans, weary of conflict and anarchy, were relieved to see corrupt and often brutal warlords replaced by the devout Taliban, who had some success in eliminating corruption, restoring peace, and allowing commerce to resume


http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/expressnews_template/article.cfm?id=1517
http://www.zharov.com/afghan/taliban.html
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html

Rise of the Taliban
In reaction to the anarchy and warlordism prevalent in the country, and the lack of Pashtun representation in the Kabul government, a movement arose called the Taliban. Many Taliban had been educated in madrassas in Pakistan and were largely from rural Pashtun backgrounds. This group dedicated itself to removing the warlords, providing order, and imposing Islam on the country. It received considerable support from Pakistan. In 1994 it developed enough strength to capture the city of Kandahar from a local warlord and proceeded to expand its control throughout Afghanistan, occupying Herat in September 1995, then Kabul in September 1996, and declaring the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (although there was no Emir). Pakistan immediately recognized the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. By the end of 1998, the Taliban occupied about 90% of the country, limiting the opposition largely to a small Tajik corner in the northeast and the Panjshir Valley. Efforts by the UN, prominent Afghans living outside the country, and other interested countries to bring about a peaceful solution to the continuing conflict came to nothing, largely because of intransigence on the part of the Taliban.

The Taliban sought to impose an extreme interpretation of Islam—based in part upon rural Pashtun tradition—upon the entire country and committed massive human rights violations, particularly directed against women and girls, in the process. Women were restricted from working outside the home, pursuing an education, were not to leave their homes without an accompanying male relative, and forced to wear a traditional body-covering garment called the burka. The Taliban committed serious atrocities against minority populations, particularly the Shi'a Hazara ethnic group, and killed noncombatants in several well-documented instances. In 2001, as part of a drive against relics of Afghanistan's pre-Islamic past, the Taliban destroyed two large statues of the Buddha outside of the city of Bamiyan and announced destruction of all pre-Islamic statues in Afghanistan, including the remaining holdings of the Kabul Museum.

In addition to the continuing civil strife, the country suffered from widespread poverty, drought, a devastated infrastructure, and ubiquitous use of landmines. These conditions led to about three to four million Afghans suffering from starvation. In 1998 thousands of people were killed by earthquakes

I have no problem with killing terrorists. I have no problem with jailing terrorists.

I DO have a problem with taking the military, the Department of Defense or the President's word for it. This is America and they need to be convicted in a court of law, or they are not guilty of anything yet.

Just think if more of them offed themselves it would not be to long until GITMO was closed. I mean no terrorists to watch over, no need for the camp at all. :sniper:

yeah it's like an execution without america pulling the trigger.... ^^

Good Idea, glad you came up with it, so much better then any I ideas I could have come up with.

I could careless how a terrorist dies, as long as they are DEAD.
:sniper:
Only the thing is none of the people in Guantanmo have been tried and convicted of being terrorists yet.

ummm, give them a trial maybe? you know, just to make sure they are actually al-quida and not some poor schmuck who happen to own a weapon when the marines came calling.

yeh, and then IF they are LEGALLY found guilty (as opposed to "I think they might be guilty so let's just stick em somewhere horrible anyway"). lock them up in a PROPER prison, instead of an illegal (whether Bush likes it or not, it's illegal) torture house

on a more serious note from my side..

They wanted to be martyrs.. america is making them just that.. te media at least.. i say we stop talking about it on international Televation.. that might make the rest of the world realize that these brutal killers are willing to kill themselves just to piss us off and it's not working...

Another thing... For these crazy people who want us to get rid of gitmo and let these terrorists go... i hope they blow up your house next!

I have no problem with killing terrorists. I have no problem with jailing terrorists.

I DO have a problem with taking the military, the Department of Defense or the President's word for it. This is America and they need to be convicted in a court of law, or they are not guilty of anything yet.

Actually they do not have those rights, they are not POWs or criminals, they are enemy combatants. These people are not covered by the Geneva conventions, the Articles of war or any other “rules” of war (what a silly term anyway). There status is clearly spelled out as enemy combatants, and how they are treated was determined during WWII, why change it now. :mp5:

Three fewer assholes in the world to worry about.

I wonder if they allow the remaining ones to receive packages? I'd like to send each of them about 20' of rope. :DNever miss a chance at a cheap shot, huh? Some things really never do change.

I guess it never occurred to you that these people might actually be innocents who had given up all hope of ever getting out, huh? I don't know if that was the case or not, but you don't either, and yet you mock them in their death.

And to think people respect you. :rolleyes:

Only the thing is none of the people in Guantanmo have been tried and convicted of being terrorists yet.

Hmmmmm found on a battle field, bearing arms against troops, not in the uniform of the opposing nation……Sound like terrorists to me. :mp5:

Actually they do not have those rights, they are not POWs or criminals, they are enemy combatants. These people are not covered by the Geneva conventions, the Articles of war or any other “rules” of war (what a silly term anyway). There status is clearly spelled out as enemy combatants, and how they are treated was determined during WWII, why change it now. :mp5:Jesus Christ--read the fucking conventions for yourself, why don't you? They are protected until an independent judge says they aren't according to the conventions--I quoted a discussion of it in this very thread a few pages back.

on a more serious note from my side..

They wanted to be martyrs.. america is making them just that.. te media at least.. i say we stop talking about it on international Televation.. that might make the rest of the world realize that these brutal killers are willing to kill themselves just to piss us off and it's not working...

Another thing... For these crazy people who want us to get rid of gitmo and let these terrorists go... i hope they blow up your house next!
How do you know they wanted to be martyrs? You do know they've been imprisoned for a number of years, right? If the wanted to be martyrs they never would have allowed themselves to be taken alive.

And how do you know they are brutal killers? What evidence do you have of this, other than their prescence in Gitmo?

Actually they do not have those rights, they are not POWs or criminals, they are enemy combatants. These people are not covered by the Geneva conventions, the Articles of war or any other “rules” of war (what a silly term anyway). There status is clearly spelled out as enemy combatants, and how they are treated was determined during WWII, why change it now. :mp5:

Sorry, no. That's a violation of the Fifth Amendment. You can't deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

go to the source material...the defense attorneys HAVE to make the material compelling or they SUCK ..:)


Is that your studied opinion?

Three fewer assholes in the world to worry about.

I wonder if they allow the remaining ones to receive packages? I'd like to send each of them about 20' of rope. :D
Not surprising, as you don't seem to mind the killing of innocent people.

oh just so you know - the Britons who were finally sent back to Britain some time ago after our government got pissed off - not one has committed a single terrorist act. So stop stupidly assuming that just because people are being tortured they must be terrorists - where the f*ck is the logic in that?!?!

Hmmmmm found on a battle field, bearing arms against troops, not in the uniform of the opposing nation……Sound like terrorists to me. :mp5:
Go back a few pages. There's a report stating that 86% of prisoners at Gitmo were handed over to US forces after being captured by Northern Aliance forces(who were paid $2000 for handing over these people).

How do you know they wanted to be martyrs? You do know they've been imprisoned for a number of years, right? If the wanted to be martyrs they never would have allowed themselves to be taken alive.

And how do you know they are brutal killers? What evidence do you have of this, other than their prescence in Gitmo?
... well aside from the fact we have them in the first place
Hmmmmm found on a battle field, bearing arms against troops, not in the uniform of the opposing nation……Sound like terrorists to me. :mp5:

There is a good reason to think so ..

i bet you are a bleding heart liberal.. who thinks that they all convieniently commited suicide at the same time?... coincidence much?...

I have no problem with killing terrorists. I have no problem with jailing terrorists.

I DO have a problem with taking the military, the Department of Defense or the President's word for it. This is America and they need to be convicted in a court of law, or they are not guilty of anything yet.
Hear hear!

Actually they do not have those rights, they are not POWs or criminals, they are enemy combatants. These people are not covered by the Geneva conventions, the Articles of war or any other “rules” of war (what a silly term anyway). There status is clearly spelled out as enemy combatants, and how they are treated was determined during WWII, why change it now. :mp5:
Only 63 men at Gitmo have been determined to be enemy combatants.

Never miss a chance at a cheap shot, huh? Some things really never do change.

I guess it never occurred to you that these people might actually be innocents who had given up all hope of ever getting out, huh? I don't know if that was the case or not, but you don't either, and yet you mock them in their death.

And to think people respect you. :rolleyes:
Now, now. That's enough of your none too subtle sarcasm. :p

That anyone being held in Guantanamo is "innocent" approaches zero as a limit. That three "innocents" could have made a pact to commit suicide in the same manner on the same day also approaches zero as a limit. How is it that thousands of Americans have been held captive far, far longer than those "innocents" at Guantanamo, yet never even considered suicide ( despite their having been DOCUMENTED instances of torture )?

I submit that, given the "71 virgins" approach to Muslim afterlife myths, they were simply trying to make a political statement at the same time as they sped their meeting with "Allah."

well i realize that no matter what i say on here i will get flamed for it right?... I mean it is unavoidable.. this is one of those threads where it can't be helped....

well at least... for the most part this thread is nice about it :eek: :eek:

Only 63 men at Gitmo have been determined to be enemy combatants.

And I bet it wasn't by due process of law either

... well aside from the fact we have them in the first place


There is a good reason to think so ..

i bet you are a bleding heart liberal.. who thinks that they all convieniently commited suicide at the same time?... coincidence much?...
Ah yes, you have them, so they must be brutal murders. With such convincing evidence I don't know why you haven't given these men due process.

... well aside from the fact we have them in the first place

.

Proves what? That offering money to militias for "terrorists" means they'll hand you people for the money?

And I bet it wasn't by due process of law either
A tribunal was held and an Admiral reviewed the cases.

Not surprising, as you don't seem to mind the killing of innocent people.
Which statement puts you right down there in the cellar with those who called me "baby-killer" when I got back from Vietnam.

That anyone being held in Guantanamo is "innocent" approaches zero as a limit.

How so?

Hmmm Lets see what the Geneva convention says Nazz..

Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." To be sure, Article 31 of the Fourth Convention prohibits any "physical or moral coercion" of civilians "to obtain information from them," and there is a clear prohibition of torture, physical abuse, and denial of medical care, food, and shelter. Nonetheless, Article 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.



AT LAW

Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights
Don't blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

BY JOHN YOO
Saturday, May 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005144


according to Article 4 of the third Convention, a POW is defined in part as " having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance . . . of carrying arms openly . . . of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."


Clearly, Al-Queda and other terrorists do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. A suicide bomber does not openly carry arms. A hijacker of a plane does not wear a uniform identifying him as such. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions, like most treaties, structure legal relationships between Nation States, not between Nation States and private interest groups and non-state actors, such as Al-Queda.




And here is the ONLY leg to stand on reguarding the geneva convention and terrorist...

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.



THATS IT .

Let me know when the doubt arises and a tribunal is not formed .


It seems to me that the US is ffollowing the Geneva convention .


Unless of course you want to write a new one .

oh one more thing - whatever countries the Genevan Convention covers, wtf happened to human rights for HUMANS who HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY LAW to be terrorists (and if they ever are determined to be, what happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"?) - whether they are fomr a country covered by the Convention or not?

Which statement puts you right down there in the cellar with those who called me "baby-killer" when I got back from Vietnam.


O jesus, we're all to blame for the hippies.......

Ah yes, you have them, so they must be brutal murders. With such convincing evidence I don't know why you haven't given these men due process.

honestly.. the chance of any one of these men being inoccent is slim to none..
how did we get them?.. by us or our allies catching them in the act...

I hope if one does get out he goes and blows up ur house

(witout u in it .. i don't want neone injured here.. *and i am serious in that*)

Which statement puts you right down there in the cellar with those who called me "baby-killer" when I got back from Vietnam.
Well, you didn't disagree in the other thread, so...

Edit: right about here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11131561&postcount=9)

Jesus Christ--read the fucking conventions for yourself, why don't you? They are protected until an independent judge says they aren't according to the conventions--I quoted a discussion of it in this very thread a few pages back.

1-Applies to uniformed members of an armed force, spies are not included in the articles of the convention, same goes for enemy combatants. Spies and enemy combatants do not enjoy the protections of the convention.
2-Were you ever in the military? Were you ever there (or on any battle field at all)? Do you know (personally) anyone that was there?
3-After over 25 years serving in the US military I know what is contained in the Geneva conventions quite well (having read them several time over) having been on a few battle fields knowing what protections you have and what you are required and not required to do/say is vital.
4-That is why all members of an armed force has a ID card, it states several tings on it, such as name, rank, service number as well as basic medical information, and get this the Geneva convention category that a service member holds, and there are different categories depending on rank and what you do in the military.

Enemy combatants have no protection under the conventions.

oh one more thing - whatever countries the Genevan Convention covers, wtf happened to human rights for HUMANS who HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY LAW to be terrorists (and if they ever are determined to be, what happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"?) - whether they are fomr a country covered by the Convention or not?
Fuck it. Kill 'em all and let "Allah" sort them out.

honestly.. the chance of any one of these men being inoccent is slim to none..
how did we get them?.. by us or our allies catching them in the act...



Your allies the Afghan tribesmen/opium trade people......who got 2000 USD a head who didnt catch (as one gentleman pointed out earlier)86% of them "in the act".

honestly.. the chance of any one of these men being inoccent is slim to none..
how did we get them?.. by us or our allies catching them in the act...



THAT is bollocks. Many of them were arrested for supposed links to terrorism - NOT because of any real evidence or because of being caught in the act. think about it logically for a minute, instead of patriotically: if there is so much evidence against these people, wouldn't it have made sense for the government to have already put them through a LEGAL PROPER trial to prove it? Wouldn't the gov. want to make themselves look good? But of course, not putting them on trial wouldn't help - it would show that there is virtually no evidence for many of them, in my opinion.

Fuck it. Kill 'em all and let "Allah" sort them out.
See? There you go again.

Fuck it. Kill 'em all and let "Allah" sort them out.

right. so everyone who's been brainwashed into religion should be killed. that makes sense. and many aint even muslim

Fuck it. Kill 'em all and let "Allah" sort them out.

So, kill possibly innocent people. Excellent. What's next, torture and keeping them locked up without a lawyer?

Oh, no, wait...

Fuck it. Kill 'em all and let "Allah" sort them out.

I can only hope to have gained your level of debating skills when I reach your age.

Have you any other sage comments to enlighten us with, O abused-by-hippies one?

Your allies the Afghan tribesmen/opium trade people......who got 2000 USD a head who didnt catch (as one gentleman pointed out earlier)86% of them "in the act".

fine then .. why take the chance.. i would rather be safe in the military .. and i would rather my brothers and sisters and family .. be safe knowing that there are that many less potential terrorists prowling the streets of the middle east.. and possibly america.

See? There you go again.
Don't they believe that being killed by an infidel while conducting jihad will send them straight to Allah? All I'm suggesting is that we help them out a bit. :D

fine then .. why take the chance.. i would rather be safe in the military .. and i would rather my brothers and sisters and family .. be safe knowing that there are that many less potential terrorists prowling the streets of the middle east.. and possibly america.


O so its potential terrorists now....How do we know you aren't a potential Terrorist?

Don't they believe that being killed by an infidel while conducting jihad will send them straight to Allah? All I'm suggesting is that we help them out a bit. :D

hooah!:p

Don't they believe that being killed by an infidel while conducting jihad will send them straight to Allah? All I'm suggesting is that we help them out a bit. :D

Would that be the hippies who mentally scarred you or the Muslims you take it out on?

Don't they believe that being killed by an infidel while conducting jihad will send them straight to Allah? All I'm suggesting is that we help them out a bit. :D
Then you'd might want to ensure that they actually were conducting jihad before "helping" them?

O so its potential terrorists now....How do we know you aren't a potential Terrorist?

fine lock me up if u will... i am not a potential terrorist... i am not going to sterotype.. but being religionless... and peacefully idealistic.. i have no reason to terrorize people.. i am (unlike many) respectful of everyones opinion...

What proof have you they aren't terrorists.. .

right. so everyone who's been brainwashed into religion should be killed. that makes sense. and many aint even muslim
Allah ( in the opinion of BOTH Muslims and Christians ) =/= God. But, hey ... I'm one of those wild cards who believes that there should be a law against any religious organization being allowed to participate in politics in any way, manner, shape or form. Problem is, most Christians believe that suicide is a sin.

What proof have you they aren't terrorists.. .
Psst! It's the other way 'round!

Would that be the hippies who mentally scarred you or the Muslims you take it out on?
LMAO! What ... EVER!

You either have a problem with conceptualization, or you're being totally fascetious. Either way ... MEH!

According to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-chief-brands-suicides-acts-of-warfare/2006/06/11/1149964396421.html).


Huh?
Wasn't capturing these folks in the first place and putting them in a prison camp an act of war?

THAT is bollocks. Many of them were arrested for supposed links to terrorism - NOT because of any real evidence or because of being caught in the act. think about it logically for a minute, instead of patriotically: if there is so much evidence against these people, wouldn't it have made sense for the government to have already put them through a LEGAL PROPER trial to prove it? Wouldn't the gov. want to make themselves look good? But of course, not putting them on trial wouldn't help - it would show that there is virtually no evidence for many of them, in my opinion.


So whats to gain by holding them ?

By your own logic ?

Why bother capturing them ?

With all the battles being fought with al queda and the taliban for YEARS now... I guess there couldnt POSSIBLY be any prisoners..

THEY ARE ALL INNOCENT .

The ones we have are any way ...the guilty ones never have been caught yet !!...only the poor unlucky slobs being held in CUBA but they are all the innocent victims of mistaken identity and failure to yeild at a no RPG crossing .

What does IHL say about terrorism?


International humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of international law applicable when armed violence reaches the level of armed conflict, whether international or non-international. The best known IHL treaties are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977, but there are a range of other IHL treaties aimed at reducing human suffering in times of war, such as the 1997 Ottawa Convention on landmines.

It is a basic principle of IHL that persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants...

IHL - sometimes also called the Law of Armed Conflict or the Law of War - does not provide a definition of terrorism, but prohibits most acts committed in armed conflict that would commonly be considered "terrorist" if they were committed in peacetime.

It is a basic principle of IHL that persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. The "principle of distinction", as this rule is known, is the cornerstone of IHL. Derived from it are many specific IHL rules aimed at protecting civilians, such as the prohibition of deliberate or direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks or the use of "human shields". IHL also prohibits hostage taking.

In situations of armed conflict, there is no legal significance in describing deliberate acts of violence against civilians or civilian objects as "terrorist" because such acts would already constitute war crimes. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, war crimes suspects may be criminally prosecuted not only by the state in which the crime occurred, but by all states.



There's your justification for GTMO .


The Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 33) states that "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited", while Additional Protocol II (Article 4) prohibits "acts of terrorism" against persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities. The main aim is to emphasise that neither individuals, nor the civilian population may be subject to collective punishments, which, among other things, obviously induce a state of terror.

Both Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions also prohibit acts aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population. "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited" (AP I, Article 51(2) and AP II, Article 13(2)).

These provisions are a key element of IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities i.e. the way military operations are carried out. They prohibit acts of violence during armed conflict that do not provide a definite military advantage. It is important to bear in mind that even a lawful attack on military targets can spread fear among civilians. However, these provisions outlaw attacks that specifically aim to terrorise civilians, for example campaigns of shelling or sniping of civilians in urban areas.



Captured combatants must be granted prisoner of war status (POW) and may be held until the end of active hostilities in that international armed conflict. POWs cannot be tried for mere participation in hostilities, but may be tried for any war crimes they may have committed. In this case they may be held until any sentence imposed has been served. If the POW status of a prisoner is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a competent tribunal should be established to rule on the issue.



A terrorist is not a lawfull combatant ...NO PROTECTION UNDER GENEVA PERIOD . A terrorist is NOT recognized as a POW .

Psst! It's the other way 'round!

it is both ways.. and it could be argueed as such..

i would rather be safe then sorry
like mama always said right?

They're trying to make the US look bad. They don't have a problem blowing themselves up in crowds of people. This shouldn't suprise you or us.
I suppose "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to US military personell in your eyes?

I and most other Christians on this side of the pond can't believe how often you right-wing American "Christians" condone outright murder. There were many witnesses to the Hadith massacre, yet you're not even trying to be impartial. You're jumping right to the defence of your beloved government.

The US deserves to look bad.

right. so everyone who's been brainwashed into religion should be killed. that makes sense. and many aint even muslim

Good idea, at least for those religious zealots willing to blow themselves up just for a chance to kill innocents. That goes for all religions, but in today’s world the “Radical Muslims” are the ones that fit into that category.

I have not heard of a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religious type person strapping a bomb on and going out to kill innocent people. But I could be wrong (but rather doubt it).

it is both ways.. and it could be argueed as such..

i would rather be safe then sorry
like mama always said right?

I'd rather be American than safe.

Allah ( in the opinion of BOTH Muslims and Christians ) =/= God. But, hey ... I'm one of those wild cards who believes that there should be a law against any religious organization being allowed to participate in politics in any way, manner, shape or form. Problem is, most Christians believe that suicide is a sin.


I agree, people should keep there faith to themselves and the member of there church, they should not attempt to push there faith on others or be involved in politics.

full text of the 4 th Geneva convention .

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5


Now if you want a balanced view on the subject....

Read how the ICRC views terrorism and how it feels the law should be read .

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList575/0F32B7E3BB38DD26C1256E8A0055F83E

I think we should kill all ragheads at gitmo :sniper:

I think it's safe to say liberals hate America and want us to fail.
Do you just say these things to annoy, or are you actually inane enough to believe them?

I think most liberals in America hate the Republicans for what they are doing to the country that they love.

1. It's a pervasive cultural attitude. Let me tell you a story that happened near me a while back. A guy was trying to steal another man's car. This was noticed by the man who owned the car. He and his friend ran out and scuffled with the would-be thief. In the scuffle, the thief got his neck broke and died. The public reaction, "Well dying sucks, but you shouldn't steal cars." No charges were filed of course.

That's not really got anything to do with foreign policy. It's a case of putting the right to private property over the right to live. I am disgusted by that. Your miserable defense of it is just as bad as those who defend the disgusting excesses of Iran's oppressive culture.

:mp5: :mp5: I think we should kill all ragheads at gitmo :sniper:

:mp5: :mp5: I think we should kill all ragheads at gitmo :sniper:

well you are a pugnacious one aren't you...
well u all know what i think.. so i'm not going to say it again..

But the media is making this out to be so much more then it really is..
it is a bunch of islamic jihadists/terrorists who want to be martyrs.. you know whi i think this... innocent people would not kill themselves.. because they always have hope of freedom.. (don't flame me for this) and that is just my opinion.. which i am entitled to .. as you all are to yours

fine then .. why take the chance.. i would rather be safe in the military .. and i would rather my brothers and sisters and family .. be safe knowing that there are that many less potential terrorists prowling the streets of the middle east.. and possibly america.

safe? SAFE? No offence, but ARE YOU STUPID? (question, not suggestion). By torturing people (many of whom may be totally innocent), the US are going to CAUSE attacks on America, especially from muslims (even non-extremists, as jihad would be considered completely legitimate - it would be to defend the prisoners - and I, for one, would totally understand and would not condemn them, despite the fact I'm not muslim), especially as a significant amount of the detainees are muslim

Now, now. That's enough of your none too subtle sarcasm. :p

That anyone being held in Guantanamo is "innocent" approaches zero as a limit. That three "innocents" could have made a pact to commit suicide in the same manner on the same day also approaches zero as a limit. How is it that thousands of Americans have been held captive far, far longer than those "innocents" at Guantanamo, yet never even considered suicide ( despite their having been DOCUMENTED instances of torture )?

I submit that, given the "71 virgins" approach to Muslim afterlife myths, they were simply trying to make a political statement at the same time as they sped their meeting with "Allah."
No innocents, huh? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12354291/from/RS.1/) And those are the ones we know about. I'd say the chances that we swept up other innocents approaches 100%. But go ahead--keep taking the cheap shots, even though you're old enough to know better.

Hmmm Lets see what the Geneva convention says Nazz..
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005144
And here is the ONLY leg to stand on reguarding the geneva convention and terrorist...
THATS IT .

Let me know when the doubt arises and a tribunal is not formed .


It seems to me that the US is ffollowing the Geneva convention .


Unless of course you want to write a new one .
Yeah--quote the fucking guy who came up with the "torture is okay if the president orders it" person. John Fucking Yoo. The Conventions are clear; Yoo is twisting them to suit his own purposes.

You treat them like any other criminal or war criminal, maybe? What about a trial? Where's that trial? That would be constructive. We're critical of the fact that you still haven't trialed them. How about you take that criticism to heart? You treat them like you would treat any other criminal.

Let me preface by saying I'm still at odds with myself over a lot of the issues in this thread, so I cannot yet come down decisively on one 'side' or another. But I think this reply was made without full consideration for the context.

A "criminal" is someone who's broken the law. Say that in "Hypothetopia" murder and destruction of property are against the law: it is illegal to murder someone or to destroy property (and to plot either) in Hypothetopia. If you commit these crimes in Hypothetopia, you are a criminal and subject to prosecution in a court of law to attempt to prove your guilt and determine appropriate punishment. That's all fine and good. But say that following an attack on Hypothetopian soil that destroyed Hypothetopian property and murdered Hypothetopian people-- an attack carried out by members of an non-national organisation (terrorists) that hate Hypothetopia-- Hypothetopia starts capturing and 'detaining' individuals (by various means) from all around the world. But Hypothetopia isn't just taking into custody those directly involved in the attack that was carried out; it's also detaining people under the following circumstances:

a) anyone affiliated with the terrorist organisation, wherever they might find them in the world.

b) anyone caught plotting or supporting those who plot future attacks against Hypothetopia, whether affiliated with the terrorist organisation or not, wherever they might find them in the world.

c) following the attack Hypotheopia invades "Theoretica" and "Conjecturia." While neither the Theoretican or Conjecturian governments claim responsibility for the terrorist attack, Theoretica is known to harbour the leader(s) of the terrorist organisation and its government can be reasonably assumed to at the very least be ideologically supportive of the terrorists, making the invasion defensible according to the standards of international law. The involvement of Conjecturia as a nation in the terrorist attacks is debatable, however, making the sincerity of Hypothetopia's stated motivation for invading Conjecturia questionable, and the legality of that invasion is therefore dubious according to the standards of international law (which Hypothetopia purports to respect), Conjecturia nevertheless can be reasonably assumed to at the very least harbour some members of the terrorist organisation, and its government reasonably assumed to by ideologically supportive of the terrorist. In both countries, a large number of the local people, (some-- but not all of them-- involved in the terrorist organisation) resent the invasion and take up arms against the Hypothetopian occupiers, attacking Hypothetopian personnel and interests in their country. So Hypothetopian troops begin taking into custody and detaining anyone caught attacking-, plotting to attack-, or supporting those who attack or plot to attack Hypothetopian personnel and interests in Theoretica or in Conjecturia (or in Hypothetopia).

The question, then, if you consider these three cases in the context of the original definition of a 'criminal,' is: can any of the detainees taken into custody in those three cases be accurately described as 'criminals' and therefore subject to legal proceedings? In cases "a" and "b" you have people guilty or implicated (or at least potentially implicated) in what are most definitely crimes in Hypothetopia, but there is the question of jurisdiction. If a Conjecturian can be taken into custody in Conjecturia for what they plan to do (or affiliation with others who have already done) acts considered crimes in Hypothetopia-- but not necessarily Conjecturia-- who is to say that Hypothetopian citizens shouldn't be subject to arrest on Hypothetopian soil, and subsequent extraction/extradition, to some other country wherein their actions at home are considered criminal abroad? Or put in more real-world terms-- if the American government can snatch up Abdullah in Iraq for breaking American laws, how is that more defensible than the Iranian government snatching up Joe in Minnesota for breaking Iranian laws? Extradition laws, you say? Was every 'detainee' in Gitmo legally extradited? Or do we invite the "all those 'alien' Iranian laws don't apply to US citizens because our culture is different" argument? Because that can turn around faster than a fat kid who smells pie behind him.

And in case "c"; setting aside the aforementioned issues when Hypothetopia rounds up and detains confirmed affiliates of the terrorist organisation, what about Conjecturian "Mohammed Schlub" who has never had anything to do with any terrorist organisation, but the day after a stray Hypothetopian bomb blows up his parents or his wife or his kids he gets his hands on a gun and some grenades and gets picked up and taken into custody on his way to get some revenge against the Hypothetopian occupiers? Is he a 'criminal?' He couldn't care less about attacking Hypotheopia's capital city, he doesn't care if they live their way of life back where they come from, but as long as they've invaded his country and they've killed someone close to him (or not-- does he have to have lost someone? is the invasion of his country not impetus enough?) he feels that he has a right, or a duty, to do damage to those who have invaded his country-- and arguably done so illegally. On what legal grounds do you hold someone whose country you're occupying, whose relative(s) you've killed (or not), who has no affiliation with any terrorist organisation but who's shooting at you? He's trying to murder Hypothetopian citizens? Well what are they doing in his country?

Consider this: what if American citizens-- with or without affiliation to some 'terrorist organisation'-- who got fed up with the issue of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico and committed acts of terrorism against Mexican people, on Mexican soil. Subsequently Mexico (which for the sake of argument we'll pretend has a vastly more powerful military than the US) starts rounding up anyone, anywhere in the world, with connections to the terrorists-- relatives, anti-immigration pundits, etc-- and shipping them to some clandestine 'detention camp.' Then, suspecting the US government might have supported the terrorists, Mexico invades the United States, and you have Mexican troops occupying America. Well if a bunch of American citizens get pissed at being invaded and they start an insurgency-- related or unrelated to the original terrorists or any organisation they may have belonged to-- and start shooting at Mexican forces, what becomes of them if they're captured? Are they suddenly 'terrorists?' 'Enemy combattants?' How does the Mexican government justify their arrests? What does it charge them with? Are they 'criminals' subject to legal trial?

And before the right-wingers jump on me and say "undecided my ass, you're saying we should let all the terrorists go free!" I say this: shut up and don't try to put words in my mouth. Because for lack of any better ideas so far-- and considering how I'd feel if Toronto had gotten hit and it was Canada holding thousands of 'detainees'-- I'm not saying they should empty Guantanamo Bay. If you can adequately verify that a detainee poses an imminent threat then detain them 'til the cows come home. If you can prove that they're guilty of conspiring to commit a crime then prosecute them like it's going out of style. But I would have to say that if you've been holding any person for 4 years, you should have been able to put them in one category or another by now. You ought to be able to come up with some system in 4 years that you can use to succinctly explain to the watching world that "this is detainee 114, we have this, this and this on him so he's being charged, and this is detainee 115, he knows a guy who went to grade school with a guy who knows a guy and he sure isn't fond of us, but he's committed no crime and poses no threat (or at least he didn't before he was incarcerated without legal recourse for 4 years), so we have to let him go." That bears consideration, too: the longer you keep someone away from their life and treat them as an enemy agent-- even in the absence of prosecution-worthy proof that they are-- the more likely you are to turn them into exactly that. So the process of determining if someone can be justifiably held or not ought to be sped way the hell up. For the most powerful nation on Earth, with the most sophisticated technological means available, that shouldn't be an unreasonable expectation. But if it takes you half a decade to come up with enough evidence to lay charges, then exactly how little does it take to take someone into custody in the first place? The answer should concern every single last American citizen who's ever had even a passing gripe with their government. And surely it isn't "unpatriotic" to hold your government up to a standard of reason, where if it undertakes actions of gravity it must substantiate its actions?

safe? SAFE? No offence, but ARE YOU STUPID? (question, not suggestion). By torturing people (many of whom may be totally innocent), the US are going to CAUSE attacks on America, especially from muslims (even non-extremists, as jihad would be considered completely legitimate - it would be to defend the prisoners - and I, for one, would totally understand and would not condemn them, despite the fact I'm not muslim), especially as a significant amount of the detainees are muslim

You don’t get it do you. In the eyes of an extreme Muslim everyone is a target, no matter where you are from or who you are, unless that is if you are one of them. They are going to attack anyone they can anywhere they can..

Also the questioning tactics being used at GITMO are legal forms of questioning, sleep depravation, water immersion as well as other forms of physiological methods are not considered torture. They are considered methods of questioning, since when is showing a photo of a nude woman torture, or having a scantily dressed female present during the questioning torture, I think they should make them all eat pork, and have to sleep with a live pig in there cell. That would get them to talk fast.
:headbang:

Actually they do not have those rights, they are not POWs or criminals, they are enemy combatants. These people are not covered by the Geneva conventions, the Articles of war or any other “rules” of war (what a silly term anyway). There status is clearly spelled out as enemy combatants, and how they are treated was determined during WWII, why change it now. :mp5:
If we're fighting a War on Terror, then aren't [u]Terror[u]ists the enemy? Therefore they are Prisoners of War.
Also, Terrorism is a criminal offence. So of course, they are criminals then. Are you saying that terrorism is okay and not criminal? Technically, I have logical reasoning that you're a terrorist.

If we're fighting a War on Terror, then aren't [u]Terror[u]ists the enemy? Therefore they are Prisoners of War.
Also, Terrorism is a criminal offence. So of course, they are criminals then. Are you saying that terrorism is okay and not criminal? Technically, I have logical reasoning that you're a terrorist.

That made no sense and all the sense in the world at the same time..

although you are right that it is a war on tarror.. and they would be POW's u don't seem to understand that they are not fighting in an arny.. or w/ a nation.. therefore they are not POW's they are not in uniform or enlisted in a military.. they are enemy combatants

although you are right that it is a war on tarror.. and they would be POW's u don't seem to understand that they are not fighting in an arny.. or w/ a nation.. therefore they are not POW's they are not in uniform or enlisted in a military.. they are enemy combatants

Or the fact that they might not have been fighting at all.....:eek:

Or the fact that they might not have been fighting at all.....:eek:

although we cannot prove they were fighting .... we can't prove they weren't .... So what are we going to do ... let them go ... ???... that is the answer to everything isn't it....

everything

That made no sense and all the sense in the world at the same time..

although you are right that it is a war on tarror.. and they would be POW's u don't seem to understand that they are not fighting in an arny.. or w/ a nation.. therefore they are not POW's they are not in uniform or enlisted in a military.. they are enemy combatantsOf course they're in an army. They're in al Qaeda, a terrorist group. A terrorist group, of many, that we're at war with, since it's a War on Terror. Their uniforms are just the clothes of a common man. Is an Undercover Cop any less of a cop since he doesn't have a uniform? The guys that get caught by this cop could say, "That's not fair! We didn't know he was a cop!"

If we're fighting a War on Terror, then aren't [u]Terror[u]ists the enemy? Therefore they are Prisoners of War.
Also, Terrorism is a criminal offence. So of course, they are criminals then. Are you saying that terrorism is okay and not criminal? Technically, I have logical reasoning that you're a terrorist.


To point out a few facts.
1- The resolution to take Sodom out of power was approved by the UN, like it or not it is a fact. And while the reasons were found to be less then true, it was still sanctioned by the UN.
2- Terrorism is a criminal offence, true in peace time, but in time of war it is not a criminal act it falls to the military authorities to deal with it.
3- People that commit these acts if in uniform of a nation are tried as war criminals and dealt with under military law.
4- If they are not in uniform or in the armed services of a nation they are them classified as “enemy combatants” and are not bound by military law or the Geneva conventions, thus they are confined and tried by military tribunals.
Where do you find in my posts that I am saying terrorism is okay and not criminal?
Terrorism is against the law during peace time (duh) as was proved with the first World Trade Center attack. They were found tried and imprisoned according to the rule of law, and was handled as a criminal case.

How am I a terrorist?????? Give an example…

although we cannot prove they were fighting .... we can't prove they weren't .... So what are we going to do ... let them go ... ???... that is the answer to everything isn't it....

everything
Actually, we have proved that some of them weren't fighting--I posted a link in a slap to Eutrusca above--and yet we still won't release them. Why? Because our laws say that we can't send them back to a country that will likely persecute them, we refuse to give them asylum, and no one else will have them. So they're fucked and at Gitmo, and they weren't even doing anything wrong.

Now--what do we do with them? Bush started this shit with the made up term "enemy combatant." But like most other things in his life, he's going to leave it for someone else to clean up.

2- Terrorism is a criminal offence, true in peace time, but in time of war it is not a criminal act it falls to the military authorities to deal with it.

Except for the fact that you're not in a time of war.

You're not at war.

Except for the fact that you're not in a time of war.

You're not at war.

as much as i hate to admit it
in all tecnicallity you are right...

but at the same time.. you are wrong.. this is the "Global War on terrorism".. we started it as a liberation process.. but like it or not .. as soon as we went into afganistan.. we were at war

Of course they're in an army. They're in , a terrorist group. A terrorist group, of many, that we're at war with, since it's a War on Terror. Their uniforms are just the clothes of a common man. Is an Undercover Cop any less of a cop since he doesn't have a uniform? The guys that get caught by this cop could say, "That's not fair! We didn't know he was a cop!"

Al Qaeda is not an army, or a part of a nation, they are terrorist, and they have no other legal status. Thy have no convention protections or legal rights if captured other then to face a military tribunal, that is so stated in the Geneva Conventions, that are recognized as international law.
Their uniforms are just the clothes of a common man. Now that is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. A uniform is a way to identify members of an ARMED service. Or are you saying that anyone warring the clothes of a common man is a solder? If so then they would all be targets of the opposing military force.

They are Terrorists and enemy combatants, they are not members of a military force. Also because they are terrorists and enemy combatants they do not follow any of the accords of the Geneva Convention, they kidnap, behead, murder, torture at will with out regard. If a member is caught doing such thing, they will be tried by a military courts marshal and the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) has specific provisions regarding such things and the punishments are quite severe.

Except for the fact that you're not in a time of war.

You're not at war.

We are at war, or have you never heard of the war against terror. That is a war.

We are at war, or have you never heard of the war against terror. That is a war.

Sorry, I'll have to sit down for a moment.

...

Ok.

When did Congress declare 'war' again? Because unless they do, it ain't official, or a war.

Sorry, I'll have to sit down for a moment.

...

Ok.

When did Congress declare 'war' again? Because unless they do, it ain't official, or a war.


yes but it isn't a national war.. it is a GLOBAL war GLOBAL

what about that do u not understand.. and we are part of the globe are we not?

Sorry, I'll have to sit down for a moment.

...

Ok.

When did Congress declare 'war' again? Because unless they do, it ain't official, or a war.

Congress approved the war in Afghanistan (Under the global war on terrorism) same goes for what is going on in Iraq now, both military actions approved by the Congress of the United States, but approved as war, as the stated cause being the global war on terrorism, thus we are at war with terrorists, unlike other wars of the past there is no defined battle line, no nation to be at war with, we go to war against them where ever they are.

yes but it isn't a national war.. it is a GLOBAL war GLOBAL

what about that do u not understand.. and we are part of the globe are we not?
Pretty sunflowers hoolahoop over rainbows.

That has as much relevance to the United States being at war as your 'global war' statement.

Congress has not declared war, therefore you saying "Well, its a global war".... it utterly meaningless.

To point out a few facts.
1- The resolution to take Saddom out of power was approved by the UN, like it or not it is a fact. And while the reasons were found to be less then true, it was still sanctioned by the UN.
I didn't say anything about it.
2- Terrorism is a criminal offence, true in peace time, but in time of war it is not a criminal act it falls to the military authorities to deal with it.
The military does have different rules than the government I suppose.
3- People that commit these acts if in uniform of a nation are tried as war criminals and dealt with under military law.
Yes. They are.
4- If they are not in uniform or in the armed services of a nation they are them classified as “enemy combatants” and are not bound by military law or the Geneva conventions, thus they are confined and tried by military tribunals. Nowhere do the terms "enemy combatants" or "ununiformed soldiers" showup as keywords in the Geneva Convention. I did find this interesting: "The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)". So if you have a gun in a battle in a warzone, you're a combatant.
Where do you find in my posts that I am saying terrorism is okay and not criminal?I can't really explain it better than in that other post.

Pretty sunflowers hoolahoop over rainbows.

That has as much relevance to the United States being at war as your 'global war' statement.

Congress has not declared war, therefore you saying "Well, its a global war".... it utterly meaningless.

so we should disassociate ourselves and say.... it's the rest of the worlds problem

I THINK NOT

so we should disassociate ourselves and say.... it's the rest of the worlds problem

I THINK NOT

Newsflash: The rest of the world has being dealing with terrorism for a long, long time. It existed before Sept. 11th. and affected more than just the United States.

Welcome to the Party.

Newsflash: The rest of the world has being dealing with terrorism for a long, long time. It existed before Sept. 11th. and affected more than just the United States.

Welcome to the Party.

you speak to me as if you think i'm an idiot..

ther ehas always been terrorism

always
the boston tea party was terrorism
the def. of terrorism... (more or less) is using means of terror to enforce or press a belief or opinion on others

Why are we any different from the rest of the world
it is our problem too
why shouldn't we help eliminate it?

Pretty sunflowers hoolahoop over rainbows.

That has as much relevance to the United States being at war as your 'global war' statement.

Congress has not declared war, therefore you saying "Well, its a global war".... it utterly meaningless.

If you say so….Sorry you just don’t understand what the Global war on Terrorism is.

But answer me this, if it is not a war them way did I receive the Global war on terrorism service medal, the national defense service medal, Iraqi liberation service medal as well as the Purple Heart (only given to service members during time of war) Afghan operations service medal. All these military awards were given for service given on the field of battle for the war on terror.

Also as stated in the resolution passed by the Congress we will fight them where ever they are, to win the global war on terror. Congress passed the act calling it the Global war on Terrorism.
:headbang:

Well, now they saying the suicides are a "PR exercise"
Guantanamo suicides a 'PR move'

A top US official has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention".
linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm)

Can it get anymore bizarre?
I thought not, with the 'asymetry' statement, but obviously not.

It appears that the US military are doing everything in their power to make themselves look like total asshats.


Those guys that died really should have got themselves a better PR agent. He must have been thinking in terms of Van Gogh, Elvis etc. "Hey! Those guys were huge after their deaths! How about you doing the same?"

Now, if only we could get Tom Cruise to sign their PR agent...

Originally Posted by Psychotic Mongooses
Newsflash: The rest of the world has being dealing with terrorism for a long, long time. It existed before Sept. 11th. and affected more than just the United States.

Welcome to the Party.

True, but until the current administration no one had the will to take them on in a way they would understand. Rather then trying to arrest them and make empty threats, he is actually doing something, KILLING them.

Well, now they saying the suicides are a "PR exercise"

linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm)

Can it get anymore bizarre?
I thought not, with the 'asymetry' statement, but obviously not.

It appears that the US military are doing everything in their power to make themselves look like total asshats.


Those guys that died really should have got themselves a better PR agent. He must have been thinking in terms of Van Gogh, Elvis etc. "Hey! Those guys were huge after their deaths! How about you doing the same?"

Now, if only we could get Tom Cruise to sign their PR agent...

i usually don't say things like this
But you sir/ma'am are ignorant...
This is not about PR... and i have no idea where you came up with a moronic idea such as that
Using celebrities as a comparison to jihadists? what is wrong with you?


i apoligize i did not read the link before i posted.. but this is still pure idiocy

[QUOTE=New Foxxinnia]I didn't say anything about it.

The military does have different rules than the government I suppose.

Yes. They are.
Nowhere do the terms "enemy combatants" or "ununiformed soldiers" showup as keywords in the Geneva Convention. I did find this interesting: "The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)". So if you have a gun in a battle in a warzone, you're a combatant.

Read the whole convention, it makes it very clear that it applys to uniformed members of a stats/nations military service members. Enimy combatant is a relitivly new term, but it was first used by the US and Britten in WWII.

Why are we any different from the rest of the world
it is our problem too
why shouldn't we help eliminate it?

Try all you want, you don't eliminate terrorism by cutting the branches. You cut it at the roots.


If you say so….Sorry you just don’t understand what the Global war on Terrorism is.

But answer me this, if it is not a war them way did I receive the Global war on terrorism service medal, the national defense service medal, Iraqi liberation service medal as well as the Purple Heart (only given to service members during time of war) Afghan operations service medal. All these military awards were given for service given on the field of battle for the war on terror.

Also as stated in the resolution passed by the Congress we will fight them where ever they are, to win the global war on terror. Congress passed the act calling it the Global war on Terrorism.

I'm sorry you don't understand that 'war' can only be a valid term if Congress says so. If you can show me where they have declared war officially....
Otherwise it is about as an official war as the War on Drugs was/is.


True, but until the current administration no one had the will to take them on in a way they would understand. Rather then trying to arrest them and make empty threats, he is actually doing something, KILLING them.

You're right.... because ETA, IRA, Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, Aceh Rebels... they'll all been solved by killing them.... right?

I know why don’t we just let them all go, sing Kuhm-by-yhaaaa hold hands and hope they go back home happy and don’t they to kill any-non Muslim again.

Try all you want, you don't eliminate terrorism by cutting the branches. You cut it at the roots.

and how do u suppose we do that.. instead of pointing out what is wrong with our system.. please try and offer valid solution

by rooting out pominent terrorist leaders we are TRYING to get the roots.. By cutting funds We are trying

That is easier said then done

I'm sorry you don't understand that 'war' can only be a valid term if Congress says so. If you can show me where they have declared war officially....
Otherwise it is about as an official war as the War on Drugs was/is.

I understand it much better then you will ever know. I served, and know what going to war means, and yes congress did "declare" war on terrorist. I will look up the exact resolutions for you when I get a bit more time, congress did declare war on terror, and that is a fact, but this war is unlike any that have come before, so the resolution is also different, but that is beside the matter it is a war.

:headbang:

and how do u suppose we do that.. instead of pointing out what is wrong with our system.. please try and offer valid solution

by rooting out pominent terrorist leaders we are TRYING to get the roots.. By cutting funds We are trying

That is easier said then done

No, again- that is the branch.

The roots are why they are doing it. Not why the leaders are doing it, but why they have support. Take away the grievances and you take away the desire to fight.

"Killing them with kindness"

[QUOTE=Psychotic Mongooses]Try all you want, you don't eliminate terrorism by cutting the branches. You cut it at the roots.


You start by hitting the sponsors of terror, as well as there funding. Kill the leaders and keep hunting them and killing them. Another thing that needs to happen is the stomping out of radical Islam.

No, again- that is the branch.

The roots are why they are doing it. Not why the leaders are doing it, but why they have support. Take away the grievances and you take away the desire to fight.

"Killing them with kindness"


wow that is an oxymoron...

the only reason many (not all ) have for killing.. is the "word of allah" "kill all infidels".. yes pakistan wants jeruselum... but that is a war that has been going on for a long time.. other then that.. islam wants to "please their god".. islam is not a religion of peace... every religion has it's fanatics.. but some people take it to far.. maybe education?... teach them to interpert their holy scriptures for themselves... other then that.. i have no suggestion

wow that is an oxymoron...

Yeah well, thats British politics for you.


the only reason many (not all ) have for killing.. is the "word of allah" "kill all infidels".. yes pakistan wants jeruselum... but that is a war that has been going on for a long time.. other then that.. islam wants to "please their god".. islam is not a religion of peace... every religion has it's fanatics.. but some people take it to far.. maybe education?... teach them to interpert their holy scriptures for themselves... other then that.. i have no suggestion

No oversimplification, exaggeration, generalisation or ignorance there what so ever....

Read the whole convention, it makes it very clear that it applys to uniformed members of a stats/nations military service members. Enimy combatant is a relitivly new term, but it was first used by the US and Britten in WWII.Who were enemy combatants during WWII?

since i didn't feel like reading the thread bacause its long heres my opinion on gitmo and such

oh If they want to kill themselves let them kill themselves why should we care?

and they are given to us for a reason right? so we shoule keep them there until they are proven innocent. Why risk it. They are under suspiscion of terrorism....and well thats all i have for now

Originally Posted by Psychotic Mongooses
Newsflash: The rest of the world has being dealing with terrorism for a long, long time. It existed before Sept. 11th. and affected more than just the United States.

Welcome to the Party.

True, but until the current administration no one had the will to take them on in a way they would understand. Rather then trying to arrest them and make empty threats, he is actually doing something, KILLING them.
*sigh* You realize what matyrdom is to any group? Imagine that multiplied by about ten, and you get what it is for these men to die fighting for the cause that they fight for.

I'm an American, and proud to be so. I'm also a Muslim, and VERY proud to be so. If America ever ACTUALLY declared a war against Islam (you are an idiot on the definition fo "war", as far as international law, by the way. And I know that's ad hominem, but in your case, it applies), I would fight for my religion (not my religion of birth) before I would fight for my country. I would not subvert to terror, though. There are rules of engagement in warfare, and I would follow them.

To attack another point of yours made in previous posts... You know what, this is fruitless. You will continue to fail to understand that killing terrorists (especially my brothers on the fringe of Islam, and yes, even though I think they are fring lunatics, they are still my brothers) is hopeless, and we cannot win a "war on terror" (I'll use that term, since you used it).

Asalaamu alaikum, and akbar Allah.

No oversimplification, exaggeration, generalisation or ignorance there what so ever....

over simplification?.. where... it is simply ... in my eyes... the truth

exaggeration... they blow themselves up to kill the infidels.... simply b/c many of them are not muslim... or the same blanch of muslim

Generalization... everyone makes genralizations.. it is the easiest way to explain things.. i am sorry if i offended you with one

ignorance... I think that i know what i am talking about... you think otherwise.. in my mind i am right .. and in yours you are.. there is no sensetrying to change my mind (or calling me names) the best thing to do is explain to me why you think these things.. voice your opinion

although we cannot prove they were fighting .... we can't prove they weren't .... So what are we going to do ... let them go ... ???... that is the answer to everything isn't it....

everything
Well, we can't prove that you are not a rapist, so I guess we should lock you up, never charge you (since we can't prove anything), and just hold you forever. That's fair, isn't it? It should seem fair to you, since you don't require proof of anything or a trial or a conviction before delivering punishment. Since you think this is the way the US should do things, I expect you to check into your local state penitentiary tomorrow morning.

:rolleyes:

We are at war, or have you never heard of the war against terror. That is a war.
The "war against terror" is political bullshit. It's a slogan. I will not accept human lives being destroyed for a slogan -- not even my enemies' lives.

you speak to me as if you think i'm an idiot..

ther ehas always been terrorism

always
the boston tea party was terrorism
the def. of terrorism... (more or less) is using means of terror to enforce or press a belief or opinion on others

Why are we any different from the rest of the world
it is our problem too
why shouldn't we help eliminate it?
Are you frigging kidding? How was the Boston Tea Party terrorism? Who was killed during it? Who was terrorized by it?

And if you think that was terrorism, then do you think the American Revolution was a crime? Should the revolutionaries have been executed as terrorists, and should the North American colonies have stayed under British rule?

Or are you condoning terrorism when Americans do it?




PS: The Boston Tea Party was not terrorism.

it is both ways.. and it could be argueed as such..

i would rather be safe then sorry
like mama always said right?
Funny, my mama never said that. My mama always said that only cowards abandon their principles out of fear of an enemy.

Who were enemy combatants during WWII?

Germans, a group of German nationals landed on long island, with the intent to set bombs at US ports and munitions factories (terrorism), they had no military IDs or uniforms. They were captured, tried by a military tribunal and sentenced to death and hung. This incident was also keep secret until around 1958. Several other such incidents happened as well, the men caught by US civil and military authorities all ended the same, with these people being classified as persons attempting to commit acts of terror against the US and its interests and industry, they all ended the same with a military tribunal and they were tried and hung.

Happened several times in Great Brittan as well.

The "war against terror" is political bullshit. It's a slogan. I will not accept human lives being destroyed for a slogan -- not even my enemies' lives.


Grow up, it is a reality. These terrorist must be dealt with, slogan or not it is real and something has to happen to attempt to end it. Terrorist are the enemy, like it or not it is the reality in today’s world. Political, you say no it is a war against a radical idea, one that is against everything and everyone that does not think or act or believe as they do, they believe if your not one of them you must die, they hate freedom of speech, religion, equal rights for women, freedom to live as you wish and not according to there radical vision of the world.

Are you frigging kidding? How was the Boston Tea Party terrorism? Who was killed during it? Who was terrorized by it?

And if you think that was terrorism, then do you think the American Revolution was a crime? Should the revolutionaries have been executed as terrorists, and should the North American colonies have stayed under British rule?

Or are you condoning terrorism when Americans do it?




PS: The Boston Tea Party was not terrorism.

did you even pay attention in american history... terrorism, just like the alf that burned down an apartment complex, that ias terrorism, bombing abortion clinics that is terrorism... terrorism is using force or intimidation to force others to agree with your opinion... Nobod has to die for an act to be classified as terrorism... i do not condone terrorism.. it is the lowest form of protest anyone can perform... yes the american revolution was a good thing.. but at the time it was veiwed as a crime.. are you comparing the american revelution to this "jihad"? Really

Well, we can't prove that you are not a rapist, so I guess we should lock you up, never charge you (since we can't prove anything), and just hold you forever. That's fair, isn't it? It should seem fair to you, since you don't require proof of anything or a trial or a conviction before delivering punishment. Since you think this is the way the US should do things, I expect you to check into your local state penitentiary tomorrow morning.

:rolleyes:

Send the government after me... if they come get me... so be it... they have no reson to even suspect me... but if they did... i'll go quietly
:p

Funny, my mama never said that. My mama always said that only cowards abandon their principles out of fear of an enemy.

wait which principle did i abandon.. or in your eyes do i have none... i have been nothing but respectful in this debate.. it's been heated.. but i did not deserve that

CHEAP SHOT!

Grow up, it is a reality...
That it may be (although the actual impact these guys could possibly make is negligible) - but it cannot be fought with weapons. The problem is not the word "terror" in the phrase, the problem is the word "war".

It's not a war, because it cannot be fought with weapons. Call it a conflict, call it a crisis, call it a project or whatever, but don't call it a war.

That it may be (although the actual impact these guys could possibly make is negligible) - but it cannot be fought with weapons. The problem is not the word "terror" in the phrase, the problem is the word "war".

It's not a war, because it cannot be fought with weapons. Call it a conflict, call it a crisis, call it a project or whatever, but don't call it a war.

that was not his word for it.. that is what the national media is calling it.. what the security council is calling it... what congress is calling it.. don't blame him for repeating what the rest of the world is sayin

that was not his word for it.. that is what the national media is calling it.. what the security council is calling it... what congress is calling it.. don't blame him for repeating what the rest of the world is sayin
Who actually started saying it, by the way? Does anyone know?

And I will always blame people for their actions, regardless of who else is doing it. But that's just a general matter of principle.

Who actually started saying it, by the way? Does anyone know?

And I will always blame people for their actions, regardless of who else is doing it. But that's just a general matter of principle.

okay then... i don't know who started it... i call it a war.. even thogh i know that isn't what it is it's more of a Clensing process... that sounds really bad doesn't it.... well that is how i see it... once again not forcing my opinion on you ^^

Grow up, it is a reality. These terrorist must be dealt with, slogan or not it is real and something has to happen to attempt to end it. Terrorist are the enemy, like it or not it is the reality in today’s world. Political, you say no it is a war against a radical idea, one that is against everything and everyone that does not think or act or believe as they do, they believe if your not one of them you must die, they hate freedom of speech, religion, equal rights for women, freedom to live as you wish and not according to there radical vision of the world.
Well, deal with this reality: In my eyes, you are no better than them. You and the terrorists are both my enemies. You make my life just as unsafe as they do. And both of you are so lacking in character or honor that you are not worth negotiating with. Understand that, as long you and they both use the same tactics -- denying human rights, illegal incarceration, torture, kidnapping, and unprovoked war against civilians -- then I and people like me will continue to oppose both of you and to call for both of you to be arrested, tried fairly, convicted of your crimes, and punished accordingly. If I had my way, people like you would be sharing cells with convicted terrorists.

It isn't just you versus them. There are three parties in this so-called war of yours, and I represent the third one, which happens to be the biggest one, globally. Go look at governments and peoples all around the world if you don't believe me. I do not need you to protect my rights or my life. And I certainly will not support anyone who claims to be protecting my rights, while at the same time they are destroying them.

Well, deal with this reality: In my eyes, you are no better than them. You and the terrorists are both my enemies. You make my life just as unsafe as they do. And both of you are so lacking in character or honor that you are not worth negotiating with. Understand that, as long you and they both use the same tactics -- denying human rights, illegal incarceration, torture, kidnapping, and unprovoked war against civilians -- then I and people like me will continue to oppose both of you and to call for both of you to be arrested, tried fairly, convicted of your crimes, and punished accordingly. If I had my way, people like you would be sharing cells with convicted terrorists.

It isn't just you versus them. There are three parties in this so-called war of yours, and I represent the third one, which happens to be the biggest one, globally. Go look at governments and peoples all around the world if you don't believe me. I do not need you to protect my rights or my life. And I certainly will not support anyone who claims to be protecting my rights, while at the same time they are destroying them.

Believe it or not he knows what he is talking about.. don't arguee militaristic stuff with him.. he seved somewhere like 28 years in the military... he really does know more then you do about the geneva conventions andwho is protected under them.. i haven't said nething about the geneva b/c i don't know i have read a little of it .. but he was required to know it.. under the department of homeland securily and all that jazz... so just trust me when i say he knows about honor respect and valor...

Send the government after me... if they come get me... so be it... they have no reson to even suspect me... but if they did... i'll go quietly
:p
It's funny that you think this is funny. You're so sure that you are safe from suspicion. Why is that? Because you're in the right country? Or because you're the right religion? Or you're the right color? Or you speak the right language? Does the phrase "hoist with your own petard" mean anything to you? When you trash and corrupt the law and our legal system, you create tools that can by used against you someday. But you just go on relying on that arrogance of yours to keep you out of the traps you've laid yourself.

did you even pay attention in american history... terrorism, just like the alf that burned down an apartment complex, that ias terrorism, bombing abortion clinics that is terrorism... terrorism is using force or intimidation to force others to agree with your opinion... Nobod has to die for an act to be classified as terrorism... i do not condone terrorism.. it is the lowest form of protest anyone can perform... yes the american revolution was a good thing.. but at the time it was veiwed as a crime.. are you comparing the american revelution to this "jihad"? Really
I'm asking you if you are comparing the US revolution to islamist terrorism. Apparently, you are.

wait which principle did i abandon.. or in your eyes do i have none... i have been nothing but respectful in this debate.. it's been heated.. but i did not deserve that

CHEAP SHOT!
Touched a nerve, did I? LOL. If you think your stand is a principled one, then why should what I said hurt your feelings? Or are you admitting that your stand is not a principled one?

Who actually started saying it, by the way? Does anyone know?

And I will always blame people for their actions, regardless of who else is doing it. But that's just a general matter of principle.
George Bush started it, in several speeches after 9/11.

It's funny that you think this is funny. You're so sure that you are safe from suspicion. Why is that? Because you're in the right country? Or because you're the right religion? Or you're the right color? Or you speak the right language? Does the phrase "hoist with your own petard" mean anything to you? When you trash and corrupt the law and our legal system, you create tools that can by used against you someday. But you just go on relying on that arrogance of yours to keep you out of the traps you've laid yourself.

i am safe from suspician because i KNOW for a fact that i have morales and would never do anything to put myself in that position.... Color and religion are not a factor in this.... of course i am lucky to live in america where i can live free of the fear of the government stealing me from my family in the middle of the night and forcing me to strap a bomb around my torso to go blow someone or something up.. but i am respectful, patient, obidient, and abide by everylaw set forth in front of me.. whether it be by the school, my parents, the colonel, or anyone else who hasathority over me.. the government especially... so no if i were anyone else.. who believed in anything different i may be afraid.. but i am not... because i know that i am safe... as are you... because your freedom to be ignorant and nieve as i am and many other people Are is protected by the constitution.. becaues you are not a terrorist.. persistant maybe... but not a terrorist.. you have the best interest of someone at heart.. as do i .. it is just different people we want to protect.. which is perfeclt okay ... as long as we can agree to disagree on this one .. i think everything will be okay ... ^^

Touched a nerve, did I? LOL. If you think your stand is a principled one, then why should what I said hurt your feelings? Or are you admitting that your stand is not a principled one?

i am admitting that in your eyes it may not be ... but you do not have to make a spectacle of it.. there is nothing wrong w/ two different people having two different opinions... Cheap shots are not fair that is why they are called cheap shots :p

*much impressed applause for Muravyets*

I don't honestly recall if I've been in agreement with you on a number of issues or not, but let me be the first to shake your hand regarding your contributions to the discussion thread. Well spoken.

Believe it or not he knows what he is talking about.. don't arguee militaristic stuff with him.. he seved somewhere like 28 years in the military... he really does know more then you do about the geneva conventions andwho is protected under them.. i haven't said nething about the geneva b/c i don't know i have read a little of it .. but he was required to know it.. under the department of homeland securily and all that jazz... so just trust me when i say he knows about honor respect and valor...
Gosh, I guess I just don't care about the credentials of someone whose actions are unprincipled, unethical, and counter to my best interests. His resume does not make him right. The actions and policies of the current US administration offend every sense of right and wrong I've got, plus I firmly believe they are fueling the spread of terrorism around the world and, thus, making me less safe every day. Therefore, both on principle and for pragmatic reasons, I oppose them. And I extend that opposition to everyone who supports them.

I would kill myself if I was put in guantanamo too.

it is it's more of a Clensing process... that sounds really bad doesn't it.... well that is how i see it...
Try and write in sentences, mate. :p

If you want to call it cleansing, then it is only cleansing of the mind. Because it's in people's heads that this conflict is fought. Religious extremism can't be attacked by physically attacking its followers, especially in a case like this where so many other factors (economic, political, historical etc etc) come into play.

I believe the use of the word "War" here is primarily thanks to the US government, even though they may not have conceived it at first. No idea.
But it certainly triggers a whole set of responses which are favourable for a government: 'Follow the Leader', 'Hate thy Enemy' and so on. In reality, not one person in the administration had any idea what they were doing. However they did manage to cover up the real issues and instead invade countries, because that is what they do know about - and it fits nicely into a certain agenda (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm).

People should definitely stop buying into the whole concept that the US is at war. If it is, then only in Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan). AQ (not that it actually is an organisation as such anymore) can't fight wars.

Gosh, I guess I just don't care about the credentials of someone whose actions are unprincipled, unethical, and counter to my best interests. His resume does not make him right. The actions and policies of the current US administration offend every sense of right and wrong I've got, plus I firmly believe they are fueling the spread of terrorism around the world and, thus, making me less safe every day. Therefore, both on principle and for pragmatic reasons, I oppose them. And I extend that opposition to everyone who supports them.

so basically half of the us would be on your hit list?.. i know bad analogy but it's late and it's the best one i've got ^^

Try and write in sentences, mate. :p

If you want to call it cleansing, then it is only cleansing of the mind. Because it's in people's heads that this conflict is fought. Religious extremism can't be attacked by physically attacking its followers, especially in a case like this where so many other factors (economic, political, historical etc etc) come into play.

I believe the use of the word "War" here is primarily thanks to the US government, even though they may not have conceived it at first. No idea.
But it certainly triggers a whole set of responses which are favourable for a government: 'Follow the Leader', 'Hate thy Enemy' and so on. In reality, not one person in the administration had any idea what they were doing. However they did manage to cover up the real issues and instead invade countries, because that is what they do know about - and it fits nicely into a certain agenda (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm).

People should definitely stop buying into the whole concept that the US is at war. If it is, then only in Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan). AQ (not that it actually is an organisation as such anymore) can't fight wars.

AQ is still a very real threat though... I do believe that war is an extremist term.. but it is the best way to describe what we are doing... the closest thing

:p come up w/ a better term for me to use and i will use it ^^

AQ is still a very real threat though... I do believe that war is an extremist term.. but it is the best way to describe what we are doing... the closest thing

:p come up w/ a better term for me to use and i will use it ^^
Occupying.

i am safe from suspician because i KNOW for a fact that i have morales and would never do anything to put myself in that position.... Color and religion are not a factor in this.... of course i am lucky to live in america where i can live free of the fear of the government stealing me from my family in the middle of the night and forcing me to strap a bomb around my torso to go blow someone or something up.. but i am respectful, patient, obidient, and abide by everylaw set forth in front of me.. whether it be by the school, my parents, the colonel, or anyone else who hasathority over me.. the government especially... so no if i were anyone else.. who believed in anything different i may be afraid.. but i am not... because i know that i am safe... as are you... because your freedom to be ignorant and nieve as i am and many other people Are is protected by the constitution.. becaues you are not a terrorist.. persistant maybe... but not a terrorist.. you have the best interest of someone at heart.. as do i .. it is just different people we want to protect.. which is perfeclt okay ... as long as we can agree to disagree on this one .. i think everything will be okay ... ^^
The joke's on you, buddy. You seem to like to ignore the fact that many of the detainees at Gitmo were not arrested for committing terrorism, but rather, were just picked up in random dragnets or else sold into custody without evidence against them, but you ignoring the facts doesn't change them. All those poor bastards thought nobody had any reason to suspect them, either, but wow, I guess they were wrong. What makes you any different?

And as for the real terrorists, guess what? They KNOW for a fact that they've got morals too. From their point of view, they are being persistent in fighting for their rights, too. You have that belief in common with them. Of course, they are wrong. Maybe you have that in common with them, too.

As for agreeing to disagree, sorry. This issue is to important for that. When one side speaks, the opposition must speak up also.