NationStates Jolt Archive

Send them home, whether the country of origin wants to take them or not.

If they're truly terrorists, they'll continue to be terrorists, and it would appear that some of the countries we send them back to have a quicker, easier, and more efficient way to deal with them.

In some cases, they might be innocent - sure, send them home, and if that's true, nothing will happen.

If they were wannabe terrorists, but have figured out that's a stupid way to live, like that Australian fellow, they can live a quiet life writing books to make a living.

If they were actual terrorists, they will continue to be terrorists. And, unlike in the US, a fair number of the places we send them home to will just shoot them into a ditch if they act up again.

I guess this one was really a terrorist ('http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_re_eu/russia_guantanamo_3')

MOSCOW - A man formerly held in the U.S. facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was killed Wednesday in a shootout with security agents in a restive North Caucasus republic, Russia's top security agency said.

Ruslan Odizhev was killed amid gunfire that erupted when agents tried to arrest him and another man in Kabardino-Balkariya, a region near Chechnya that is plagued by violence linked both to crime and to religious tensions, the Federal Security Service said in a statement.

The service, known by its Russian acronym FSB, said Odizhev had been held at Guantanamo Bay and was believed to have been a supporter of the Taliban.

i bet the change in my pocket that he was radicalised by his experiences in gitmo. wouldn't that be a wonderful irony.

i bet the change in my pocket that he was radicalised by his experiences in gitmo. wouldn't that be a wonderful irony.

Apparently he was a "supporter" of the Taliban before Guantanamo.

So I think he was sufficiently radicalized beforehand.

This only proves it.

We should either free them...or charge them. I don't really care which.

Apparently he was a "supporter" of the Taliban before Guantanamo.

So I think he was sufficiently radicalized beforehand.

This only proves it.

but maybe not militant himself. possible, and i'm willing to be that in some cases it's probable.

We should either free them...or charge them. I don't really care which.

Freeing them would be good.

If the home country doesn't want them, we can always drop them in their hometown by parachute from a Stealth Bomber, and no one would be the wiser.

Freeing them would be good.

If the home country doesn't want them, we can always drop them in their hometown by parachute from a Stealth Bomber, and no one would be the wiser.

Extraordinary un-rendition?

Extraordinary un-rendition?

It would probably go smoother than the "rendition".

The same if they're from the US?

The same if they're from the US?

Yes. If they get stupid, and do terrorist things in the US, the police can just gun them down in the street.

We should either free them...or charge them. I don't really care which.

Quoted for truth. Just do something with them.

Freeing them would be good.

If the home country doesn't want them, we can always drop them in their hometown by parachute from a Stealth Bomber, and no one would be the wiser.

And give them new identities and such, a la the Witness Protection Program. We can drop them several towns over, and if they are innocent, they will start a new life. If they are truly terrorist scum, they will re-offend.

That is, those that we don't want to charge can have this option. Same for those who are charged and not found guilty.

And give them new identities and such, a la the Witness Protection Program. We can drop them several towns over, and if they are innocent, they will start a new life. If they are truly terrorist scum, they will re-offend.

That is, those that we don't want to charge can have this option. Same for those who are charged and not found guilty.

No, I'm not doing anything except giving them a parachute and a flight home.

They can put their own sorry lives back together.

No, I'm not doing anything except giving them a parachute and a flight home.

They can put their own sorry lives back together.

There's the "paying the innocent ones for all the damages" part you seem to be forgetting. Unless you're claiming it's ok to do the same kind of shit without reparations to Americans.

There's the "paying the innocent ones for all the damages" part you seem to be forgetting. Unless you're claiming it's ok to do the same kind of shit without reparations to Americans.

They already do that kind of shit to Americans. Cutting their heads off, etc.

Did they compensate the widow of Daniel Pearl yet?

Yes! May Guatananomo Be Free!

Ruslan Odizhev was killed amid gunfire that erupted when agents tried to arrest him and another man in Kabardino-Balkariya, a region near Chechnya that is plagued by violence linked both to crime and to religious tensions, the Federal Security Service said in a statement.
Russia and all of the border states have been in pissing matches for a few years now, Russia shooting some one there really doesn't prove anything.

They already do that kind of shit to Americans. Cutting their heads off, etc.

Did they compensate the widow of Daniel Pearl yet?

You mean the INNOCENT ones in prison? You'll mistreat them, without reparations, because of the actions of other people they most likely don't even KNOW? What the fuck is wrong with you? Should we pick up random Americans and imprison them for no reason because of what the Unabomber did then? What the hell do the innocent ones in Gitmo have to do with Pearl? And why do you sully his memory by using him as an excuse to harm innocents?

No, I'm not doing anything except giving them a parachute and a flight home.

They can put their own sorry lives back together.Whenever I read things like that, I always feel a sudden urge to go catch myself a couple of Americans and lock them up in the celler for a year or two.

Whenever I read things like that, I always feel a sudden urge to go catch myself a couple of Americans and lock them up in the celler for a year or two.

Don't forget giving them a ticket home and a parachute and NOTHING ELSE afterwards.

Don't forget giving them a ticket home and a parachute and NOTHING ELSE afterwards.

If you're arrested by ordinary police in the US, held for a year or more while awaiting and undergoing trial (and possibly appeals), and one day you're out - not guilty - they don't give you ANYTHING afterwards.

Not even a bus ticket home.

Got it? Good. There's no Constitutional right to the "making it right" you're talking about.

If you're arrested by ordinary police in the US, held for a year or more while awaiting and undergoing trial (and possibly appeals), and one day you're out - not guilty - they don't give you ANYTHING afterwards.

Not even a bus ticket home.

Got it? Good. There's no Constitutional right to the "making it right" you're talking about.

Oh, in that case, I'm truly sorry. You see, that right exists in civilized countries, and I was assuming the US was one. My mistake.

RO, I'm pretty sure you brought this up not too long ago. Pakistan and other countries that arrested and shipped these individuals off to Gitmo did so not because they were necessarily terrorists, but because they were classed as "political dissidents" to the regime, or just innocent people who were picked up by corrupt police to fill a quota.

Pakistan is not going to take these people back, and you can hardly force them to either. General Mussharaf is hardly going to allow these persecuted people back into his country.

The best solution is a profuse apology, and offer them new homes in Europe, Australia or the Americas.

If you're arrested by ordinary police in the US, held for a year or more while awaiting and undergoing trial (and possibly appeals), and one day you're out - not guilty - they don't give you ANYTHING afterwards.

Not even a bus ticket home.

Got it? Good. There's no Constitutional right to the "making it right" you're talking about.

Just because something isn't written down as being the wrong thing to do doesn't make it right.

Send them home, whether the country of origin wants to take them or not.

If they're truly terrorists, they'll continue to be terrorists, and it would appear that some of the countries we send them back to have a quicker, easier, and more efficient way to deal with them.

In some cases, they might be innocent - sure, send them home, and if that's true, nothing will happen.

If they were wannabe terrorists, but have figured out that's a stupid way to live, like that Australian fellow, they can live a quiet life writing books to make a living.

If they were actual terrorists, they will continue to be terrorists. And, unlike in the US, a fair number of the places we send them home to will just shoot them into a ditch if they act up again.

As much as I'd like to see this plan actually enacted...it'll never happen.

The ones who aren't real terrorists represent far too much "dirty laundry" for various political figures.

Those politicians are perfectly happy to destroy the reputation of this country, so long as their own remains "clean"

The odd thing is that I could probably rationalize torture, draconian sentences and a complete stripping of rights and due process of law against terrorists. As terrible as that is for a person who believes in personal freedom as I do, terrorists are monsters and I can at the very least understand the mentality that monsters should be treated monstrously. I might even be able to relate to it.

But they need to be convicted. I can't understand or relate to depriving the same rights to due processs I'd receive to these men. They need their day in court. They need their fair trial- the same one any of us would receive. Then, if convicted of terrorism, I really don't give a shit what happens to them. But not before. There's a reason for due process and it's to protect the innocent from places like Guantanamo. *nod*

The odd thing is that I could probably rationalize torture, draconian sentences and a complete stripping of rights and due process of law against terrorists. As terrible as that is for a person who believes in personal freedom as I do, terrorists are monsters and I can at the very least understand the mentality that monsters should be treated monstrously. I might even be able to relate to it.

But they need to be convicted. I can't understand or relate to depriving the same rights to due processs I'd receive to these men. They need their day in court. They need their fair trial- the same one any of us would receive. Then, if convicted of terrorism, I really don't give a shit what happens to them. But not before. There's a reason for due process and it's to protect the innocent from places like Guantanamo. *nod*

Even then, what about the innocent ones that go through a condemnation? Or you're claiming your judicial system became perfect yesterday and the news didn't reach Yahoo yet?

As much as I'd like to see this plan actually enacted...it'll never happen.

The ones who aren't real terrorists represent far too much "dirty laundry" for various political figures.

Those politicians are perfectly happy to destroy the reputation of this country, so long as their own remains "clean"

There is also the added problem that US intelligence services may have tipped their hands with Camp X-Ray. Inmates there may have witnessed interrogation or investigative techniques that these intelligence services can not afford to divulge.

And we have yet to discuss any allegations by freed inmates of torture or other grave offenses. Some people may be locked up for a long time so that the current US government does not have to deal with those allegations.

While I think the current US government should bite the bullet and do the right thing by freeing the X-Ray inmates, my realpolitik sense tells me it won't happen for a long time.

For some inmates, it may never happen.

I can agree that desperate times call for desperate measures, but not a liberal application thereof.

Is located in a country that Americans consider to be under an illegal dictatorship. Now where did I hear that before. They should leave Cuban soil, charge who they want to let the others go and close the whole sorry place down. Are Americans ashamed to have a concentration camp in their own backyard. Just as Germany did with their camps. Its OK so long as its not on home turf. Does this mean the USA is illegally occupying Cuban soil or is there some sort of sweetheart deal going on.???

There is also the added problem that US intelligence services may have tipped their hands with Camp X-Ray. Inmates there may have witnessed interrogation or investigative techniques that these intelligence services can not afford to divulge.

And we have yet to discuss any allegations by freed inmates of torture or other grave offenses. Some people may be locked up for a long time so that the current US government does not have to deal with those allegations.

While I think the current US government should bite the bullet and do the right thing by freeing the X-Ray inmates, my realpolitik sense tells me it won't happen for a long time.

For some inmates, it may never happen.

Maybe when a Democrat's in power. And to think the US fought 60 years ago against a country because said country had concentration camps.

Even then, what about the innocent ones that go through a condemnation? Or you're claiming your judicial system became perfect yesterday and the news didn't reach Yahoo yet?

I'm aware of that, yes. But then again, that could happen to me too. It's the same legal system.

I'm aware of that, yes. But then again, that could happen to me too. It's the same legal system.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Why I can't support death penalty for anyone - you can make reparations for someone you didn't kill.

Maybe when a Democrat's in power.

Don't hold your breath. I'm sure there are quite a few Democrats who are just as interested in keeping the whole thing quiet.

It's a political football...and the party that drops it might not recover. Let's just hope another party takes it's place.

And to think the US fought 60 years ago against a country because said country had concentration camps.

That sure wasn't the reason.

Besides...we weren't exactly saints.

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

Two wrongs don't make a right. Why I can't support death penalty for anyone - you can make reparations for someone you didn't kill.

Well, I agree. In fact, I'll go one step further: I don't think that convicted felons- even terrorists give up all rights. Protections against cruel and unusual punishment apply to everyone for a very good reason and they should apply to them as well as me.

But if people are going to try to use the 'desperate times call for desperate measures' or the 'terrorists aren't humans' shticks on me to justify their actions, I at the very least need the fair trial part first.

Don't hold your breath. I'm sure there are quite a few Democrats who are just as interested in keeping the whole thing quiet.

It's a political football...and the party that drops it might not recover. Let's just hope another party takes it's place.



That sure wasn't the reason.

Besides...we weren't exactly saints.

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

1- Maybe so, but one can hope.

2- True and true.

Send them home, whether the country of origin wants to take them or not.

If they're truly terrorists, they'll continue to be terrorists, and it would appear that some of the countries we send them back to have a quicker, easier, and more efficient way to deal with them.

In some cases, they might be innocent - sure, send them home, and if that's true, nothing will happen.

If they were wannabe terrorists, but have figured out that's a stupid way to live, like that Australian fellow, they can live a quiet life writing books to make a living.

If they were actual terrorists, they will continue to be terrorists. And, unlike in the US, a fair number of the places we send them home to will just shoot them into a ditch if they act up again.

I guess this one was really a terrorist ('http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_re_eu/russia_guantanamo_3')

And what about the ones who aren't terrorists at all? What about the ones who aren't terrorists, who'll nonetheless face punishments from their own governments upon their return home?

Guess your concerns end at the air terminal. Big surprise there.

What the fuck? Are you going to leave soon and want to make up for the trolling time you'll lose? This is like the third new thread by you I've seen in the last half hour.

Just execute them. Then neither they or we will have any more problems with them.Little cynical,I know.

There are a lot of prisoners that the US simply cannot 'send home'. Many of them have the little problem of being rejected by their supposed country of origin (and nobody else will take them as refugees), while some others will assuredly be tortured to death in a gruesome manner.

Despite what you may think, Americans are not all baby eating sadists but actually think it a morally unacceptable thing to send someone, even one who has conducted terrorist attacks against Americans, into the hands of people who want to torture that person to death.

Apparently he was a "supporter" of the Taliban before Guantanamo.

So I think he was sufficiently radicalized beforehand.

This only proves it.

Define "Supporter". Was he an actual member, who carried out actual crimes, or simply someone whom supported their actions? The former would be justified, the latter in no way so, and screams of thought crime. You can't arrest someone for thinking some way.

Is located in a country that Americans consider to be under an illegal dictatorship. Now where did I hear that before. They should leave Cuban soil, charge who they want to let the others go and close the whole sorry place down. Are Americans ashamed to have a concentration camp in their own backyard. Just as Germany did with their camps. Its OK so long as its not on home turf. Does this mean the USA is illegally occupying Cuban soil or is there some sort of sweetheart deal going on.???

We have the land due to some treaty or something with Cuba from a long ass time ago. The installation is legally there, albiet illegally run.

As i understand it the main reason that countries won't take these prisoners back is because the U.S. refuses to take the "dangerous individual" status off them, even though they are being released. And so we keep them in prison since no one will take them. How cute. I suppose this justifys keeping them in Gitmo.

Besides...we weren't exactly saints.

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

Well, there were also camps in America where Italians and Germans were kept, as well. A little less known, of course.

However, there are other instances. Reagan's support and funding of terrorists in Latin America is a great example of "It's not terrorism if we support it".

Send them home, whether the country of origin wants to take them or not.

If they're truly terrorists, they'll continue to be terrorists, and it would appear that some of the countries we send them back to have a quicker, easier, and more efficient way to deal with them.

Your quicker, more efficient ways usually involve torture.

Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

That is a treaty that the US signed and the Senate ratified, therefore it is the law of the land in the US. Are you advocating the government violate not only its own laws, but its honest word?

In some cases, they might be innocent - sure, send them home, and if that's true, nothing will happen.

Absolutely false. I cite, for example, the Canadian/Syrian who was sent back to Syria, and was not a terrorist. He was tortured for about a year upon arrival. You know that not all countries respect tenants of "innocent until proven guilty", etc., that we claim to follow in the US.

Absolutely false. I cite, for example, the Canadian/Syrian who was sent back to Syria, and was not a terrorist. He was tortured for about a year upon arrival. You know that not all countries respect tenants of "innocent until proven guilty", etc., that we claim to follow in the US.

Oh, he knows alright. He's banking on it.

The US deserves such attacks for being the world bulwark of reaction and neo-liberal imperialism.

RO, I'm pretty sure you brought this up not too long ago. Pakistan and other countries that arrested and shipped these individuals off to Gitmo did so not because they were necessarily terrorists, but because they were classed as "political dissidents" to the regime, or just innocent people who were picked up by corrupt police to fill a quota.

Pakistan is not going to take these people back, and you can hardly force them to either. General Mussharaf is hardly going to allow these persecuted people back into his country.



That's not even half of the travesty it actually is.

This whole thing is a fucking scam.:mad:

The US pays Pak for catching these people so the Pakistanis catch some goatherd and pass him off as "Al Qaeda terrorist" and the guy ends up here. There is no accountability on these things.

Remember the ruckus over in Pakistan recently on the Chief justice being dismissed by Musharraf? There was a case filed on the status of missing persons and the justice was giving directives to Musharraf regime to report what happened to the "missing persons". That is alleged to be the start of the crisis.

The few real terrorists of any value were captured at the very beginning, like ramzi etc. In recent years it is just the goatherds captured for reasons varying from plain old greed to personal vendetta, the authorities getting rid of unpleasant people etc..

but maybe not militant himself. possible, and i'm willing to be that in some cases it's probable.

Which is a major reason why I've long advocated closing of the detention camp, conducting a thorough investigation of each individual, compensating the innocent and putting those with sufficient probable cause in front of juries...preferably in The Hague for appearances sake.