no shit. the point was................................oh nvm.Flecco wrote:
Rarely are over a 1/3rd of a jail's inmates declared innocent and released.usmarine wrote:
ummmm...ok. happens in jails all over the world also.
Continue Marine, I'd like to know what you're getting at; I agree that to the USA it's keeping citizens and economy safe from another 9/11 attack is paramount. I also agree with the prison at Gitmo's existeance.
I didn't like the drag net used to nab the detainees though. I think it's brilliant that many of them have been determined and been released. I'd like to see a trial system go ahead so these guys can be charged with war crimes/being unlawful combatants.
I didn't like the drag net used to nab the detainees though. I think it's brilliant that many of them have been determined and been released. I'd like to see a trial system go ahead so these guys can be charged with war crimes/being unlawful combatants.
Last edited by Flecco (2008-11-15 19:04:12)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
It goes far, far, beyond the GC and adherence or deviation from it. To attempt to frame it within the GC is far too simplistic.Varegg wrote:
Not saying i agree with it FEOS, just trying to figure out on what grounds and for what reason they act like they do ...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It's not so simple though, just because they were let go does not mean they are declared innocentFlecco wrote:
Rarely are over a 1/3rd of a jail's inmates declared innocent and released.usmarine wrote:
ummmm...ok. happens in jails all over the world also.
What if we let some of these assholes(sorry) innocent bystanders go because the "concentration camp" is so politically unpopular, and they get back to their "cause" and potentially kill lots of actual innocents ?
Like this
9/11 Bush did not have a hand it. I don't know where the fuck you pulled that from. But whatever.Vax wrote:
So are you one of those people who thinks bush had a hand in 9/11 ?TheAussieReaper wrote:
lol, so Bush didn't start a war on terrorism? Then what's with the Iraq\Afghanistan conflict?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.
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.
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.
Bush started it? Bush started the war in Iraq. That has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with the September 11th, 2001. The war on terror somehow managed to cover both fronts, but it seems that the focus was always on Iraq 1st, Afghanistan 2nd.
And I can't understand how you think that these pow's put themselves in the difficult to define status. It's your trials and court system that doesn't believe they fall under a flag or The Geneva convention.
pow's? fuck that.TheAussieReaper wrote:
And I can't understand how you think that these pow's put themselves in the difficult to define status.
Zero accountability my ass. I said: if they're guilty, fry them. But you seem to ignore that - and everything else that spoils your cake.Vax wrote:
I tire of the bleeding hearts who place ZERO accountability on these people.
Yes people have been let go due to lack of evidence and such, but the people who are still there at this juncture, are there for a reason.
You're wrong. The response is "well, that's what you get from the uncivilized". With Gitmo you're no better than them.Vax wrote:
I know we are supposed to take the moral high road, but lets not forget what THEY generally do when they capture our soldiers.
It's funny how there is no outcry about that ..US soldier gets fucking tortured and beheaded, and the response is "well that's what they get"
You people don't get it or don't WANT to get it because you have taken sides on this. Simple as that. All your arguments have been discussed, and turned down. Yet you keep on saying the same things over and over. If you don't want to understand then too bad. After all, you're the ones who will pay for this first. You should care more than me.
ƒ³
now let me get this straight;Oug wrote:
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.
May I remind you again that you don't know that, and that many Gitmo detainees have been set free
They're not my rules... they're THE rules. And if you can't win by them, you can't win at all.
one person wrongfully detained for 2 years causes an outrage for you, but when a soldier got shot because a person who should've been kept in prison got released because the court couldn't back up it's charges, is ok.
I'm sorry to tell you but I value the life of a man more than 2-4 years of another. Atleast the guy is still alive, unlike the soldier who got shot. It's not like these people sign up to die.
inane little opines
Did I say it's ok? Neither is ok. Read again.dayarath wrote:
now let me get this straight;Oug wrote:
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.
May I remind you again that you don't know that, and that many Gitmo detainees have been set free
They're not my rules... they're THE rules. And if you can't win by them, you can't win at all.
one person wrongfully detained for 2 years causes an outrage for you, but when a soldier got shot because a person who should've been kept in prison got released because the court couldn't back up it's charges, is ok.
I'm sorry to tell you but I value the life of a man more than 2-4 years of another. Atleast the guy is still alive, unlike the soldier who got shot. It's not like these people sign up to die.
And you're missing the big picture here. It's not just some raghead Iraqis or whatever being kept in there. It's potentially all of us. It's any man who might be labeled a "terrorist". This affects every man's basic freedoms. Do you see where this is going?
If you're looking for a solution to both these problems, there's only one: don't start a war in the first place. Any way you cut it, there's no bloody reason why all the people in the world should lose their basic rights for a fair trial and that the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" should be abolished.
ƒ³
There was a time when becoming a POW to US forces was seen as a far better alternative than surrendering to the other enemy, Russia.usmarine wrote:
pow's? fuck that.TheAussieReaper wrote:
And I can't understand how you think that these pow's put themselves in the difficult to define status.
Same can't be said today.
Actually, it's their behavior and the language of the GC that puts them in that status. Our trials and court system have nothing to do with it.TheAussieReaper wrote:
And I can't understand how you think that these pow's put themselves in the difficult to define status. It's your trials and court system that doesn't believe they fall under a flag or The Geneva convention.
That's simply laughable. You are operating under the false assumption that those guys at GITMO are being tortured and denied proper treatment under the GC. That is simply not the case. Under the GC, they have no protections whatsoever due to their own actions of not abiding by the GC. Yet they are still being treated in accordance with it. They are being treated even better than the WW2 POWs in the US were treated...these guys aren't being required to work at all.TheAussieReaper wrote:
There was a time when becoming a POW to US forces was seen as a far better alternative than surrendering to the other enemy, Russia.
Same can't be said today.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-16 05:45:59)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I doubt that the americans just pick up somebody from the street and put him in there as being a suspect to terrorism, I'm sure they're more accurate than that, nevertheless mistakes happen.oug wrote:
Did I say it's ok? Neither is ok. Read again.
And you're missing the big picture here. It's not just some raghead Iraqis or whatever being kept in there. It's potentially all of us. It's any man who might be labeled a "terrorist". This affects every man's basic freedoms. Do you see where this is going?
If you're looking for a solution to both these problems, there's only one: don't start a war in the first place. Any way you cut it, there's no bloody reason why all the people in the world should lose their basic rights for a fair trial and that the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" should be abolished.
maybe, just maybe sometimes a war is rather unavoidable (I'm not advocating the iraq invasion here). And if that's the case, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
inane little opines
What you and I think is of no importance. There is a standard way of doing things - through the courts - so that mistakes don't occur - or at least get minimized. If those in charge change that process then they are out of line.dayarath wrote:
I doubt that the americans just pick up somebody from the street and put him in there as being a suspect to terrorism, I'm sure they're more accurate than that, nevertheless mistakes happen.
ƒ³
Some people need to take a look at a few African, South American, Russian or Chinese prisons (the ones they don't bring up) and then come back and say how bad Gitmo is in comparison.
If someone says "I hate Marmite", telling them "If you think Marmite tastes bad, you should try eating shit", ain't gonna change their minds about Marmite.M.O.A.B wrote:
Some people need to take a look at a few African, South American, Russian or Chinese prisons (the ones they don't bring up) and then come back and say how bad Gitmo is in comparison.
Ah so its selective complaining then? Pushing out prisons that are worse for their prisoners in terms of care, living conditions, beatings etc, so that a single prison (Gitmo) can be complained at. Part of me wonders if Gitmo would be so popular a story if it were owned by say, Venezula.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If someone says "I hate Marmite", telling them "If you think Marmite tastes bad, you should try eating shit", ain't gonna change their minds about Marmite.M.O.A.B wrote:
Some people need to take a look at a few African, South American, Russian or Chinese prisons (the ones they don't bring up) and then come back and say how bad Gitmo is in comparison.
Some people just don't like Marmite.M.O.A.B wrote:
Ah so its selective complaining then? Pushing out prisons that are worse for their prisoners in terms of care, living conditions, beatings etc, so that a single prison (Gitmo) can be complained at. Part of me wonders if Gitmo would be so popular a story if it were owned by say, Venezula.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If someone says "I hate Marmite", telling them "If you think Marmite tastes bad, you should try eating shit", ain't gonna change their minds about Marmite.M.O.A.B wrote:
Some people need to take a look at a few African, South American, Russian or Chinese prisons (the ones they don't bring up) and then come back and say how bad Gitmo is in comparison.
Including ZippyScorpion0x17 wrote:
Some people just don't like Marmite.M.O.A.B wrote:
Ah so its selective complaining then? Pushing out prisons that are worse for their prisoners in terms of care, living conditions, beatings etc, so that a single prison (Gitmo) can be complained at. Part of me wonders if Gitmo would be so popular a story if it were owned by say, Venezula.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If someone says "I hate Marmite", telling them "If you think Marmite tastes bad, you should try eating shit", ain't gonna change their minds about Marmite.
Stop talking about criminal statutes and processes! They have NOTHING to do with this. At all.oug wrote:
What you and I think is of no importance. There is a standard way of doing things - through the courts - so that mistakes don't occur - or at least get minimized. If those in charge change that process then they are out of line.dayarath wrote:
I doubt that the americans just pick up somebody from the street and put him in there as being a suspect to terrorism, I'm sure they're more accurate than that, nevertheless mistakes happen.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
oh it cant? red cross, meals according to religion, clean water, etc.TheAussieReaper wrote:
There was a time when becoming a POW to US forces was seen as a far better alternative than surrendering to the other enemy, Russia.usmarine wrote:
pow's? fuck that.TheAussieReaper wrote:
And I can't understand how you think that these pow's put themselves in the difficult to define status.
Same can't be said today.
you guys are really out there aren't you? and these aint pow's. they are terrorist criminals.
FEOS wrote:
Stop talking about criminal statutes and processes! They have NOTHING to do with this. At all.oug wrote:
What you and I think is of no importance. There is a standard way of doing things - through the courts - so that mistakes don't occur - or at least get minimized. If those in charge change that process then they are out of line.dayarath wrote:
I doubt that the americans just pick up somebody from the street and put him in there as being a suspect to terrorism, I'm sure they're more accurate than that, nevertheless mistakes happen.
*correctedusmarine wrote:
and these aint pow's. they are might be* terrorist criminals.
They might be.
So might you. Prove you're not.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-16 09:10:49)
bert, i beleive we let a lot of the people who were not terrorists or were so insignificant it didnt matter go already. i think we have shown that.Bertster7 wrote:
*correctedusmarine wrote:
and these aint pow's. they are might be* terrorist criminals.
They might be.
So might you. Prove you're not.
thats cute. you are unreal. i have never seen so many bleeding hearts over one issue yet not talking about truly heinous things going on in the world. but thats fine, i expect that from muppets and parrots.Bertster7 wrote:
So might you. Prove you're not.
Name something more heinous being done by a developed 1st world nation at present.usmarine wrote:
thats cute. you are unreal. i have never seen so many bleeding hearts over one issue yet not talking about truly heinous things going on in the world. but thats fine, i expect that from muppets and parrots.Bertster7 wrote:
So might you. Prove you're not.