BF2S Forums holy fuck terrorists running free.

Kmarion wrote:

That's certainly left open for interpretation .

6 years is a lot of interpretation......

I can't imagine the prisoners have been promptly informed of the charges against them either.

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That's certainly left open for interpretation .

6 years is a lot of interpretation......

I can't imagine the prisoners have been promptly informed of the charges against them either.

That's why you deal with concrete numbers when drawing up a contract. But yea they should close that hole.

Indeed. But in legal scenarios like this is it not customary for a judge to decide whether the law has been followed - and from what the judge in your earlier link was saying (which I thoroughly agree with) it doesn't sound like he thinks they've been brought to trial as rapidly as possible. Whenever there is ambiguity in law, judicial descrection picks up the slack.

Kmarion wrote:

Ftr, Close that place down and burn it.

Damn straight.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Problems is as a Naval Base it does have uses and is in a strategic location.

My buddy was stationed there for awhile. Watching detainees jump off the cliffs is not a strategic position (fl is all but a skip away). He was there long before the "war on terror". The Detainees used to pick up rocks and throw it at them. He asked his superior what they should do.. he said throw them back .

usmarine wrote:

so the same fuckers who shot at me were captured, then released

Did they release people who had been captured on the battlefield?  I thought they were mostly people who had been sold to the US for a nice reward.  The Afghans were using us to settle scores and make a nice profit.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2008-11-10 19:01:29)

wow. some of the posts here are sort of suprisingly stupid...

Look, its a war, who cares about 'feelings' when theres an obvious threat to a human life. ON ETHEIR SIDE.
sure, it might be nice to clean the place up and feed them icecream while your at it but when your in a war you're going to have to take prisioners.. If your not going to take prisioners then people are going to be shot and killed even though there is a possibuility they could be sucessfully detained.

If they take down guantanimo they will most likely just put another one up somewhere else. Then everyone will erase the negitive connotations with the name guantanimo bay. Hopefully this is what its about.

In the same time Indonesia executes terrorists, including appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal, America has finished ONE trial.

Laziness.

Sealxo wrote:

Obama wants to close gitmo. Shit.... Does he have any idea of the repercussions?

Probably, those repercussions being none as no-one there has yet been proven to be any danger to anyone.

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

How else would you two describe a prison where a trial is not an option and where one is kept without any charges pressed against him?

I call that a concentration camp. How naive am I.

Extremely.

How many POWs are tried or charged? None.

These people are being held as unlawful combatants, and are being treated better than they have to be treated under the GC. In fact, according to Part I, Article II, the US isn't even bound to follow the strictures of the Convention because the non-signatory (those would be the terrorists) did not follow the strictures of the Convention.

Part I, Article II, Third Geneva Convention wrote:

That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.

How ya like them apples?

Hiding behind legal loopholes doesn't change the fact that the Gitmo detainees have not been charged with any crime and are held illegally without the option for a trial.

And who called them terrorists anyway? Your government did. And their buddies. For all I know the US invaded Iraq and some Iraqis are fighting for their freedom. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter etc etc.

Labeling them "terrorists" doesn't change the way you're supposed to treat them. The law is the same for everyone. First get them on trial, and if they're guilty, send them to a proper prison or kill them like you do in the US, I don't care.

SgtHeihn wrote:

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.

Look at usmarine's posts and see who's trying to end it. I said what I had to say and got no proper response from either of you.

Parker wrote:

oug wrote:

Parker wrote:

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.

It's like I said before. Labeling them illegal combatants just like that won't do. They have to be properly tried and found by the court of law to be illegal combatants - whatever that means. Because frankly I take that characterization as something made up by the US gov. and the puppet Iraqi gov. - whose decisions mean jack shit to me as we all know who put them there and who they work for.
And no, I didn't mean the military, I meant everyone who endorses such an illegal treatment of people.

So any government that refuses to press charges and provide fair trials to its prisoners is a terrorist government and whoever endorses such behavior is a endorsing illegal terrorist activities.

oh god the catch phrases tossed around in this thread make me lol....

you guys sound like parrots.

"freedom and democracy"  bwap!

"one mans terrorist...."  bwap!


go eat some crackers.

FEOS wrote:

There's no requirement for a trial at all absent extenuating circumstances...why can you not understand that? It's really not difficult.

I thought your Supreme Court had corrected you on that.

FEOS wrote:

And again, there's no charging of crimes or trials in warfare until after hostilities are over. They're not. The only reason one is required to hold a tribunal in war is to determine GC status of a given individual if necessary. That's it. Once hostilities are over, those detained must either be released or tried for war crimes. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATUTES TO TRY THEM.

So on the one hand there is a war that has not yet ended, but on the other, the people you caught are not from countries you're at war with. With my logic, it's as if you caught some tourist in the US doing a crime and you jail him without pressing charges.

Also should I mention the obvious about the dubious nature of this alleged "war"? - namely that there is no defined enemy and therefore no end to it! Since that is the case, theoretically you could hold these people there for ever! Cool huh?

FEOS wrote:

International convention, for one. Pretty sure there aren't any Iraqis at GITMO. I could be mistaken, but I think the detainees at GITMO belong to countries we are not engaged in conflict with. Who have chosen to fight in the manner they did, rendering them unprotected under the GC.

FEOS wrote:

No, their actions change the way they are required to be treated under the GC.

And what actions are those? What manner of fighting? How on earth can you talk about actions these people have committed when they have not been charged with anything?

Without proper trials, these people have not committed anything, is that so hard to understand?

propaganda...lol   BWAP!

only dumb fucks listen to the govt.  are you a dumb fuck?

so you are either a dumb fuck, a parrot, or a troll.