BF2S Forums holy fuck terrorists running free.

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

usmarine wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Chinese people too, so?

are you saying Chinese people are terrorists?

I'm saying Chinese people are all over the place, and I asked you how that has to do anything with whatever this thread is supposed to be about.

i quoted varegg bucko.

and al-q is not a race.  or a country.

you are failing terribly.

good.  night night

Vax wrote:

jeezus how muddled can people get

WE started the 'war on terrorism' ? Just out of the blue we did this ? Bush was like all, "hey lets start this war, like for the lulz, and think of the profits!"

Then WE decided to pigeonhole people into a special category so we can trample their rights at will, and stick them in our own "camps"  (with no vetting or anything... heck they could be innocent farmers for all we know)

/

just
sigh.

lol, so Bush didn't start a war on terrorism? Then what's with the Iraq\Afghanistan conflict?

I'm not saying these people are innocent farmers.

They are people. They do deserve the same rights you and I have. The right to a fair trial. The right to not be held without charge for 5+ years.

But I must be the muddled one. Not you.

Vax wrote:

WE started the 'war on terrorism' ? Just out of the blue we did this ? Bush was like all, "hey lets start this war, like for the lulz, and think of the profits!"

Then WE decided to pigeonhole people into a special category so we can trample their rights at will, and stick them in our own "camps"  (with no vetting or anything... heck they could be innocent farmers for all we know)

There now it's fixed.

But all this is beside the point.

What we're saying here is that FIRST you need to establish via a trial that the ones you caught are indeed guilty of terrorism or whatever you want to call your enemy combatants and THEN punish them, because all human beings - regardless of their nationality, army etc. are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. Geddit?

oug wrote:

Vax wrote:

WE started the 'war on terrorism' ? Just out of the blue we did this ? Bush was like all, "hey lets start this war, like for the lulz, and think of the profits!"

Then WE decided to pigeonhole people into a special category so we can trample their rights at will, and stick them in our own "camps"  (with no vetting or anything... heck they could be innocent farmers for all we know)

There now it's fixed.

But all this is beside the point.

What we're saying here is that FIRST you need to establish via a trial that the ones you caught are indeed guilty of terrorism or whatever you want to call your enemy combatants and THEN punish them, because all human beings - regardless of their nationality, army etc. are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. Geddit?

well holding on to the point as usmarine said that most people that get into gitmo are caught on the battlefield; how are you going to establish a trial for them?

where are the witnesses?


I have the idea that they'd be released again pretty quickly judging by the fact that there is nothing that can really back up the charges, unless every soldier is carrying a camera with him/her.

It makes it harder, and probably the amount of people which were seen back on the battlefield after being released will increase tenfold.

Are you prepared to risk the lives of your countrymen even more by not only applying redicoules rules they have to follow when they fight over there, but add on to that that every person they capture will have a vastly increased chance of getting released?

not to mention that the people in gitmo did some really bad shit and are to be considered very dangerous.


I presume that playing by the rules in war is alot harder than everyone makes it sound on paper. Add on to that, how would you act seeing a person you captured a few months before back on the same field shooting at you (maybe even wounding or killing a buddy), due to the inability of this rather easily circumventable system to convict these people?

How many soldiers do you want to die so that you can absolutely play by your own rules?

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Keep in mind then that part of the training becoming an "terrorist" is to watch amongst other things pictures from Abu Graib where obviously the ROE and Geneva convention was followed 100%

Not an excuse i know but mostly what the insurgency know about their counterpart following the rules ...

One of the laws of war is "proportionality". Executing your captives (by, say, cutting off their heads on TV) is not a proportionate response to humiliating pictures. Even insurgents understand that distinction.

Oh...and the insurgents get rewarded for violating the GC. The US people get prosecuted.

Another key difference.

oug wrote:

Prove that you picked them up for shooting at people in a court of law. Then lock them up for ever, I don't care. But first thing's first.

TRIAL

CONVICTION

SENTENCE

You are thinking of this from a civil/criminal view. It is not. It is a martial issue, which operates under different rules (like the GC). Are you subject to the GC for robbing...I'm sorry...allegedly robbing a bank? Of course not. Yet you have no qualms about repeatedly (and incorrectly) applying the same logic in the other direction.

Tbh FEOS if your country was invaded i think you would have seen through the ROE and GC easily ... and when was the Insurgents invited to a signing of the GC ?

For them it's just a piece of paper of absolutely no value and especially after their counterparts have broken the rules why should they follow them?

And there's language in the GC that says if one party in the conflict isn't a signatory and doesn't follow the strictures of the Convention, then the signatory party is no longer bound by them, either.

The other key part about following the GC is prosecuting individuals who violate it...which the US (and other countries) does. The insurgency rewards and honors those who perform acts contravening the strictures of the GC. If you know that parties from the other side who violate the GC will be dealt with legally...and it's obvious that it's not a systemic policy directive (as is the case in the instances you refer to)...then one is still bound by the GC (assuming one is a signatory, that is).

Varegg wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Tbh FEOS if your country was invaded i think you would have seen through the ROE and GC easily ... and when was the Insurgents invited to a signing of the GC ?

al-q doesn't have a country dude.  they are all over the place.

Must mean they dont have to follow the convention then?

And, by the GC, neither does the US in that case. Yet we do.

How ya like them apples?

Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-15 09:43:35)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Vax wrote:

jeezus how muddled can people get

WE started the 'war on terrorism' ? Just out of the blue we did this ? Bush was like all, "hey lets start this war, like for the lulz, and think of the profits!"

Then WE decided to pigeonhole people into a special category so we can trample their rights at will, and stick them in our own "camps"  (with no vetting or anything... heck they could be innocent farmers for all we know)

/

just
sigh.

lol, so Bush didn't start a war on terrorism? Then what's with the Iraq\Afghanistan conflict?

I'm not saying these people are innocent farmers.

They are people. They do deserve the same rights you and I have. The right to a fair trial. The right to not be held without charge for 5+ years.

But I must be the muddled one. Not you.

So are you one of those people who thinks bush had a hand in 9/11 ?

Just curious. 'Cos if you do, that makes sense at least (although I question that belief)

Otherwise it seems like making statements like "bush started it" kinda seems a bit dishonest, like you are willfully leaving out a big piece of the picture. So yes, muddled, or just lying. 
I would say Bin laden and co. started the war, and I think they are on record saying so, if the attacks on NYC and Washington isn't enough of a demonstration for you.
Iraq is a different issue, I don't think we have Iraqis at GITMO, so it isn't relevant to this.
I agree that people should get some kind of due process (and they are working on it) but the blame for this legal black hole is not entirely on the bush administration, some blame must be placed on the individuals who put themselves in this difficult to define status. If you think we have guys at GITMO who were just innocent Afghans trying to defend their country against the big bad USA, I would say that you are misguided.

dayarath wrote:

how are you going to establish a trial for them?

where are the witnesses?

I understand the difficulties in this. I never said it was easy or even feasible. The problem is though, that if you choose the easy way of jailing them without charges and trials, you are automatically opening a very big legal gap through which the people in power (whoever they might be) are given the opportunity to do the same to whoever they want. If a law like this doesn't apply to all then it doesn't apply to anyone.

For example: Since atm the government is allowed to jail terrorists with no obligation of telling anyone why, what's stopping said govt. from jailing anyone they want under that pretext? Bare in mind that there is no need for witnesses, same as on the battlefield.

dayarath wrote:

Are you prepared to risk the lives of your countrymen even more by not only applying redicoules rules they have to follow when they fight over there, but add on to that that every person they capture will have a vastly increased chance of getting released?

There is an equally big - or even greater - risk if you choose to punish people without first making sure that they're guilty. Imagine having someone close to you - like your father or your child - taken to jail by mistake, and then not having the chance to prove their innocence in a court. So the ethical dilemma goes both ways here.

The reason you don't see it yet is probably because you haven't witnessed injustice first hand. I honestly wish that you never do. Because then it will be too late to change your mind.

dayarath wrote:

not to mention that the people in gitmo did some really bad shit and are to be considered very dangerous.

May I remind you again that you don't know that, and that many Gitmo detainees have been set free

dayarath wrote:

How many soldiers do you want to die so that you can absolutely play by your own rules?

They're not my rules... they're THE rules. And if you can't win by them, you can't win at all.

usmarine wrote:

oug wrote:

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. Geddit?

no sorry.  not in big boy world.  you shoot at US troops on the battlefield or make IED's......and we catch you.  If you live, you go to jail.  simple as that.  stop being such an apologist for these guys.

No sorry. You need to prove these actions first.

And I'm not being an apologist for anyone in particular. Today the terrorists are those who are fighting against US troops in Iraq. Tomorrow it will be some students clashing with police in some demonstration. Then maybe someone who voices a different opinion in an internet forum about video games.

Too many cooks spoil the broth

Besides, they've already released something like 2/3rds of the original innmates and said 'Soz fellas, big mistake, never mind you only lost 2-4 years of your life permanently cause we fucked up, wont happen again.'

usmarine wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Besides, they've already released something like 2/3rds of the original innmates and said 'Soz fellas, big mistake, never mind you only lost 2-4 years of your life permanently cause we fucked up, wont happen again.'

well they got it right eventually right?  this isnt like knocking on the neighbors door and asking questions like cops.

That's the main thing m8. At least the effort has been made to single out people who were mistakenly taken and release them.

In Soviet Russia....

usmarine wrote:

ummmm...ok.  happens in jails all over the world also.

Rarely are over a 1/3rd of a jail's inmates declared innocent and released.