unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,060|7076|PNW

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

lol.....figures.  how stupid.  you people are beyond little babies sometimes.  you know we wanted to release some people but their country would not take them back?

concentration camp.  god you know nothing.  fucking retarded.
Of course its a concentration camp, coz the only people there are muslims, thus making it a very racist place. Youre a nazi for saying its not a concentration camp, i bet you dont even believe that the holocaust existed.
I can already see nothing good's going to come of this.

/thread...
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860
I hear they keep gypsies in a little hut out the back. They poke them with pointy sticks.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6905|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Closing Gitmo doesn't solve the illegal Military Courts (which are a fucking joke anyway) that these people have been charged under.
Illegal? What flag do these guys operate under? Do tell.

I'm against them btw.. but this just amuses me.
Flag? That's got nothing to do with it. These people have been held, in some cases 5 years, without charge.

And have information obtained while under torture and duress held against them.

That goes against international law, US law, and it is a human rights violation.

So tell me, please, what flag these guys should be waving if that means that they are considered deserving of the same human rights you and I enjoy.
I assumed that you were talking about an actual agreement between signatories  that said you would adhere to certain principals.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6824|Πάϊ

dayarath wrote:

Oug wrote:

inform us then o wise one

i'm all ears

edit: I take it you're referring to me but are too much of a wuss to say it in my face
on the edit; ok, I think you're a retard, there, I said it *phew*.

comparing gitmo to aconcentration camp i.e. auschwitz is beyond my sense of comprehension.
Ok now that you got that out of your system would you care to explain your position?

Because ok. Of course there is no comparison as far as the inmates' conditions are concerned. But the lack of charges and trials means it's no ordinary/ legitimate prison.
ƒ³
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6699|The Gem Saloon

oug wrote:

But the lack of charges and trials means it's no ordinary/ legitimate prison.
to deal with people that are no ordinary/legitimate soldiers.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6824|Πάϊ

Parker wrote:

oug wrote:

But the lack of charges and trials means it's no ordinary/ legitimate prison.
to deal with people that are no ordinary/legitimate soldiers.
assuming you're right, doesn't that mean that you fall into the same category with your enemies?
ƒ³
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6791|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Parker wrote:

oug wrote:

But the lack of charges and trials means it's no ordinary/ legitimate prison.
to deal with people that are no ordinary/legitimate soldiers.
The funny thing is they could be shot under the Geneva Accords.

I like how Lib's term Gitmo as a "concentration camp", the prisons in their own countries are ten times worse, but you know we are trying to exterminate them.
mikkel
Member
+383|6906

usmarine wrote:

no skittles.   once again you are wrong.  most countries dont want these guys back.  explain that.  thats my point.  dummy.
Jesus christ, how black and white is your world view? It's either unconstitutional and inhumane captivity, or full pardon and release for you? There's a whole lot of space in between allowing for holding these people legally, while respecting human rights. Assuming that there's at all a legal basis for holding these people captive.

But, of course, any American with respect for American values would never stand for something as unconstitutional and unamerican as holding people indefinitely without charge or due process.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-11-10 14:26:26)

SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6791|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

no skittles.   once again you are wrong.  most countries dont want these guys back.  explain that.  thats my point.  dummy.
Jesus christ, how black and white is your world view? It's either unconstitutional and inhumane captivity, or full pardon and release for you? There's a whole lot of space in between allowing for holding these people legally, while respecting human rights. Assuming that there's at all a legal basis for holding these people captive.

But, of course, any American with respect for American values would never stand for something as unconstitutional and unamerican as holding people indefinitely without charge or due process.
They are getting trials, you know you can't just release them on bail and expect them to show up at court. Oh and you know what type of conditions that they are staying their under? Have you been their?

These people were not just snatched off the streets and sent to Gitmo, you had to been involved in some heavy shit to get sent their. Every insurgent we captured when I was in Iraq was turned over to the Iraqis to be tried by their peers.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6457|what

Kmarion wrote:

I assumed that you were talking about an actual agreement between signatories  that said you would adhere to certain principals.
You keep going back to the flag argument. These people simple cannot fight under a flag, because you started a "war on terrorism".

Nice little clause that, you can declare a war on terror, invade a country and those who defend it cannot represent that country. Only the pseudo-entity of terror you've declared a war against.

No, wait. Your not holding them as prisoners of war are you? Your holding them as terrorists. There is no war to hold them against.

So again, they don't even have the basic rights prisoners of war are entitled to.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7066

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

no skittles.   once again you are wrong.  most countries dont want these guys back.  explain that.  thats my point.  dummy.
Jesus christ, how black and white is your world view? It's either unconstitutional and inhumane captivity, or full pardon and release for you? There's a whole lot of space in between allowing for holding these people legally, while respecting human rights. Assuming that there's at all a legal basis for holding these people captive.

But, of course, any American with respect for American values would never stand for something as unconstitutional and unamerican as holding people indefinitely without charge or due process.
oh god .... shut up
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6976|UK
wow the mother of all comebacks.

i think i have to go sit down.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6936|949

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I assumed that you were talking about an actual agreement between signatories  that said you would adhere to certain principals.
You keep going back to the flag argument. These people simple cannot fight under a flag, because you started a "war on terrorism".

Nice little clause that, you can declare a war on terror, invade a country and those who defend it cannot represent that country. Only the pseudo-entity of terror you've declared a war against.

No, wait. Your not holding them as prisoners of war are you? Your holding them as terrorists. There is no war to hold them against.

So again, they don't even have the basic rights prisoners of war are entitled to.
We hold them as enemy combatants.  The stipulation is that they will be released (much like POWs) when the "War" is over.  One of the troubling things (to me) is the rhetoric by the powers that be that this War On Terror could be endless.

They hate us for our freedom that we don't afford them!

It kind of reminds me of the Christian zealot attitude regarding homosexuals - we are peaceful, tolerant Christians- just not to gay people who obviously don't share the same moral code.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6824|Πάϊ
ok I think this topic is over. We've said everything there was to be told. Arguments vs insults and pure denial just doesn't cut it.
ƒ³
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7066

m3thod wrote:

wow the mother of all comebacks.

i think i have to go sit down.
is that what you do?  come in here and follow me around?  not talking about OP's at all but just trolling for a handful of people?  wow. 

i am not going to answer the same shit over and over again.  besides, Sgt. answered it for me.
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6791|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

oug wrote:

ok I think this topic is over. We've said everything there was to be told. Arguments vs insults and pure denial just doesn't cut it.
So you decide to try and end it on a insult. Good call.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6699|The Gem Saloon

oug wrote:

Parker wrote:

oug wrote:

But the lack of charges and trials means it's no ordinary/ legitimate prison.
to deal with people that are no ordinary/legitimate soldiers.
assuming you're right, doesn't that mean that you fall into the same category with your enemies?
lets assume i am right...ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.


now, i will assume that when you said that i fall into that category, you meant my nations military.


nope, not even close to the same category.
mikkel
Member
+383|6906

usmarine wrote:

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

no skittles.   once again you are wrong.  most countries dont want these guys back.  explain that.  thats my point.  dummy.
Jesus christ, how black and white is your world view? It's either unconstitutional and inhumane captivity, or full pardon and release for you? There's a whole lot of space in between allowing for holding these people legally, while respecting human rights. Assuming that there's at all a legal basis for holding these people captive.

But, of course, any American with respect for American values would never stand for something as unconstitutional and unamerican as holding people indefinitely without charge or due process.
oh god .... shut up
I think you need a nap, usmarine
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6791|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)
You know the attitude of some members on this forum remind me the league of nations right before the out break of WW2.

Strong words and sanctions don't really work.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

SgtHeihn wrote:

You know the attitude of some members on this forum remind me the league of nations right before the out break of WW2.

Strong words and sanctions don't really work.
Gitmo is working.

/lol
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7021
so we close down guantanimo... they bring all the alleged terrorists to the US... they will have expensive circus trials and hopefully the aclu will jump in to save these poor folks that were in the wrong place at the wrong time... lot's of taxpayer money... nice

Let them go and fly them back to afghanistan or wherever... and hope like heck they aren't back shooting or blowing things up... crossing fingers... some have been let go and caught fighting shortly thereafter...

This is a dangerous group of folks and although they have been captive for extended periods of time... they are being treated and fed well and allowed to partake in their religious activities... i would pick gitmo over their prisons any day...
Love is the answer
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6791|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

CameronPoe wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

You know the attitude of some members on this forum remind me the league of nations right before the out break of WW2.

Strong words and sanctions don't really work.
Gitmo is working.

/lol
It is keeping the population their from attacking again, so, yes it is working.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6905|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I assumed that you were talking about an actual agreement between signatories  that said you would adhere to certain principals.
You keep going back to the flag argument. These people simple cannot fight under a flag, because you started a "war on terrorism".

Nice little clause that, you can declare a war on terror, invade a country and those who defend it cannot represent that country. Only the pseudo-entity of terror you've declared a war against.

No, wait. Your not holding them as prisoners of war are you? Your holding them as terrorists. There is no war to hold them against.

So again, they don't even have the basic rights prisoners of war are entitled to.
You have no real legal justification for you argument. I'm going back there (flag) in hopes of stimulating your mind. Our constitution protects the rights of US citizens. There is a treaty between signatories that protects the rights of enemy combatants. The prisoners at gitmo fall under neither. At least you seem to be understanding my point just a bit more. Not fully though. You're up on your soap box preaching to someone who said it probably should be illegal.

The light bulb is coming on but it's dim.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Mr.Dooomed
Find your center.
+752|6632

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

This is a dangerous group of folks and although they have been captive for extended periods of time... they are being treated and fed well and allowed to partake in their religious activities... i would pick gitmo over their prisons any day...
I was going to mention something along these lines. Whoever compares Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps is just insulting holocaust survivers, jewish people and American service men and women.

First of all, they are not executing Muslims via gas chambers, nor are they starving them to death, nor or they dumping dead bodies in a ditch or rounding up Muslims by the thousands and executing them. It's an absurdity that someone would compare Gitmo to these Nazi camps.

I read the OP link, and there is not enough information there to speculate WHAT will happen to the inmates after it is closed, so in all honestly, it's kind of futile to argue what will.

And, I also found it strange BUSH is going through the ropes to try and get it closed, I'd rather see the argument and speculation as to why he's trying to do this?
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6709|North Carolina
Generally speaking, closing a prison where the due process of law is ignored and where the torture of some innocent people happens is a good thing.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard