Apperantly 1 in 5.ruisleipa wrote:
do you know how many have 'returned to fight against' the US? No? probably not.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Blackwater Shooting Charges All Dismissed By Judge
That's not what he said, was it?ruisleipa wrote:
so only US citizens deserve a fair trial and justice? come on man, seriously...lowing wrote:
and there is that little thing that terror suspects in GITMO are not US citizens and are not afforded protection under the US Constitution that US citizens are guaranteed. By the way, since we are talking about GITMO, are we going to discuss how many of them have returned to fight against us?
“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
what? he said that non-US citizens aren't afforded the same rights which means they're not entitled to a fair trial (not an American so not sure but pretty confident the US constitution guarnatees a fair trial etc doesn't it????). At least the clear implication was that since they're not US citizens then the same rights afforded by the US constitution don't apply to them including a fair trial. Or did he mean something else?
As for the 1-in-5 'statistic':
"Critics of the reports say there is so little information in the assessments that they are nearly impossible to verify independently. Civil rights advocates say the number of fighters suspected of or confirmed as returning to the battlefield is likely to be much smaller."
So who knows?
As for the 1-in-5 'statistic':
"Critics of the reports say there is so little information in the assessments that they are nearly impossible to verify independently. Civil rights advocates say the number of fighters suspected of or confirmed as returning to the battlefield is likely to be much smaller."
So who knows?
They're afforded whatever rights international law grants them. They are outside the US judicial system because they are not citizens.ruisleipa wrote:
what? he said that non-US citizens aren't afforded the same rights which means they're not entitled to a fair trial (not an American so not sure but pretty confident the US constitution guarnatees a fair trial etc doesn't it????). At least the clear implication was that since they're not US citizens then the same rights afforded by the US constitution don't apply to them including a fair trial. Or did he mean something else?
As for the 1-in-5 'statistic':
"Critics of the reports say there is so little information in the assessments that they are nearly impossible to verify independently. Civil rights advocates say the number of fighters suspected of or confirmed as returning to the battlefield is likely to be much smaller."
So who knows?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
err...part of the problem with the fuck up that is gitmo is that they HAVEN'T been afforded the rights they should have been innit.JohnG@lt wrote:
They're afforded whatever rights international law grants them. They are outside the US judicial system because they are not citizens.
Only Us citizens deserves protection under the US Constitution.ruisleipa wrote:
so only US citizens deserve a fair trial and justice? come on man, seriously...lowing wrote:
and there is that little thing that terror suspects in GITMO are not US citizens and are not afforded protection under the US Constitution that US citizens are guaranteed. By the way, since we are talking about GITMO, are we going to discuss how many of them have returned to fight against us?
do you know how many have 'returned to fight against' the US? No? probably not.
Since most of them by all accounts were being held there with no or made-up evidence against them it seems likely that IF any of them chose to fight against the US after being there it was the fact they were incarcerated without trial or due process for years of their lives that, well, maybe made them kinda angry and hate the US...maybe? whaddya reckon?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/gitmo. … index.html
I seriously doubt they were locked up for no reason. Most were there after being captured in a fight, pretty much unquestionable, waddya reckon?
well as I understand it many were locked up on the say-so of pissed off tribal chiefs/neighbours/associates who wanted them locked up for personal gain. Unless you have a figures for the 'most' bit of what you said.lowing wrote:
Only Us citizens deserves protection under the US Constitution.ruisleipa wrote:
so only US citizens deserve a fair trial and justice? come on man, seriously...lowing wrote:
and there is that little thing that terror suspects in GITMO are not US citizens and are not afforded protection under the US Constitution that US citizens are guaranteed. By the way, since we are talking about GITMO, are we going to discuss how many of them have returned to fight against us?
do you know how many have 'returned to fight against' the US? No? probably not.
Since most of them by all accounts were being held there with no or made-up evidence against them it seems likely that IF any of them chose to fight against the US after being there it was the fact they were incarcerated without trial or due process for years of their lives that, well, maybe made them kinda angry and hate the US...maybe? whaddya reckon?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/gitmo. … index.html
I seriously doubt they were locked up for no reason. Most were there after being captured in a fight, pretty much unquestionable, waddya reckon?
As for the constitution you're implying that the rights guaranteed under it are not 'deserved' by non-US citizens. Is that what you're saying?
I am going on the probablity that US soldiers for the most part do not throw people in prison who are not an immediate threat to them, or their mission.ruisleipa wrote:
well as I understand it many were locked up on the say-so of pissed off tribal chiefs/neighbours/associates who wanted them locked up for personal gain. Unless you have a figures for the 'most' bit of what you said.lowing wrote:
Only Us citizens deserves protection under the US Constitution.ruisleipa wrote:
so only US citizens deserve a fair trial and justice? come on man, seriously...
do you know how many have 'returned to fight against' the US? No? probably not.
Since most of them by all accounts were being held there with no or made-up evidence against them it seems likely that IF any of them chose to fight against the US after being there it was the fact they were incarcerated without trial or due process for years of their lives that, well, maybe made them kinda angry and hate the US...maybe? whaddya reckon?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/gitmo. … index.html
I seriously doubt they were locked up for no reason. Most were there after being captured in a fight, pretty much unquestionable, waddya reckon?
As for the constitution you're implying that the rights guaranteed under it are not 'deserved' by non-US citizens. Is that what you're saying?
I am saying if you are not a US citizen the US Constitution does not apply to. I have not implied it, I said it.
you could well be right about US soldiers but a lot of inmates were taken by the CIA or itelligence agencies on the basis of say-so from rival tribal leaders 'oh hey yankee this guy bad man he hate you' american guy goes 'OK what the hell let's take him away and sort it out later' result three years in gitmo.lowing wrote:
I am going on the probablity that US soldiers for the most part do not throw people in prison who are not an immediate threat to them, or their mission.
I am saying if you are not a US citizen the US Constitution does not apply to. I have not implied it, I said it.
Do you mean that NO rights guaranteed under the US constitution apply to non-US citizens, independently of the constiution itself? I.e. do you mean that international human rights law for example has no bearing on this case, and it is only the applicability of US law that should be considered?
I bow to the fact that some of that has happened, I would not bet anywhere near the majority of it however, no way for either of us to know.ruisleipa wrote:
you could well be right about US soldiers but a lot of inmates were taken by the CIA or itelligence agencies on the basis of say-so from rival tribal leaders 'oh hey yankee this guy bad man he hate you' american guy goes 'OK what the hell let's take him away and sort it out later' result three years in gitmo.lowing wrote:
I am going on the probability that US soldiers for the most part do not throw people in prison who are not an immediate threat to them, or their mission.
I am saying if you are not a US citizen the US Constitution does not apply to. I have not implied it, I said it.
Do you mean that NO rights guaranteed under the US constitution apply to non-US citizens, independently of the constiution itself? I.e. do you mean that international human rights law for example has no bearing on this case, and it is only the applicability of US law that should be considered?
As POW's they have rights under the Geneva Convention, but since even you will have to admit that we are not a war with any country under any flag that the Geneva Convention does not apply. This is for POWs from an opposing warring country. Not the case with these guys. They are people caught as terror suspects, or in the act of fighting against us and our efforts. I have no idea what rights they have, and will admit, I don't give a shit. these guys have planned attacks against civilians and have fought our efforts to protect the same. I care as much about their fuckin' rights as they care about the rights of the people who's lives they have taken indiscriminately.
Look at what I highlighted.ruisleipa wrote:
what? he said that non-US citizens aren't afforded the same rights which means they're not entitled to a fair trial (not an American so not sure but pretty confident the US constitution guarnatees a fair trial etc doesn't it????). At least the clear implication was that since they're not US citizens then the same rights afforded by the US constitution don't apply to them including a fair trial. Or did he mean something else?
That is what he said. It was fairly unambiguous.
“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
no, we can't know, true. Partly because they've all been denied due process.lowing wrote:
I bow to the fact that some of that has happened, I would not bet anywhere near the majority of it however, no way for either of us to know.
but they HAVEN'T been fuond guilty in a court of law have they? In the blackwater case you're arguing the opposite aren't you? Maybe SOME of those guys have done what you said, but you admit some onf them haven't. So, shouldn't they all be subject to due process and the ones who are really guilty punished, and the innocent let free? Fact is I suspect most of them, the vast majority probably, haven't taken anyone's lives.lowing wrote:
As POW's they have rights under the Geneva Convention, but since even you will have to admit that we are not a war with any country under any flag that the Geneva Convention does not apply. This is for POWs from an opposing warring country. Not the case with these guys. They are people caught as terror suspects, or in the act of fighting against us and our efforts. I have no idea what rights they have, and will admit, I don't give a shit. these guys have planned attacks against civilians and have fought our efforts to protect the same. I care as much about their fuckin' rights as they care about the rights of the people who's lives they have taken indiscriminately.
Even if they WANTED to, as far as I know intention or desire to commit an illegal act isn't illegal is it? Plus one COULD argue that if they really ARE enemy 'soldiers' then what they did wasn't illegal anyway, since they were fighting in a war against other soldiers (unless of course they killed civilians, in which case they should be punished, just like the blackwater guys should be punished too). But as youso rightly point out elsewhere (I think it was you anyway), being a SUSPECT isn't the same as being found guilty - they have to be PROVEN guilty in a court of law. So I dunno why you don't care about their rights since they haven't been proven guilty...
Hell, even the Nazis were tried in a court of law y'know?
they are not soldiers, basically this is a whole new category that needs identified. they are not soldiers fighting for a country, and they are not innocent citizens. They have no rights due to them under the US constitution, and no one else wants to deal with them.ruisleipa wrote:
no, we can't know, true. Partly because they've all been denied due process.lowing wrote:
I bow to the fact that some of that has happened, I would not bet anywhere near the majority of it however, no way for either of us to know.but they HAVEN'T been found guilty in a court of law have they? In the blackwater case you're arguing the opposite aren't you? Maybe SOME of those guys have done what you said, but you admit some onf them haven't. So, shouldn't they all be subject to due process and the ones who are really guilty punished, and the innocent let free? Fact is I suspect most of them, the vast majority probably, haven't taken anyone's lives.lowing wrote:
As POW's they have rights under the Geneva Convention, but since even you will have to admit that we are not a war with any country under any flag that the Geneva Convention does not apply. This is for POWs from an opposing warring country. Not the case with these guys. They are people caught as terror suspects, or in the act of fighting against us and our efforts. I have no idea what rights they have, and will admit, I don't give a shit. these guys have planned attacks against civilians and have fought our efforts to protect the same. I care as much about their fuckin' rights as they care about the rights of the people who's lives they have taken indiscriminately.
Even if they WANTED to, as far as I know intention or desire to commit an illegal act isn't illegal is it? Plus one COULD argue that if they really ARE enemy 'soldiers' then what they did wasn't illegal anyway, since they were fighting in a war against other soldiers (unless of course they killed civilians, in which case they should be punished, just like the blackwater guys should be punished too). But as youso rightly point out elsewhere (I think it was you anyway), being a SUSPECT isn't the same as being found guilty - they have to be PROVEN guilty in a court of law. So I dunno why you don't care about their rights since they haven't been proven guilty...
Hell, even the Nazis were tried in a court of law y'know?
dealing with an army of terrorists is like dealing with a rabid dog, it is cruel to keep him tied up but if you release him he is gunna bite you. So tell me, what do you do? Especially since as a citizen the burden of proof is so hard in our system, these guys will surely not be found guilty and thus required to be released, yet we know if they are released they will try and hurt us. It is a paradox. We have a tiger by the tail and we are safe, if we let him go we are fucked. If we keep them locked up we are cruel and unjust, if we release them they kills us. So you tell me, what is the answer?
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-08 11:32:03)
well, you're right, it is a weird situation. But the response seems to be lock up everyone and it'll sort itself out later. I'm just saying, if you don't have proof, or the only proof is some jealous guy who wants to shag the other guy's wife, or is getting paid by the CIA to be an informer, and you don't bother investigating, and take his word for it and lock the guy up for nothing..it's just plain wrong. Fact is SOME of the people in gitmo are/were innocent civilians, it's just a fact.lowing wrote:
they are not soldiers, basically this is a whole new category that needs identified. they are not soldiers fighting for a country, and they are not innocent citizens. They have no rights due to them under the US constitution, and they no one else wants to deal with them.
dealing With an army of terrorists is like dealing with a rabid dog, it is cruel to keep him tied up but if you release him he is gunna bite you. So tell me, what do you do? Especially since as a citizen the burden of proof is so hard in our system, these guys will surely not be found guilty and thus required to be released, yet we know if they are released they will try and hurt us. It is a paradox. We have a tiger by the tail and we are safe, if we let him go we are fucked.
As for the soldiers bit, true, they aren't soldiers in uniform in a country's official army, but maybe they believe they ARE fighting for their country, like partisans in WWII for example. Pretty much the same deal isn't it?
Also, and you might not agree with this, but it seems to me that Gitmo has CREATED more terrorists y'know, like many of the US's policies have done. I mean, you guys don't make it easy for yourselves! There are many documented innocent people who spent time in gitmo, maybe still there, I dunno, and a lot of people got pissed off about it not surprisingly, and decied to 'fight back against the great satan' or whatever. it could well be that before they were locked up they had no problem with the US, now they've had their lives ruined and maybe their family's too, so they're pissed off and fight back. No surprise really.
Locking up innocent people doesn't solve anything, so you'd better be damn sure they are guilty. To many this is the US saying on the one hand 'we believe in justice and freedom' and then with the other taking them away.
All you have said is a paradox that can not be explained away easily.ruisleipa wrote:
well, you're right, it is a weird situation. But the response seems to be lock up everyone and it'll sort itself out later. I'm just saying, if you don't have proof, or the only proof is some jealous guy who wants to shag the other guy's wife, or is getting paid by the CIA to be an informer, and you don't bother investigating, and take his word for it and lock the guy up for nothing..it's just plain wrong. Fact is SOME of the people in gitmo are/were innocent civilians, it's just a fact.lowing wrote:
they are not soldiers, basically this is a whole new category that needs identified. they are not soldiers fighting for a country, and they are not innocent citizens. They have no rights due to them under the US constitution, and they no one else wants to deal with them.
dealing With an army of terrorists is like dealing with a rabid dog, it is cruel to keep him tied up but if you release him he is gunna bite you. So tell me, what do you do? Especially since as a citizen the burden of proof is so hard in our system, these guys will surely not be found guilty and thus required to be released, yet we know if they are released they will try and hurt us. It is a paradox. We have a tiger by the tail and we are safe, if we let him go we are fucked.
As for the soldiers bit, true, they aren't soldiers in uniform in a country's official army, but maybe they believe they ARE fighting for their country, like partisans in WWII for example. Pretty much the same deal isn't it?
Also, and you might not agree with this, but it seems to me that Gitmo has CREATED more terrorists y'know, like many of the US's policies have done. I mean, you guys don't make it easy for yourselves! There are many documented innocent people who spent time in gitmo, maybe still there, I dunno, and a lot of people got pissed off about it not surprisingly, and decied to 'fight back against the great satan' or whatever. it could well be that before they were locked up they had no problem with the US, now they've had their lives ruined and maybe their family's too, so they're pissed off and fight back. No surprise really.
Locking up innocent people doesn't solve anything, so you'd better be damn sure they are guilty. To many this is the UsS saying on the one hand 'we believe in justice and freedom' and then with the other taking them away.
Everyone hates the US for supporting Israel, yet it is only Islamic radicals that have acted on it in the form of terrorism. The reason most radicals attack us is not because of our policies but because of their own brain washed reasoning. Their lives suck and the reason their lives suck is because their own govts. keep them down while collecting all of the oil money for itself. The US is used as a scapegoat for their situation, when the reality is it is their own govt. and their own religious practices that are fucking them over. Again they are a tiger by the tail, following no rules of war, law or morality, what is to become of them, I have no idea, releasing them however, is not a good idea.
Also like us or not, the US foreign policy will not be dictated to by terrorists. Period.
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-08 11:46:08)
...but gitmo doesn't help any of that. Neither does it help if US mercenaries or army kill civilians in Iraq or anywhere. Just gives the nutters more of an excuse right?lowing wrote:
All you have said is a paradox that can not be explained away easily.
Everyone hates the US for supporting Israel, yet it is only Islamic radicals that have acted on it in the form of terrorism. The reason most radicals attack us is not because of our policies but because of their own brain washed reasoning. Their lives suck and the reason their lives suck is because their own govts. keep them down while collecting all of the oil money for itself. The US is used as a scapegoat for their situation, when the reality is it is their own govt. and their own religious practices that are fucking them over. Again they are a tiger by the tail, following no rules of war, law or morality, what is to become of them, I have no idea, releasing them however, is not a good idea.
Also like us or not, the US foreign policy will not be dictated to by terrorists. Period.
and again, if they haven't done anything wrong except dislike the US (not that THAT is wrong in itself), if they are not 'terrorists', if they haven't attacked anyone, if they are normal people, they shouldn't be locked up. Simple. Otherwise you'd have to try and lock up several million (billion?) people.
I am using GITMO as the tail of the tiger. and what we coulda or shoulda done is of little consequence now. Yes our behavior in the field is important and blackwater or bad soldiering does not help the cause.ruisleipa wrote:
...but gitmo doesn't help any of that. Neither does it help if US mercenaries or army kill civilians in Iraq or anywhere. Just gives the nutters more of an excuse right?lowing wrote:
All you have said is a paradox that can not be explained away easily.
Everyone hates the US for supporting Israel, yet it is only Islamic radicals that have acted on it in the form of terrorism. The reason most radicals attack us is not because of our policies but because of their own brain washed reasoning. Their lives suck and the reason their lives suck is because their own govts. keep them down while collecting all of the oil money for itself. The US is used as a scapegoat for their situation, when the reality is it is their own govt. and their own religious practices that are fucking them over. Again they are a tiger by the tail, following no rules of war, law or morality, what is to become of them, I have no idea, releasing them however, is not a good idea.
Also like us or not, the US foreign policy will not be dictated to by terrorists. Period.
and again, if they haven't done anything wrong except dislike the US (not that THAT is wrong in itself), if they are not 'terrorists', if they haven't attacked anyone, if they are normal people, they shouldn't be locked up. Simple. Otherwise you'd have to try and lock up several million (billion?) people.
Problem is you can not UNSTIR a hornets nest. the US has underestimated the reaction from Islamic extremism after the fall of Iraq.
I might get some shit for saying this, but as it turns out, Saddam may have been right to rule with a iron fist, he had to, in order to keep law and order, and the US did not appreciate just how fucked up the place is without any leashes in place.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32292921
A former Blackwater guard has been sentenced to life in prison and three others to 30 years over the killing of 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007.
Nicholas Slatten and three others were convicted last year for the killings in Baghdad's crowded Nisoor Square.
A further 17 Iraqis were injured as the private contractors opened fire to clear the way for a US convoy.
The shootings sparked international outrage and a debate over the role of defence contractors in warfare.
Slatten faced a charge of murder, while the other men faced multiple counts of manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and using firearms while committing a felony.
Fuck Israel
It seems it was the Americans who should have been on leashes.lowing wrote:
I might get some shit for saying this, but as it turns out, Saddam may have been right to rule with a iron fist, he had to, in order to keep law and order, and the US did not appreciate just how fucked up the place is without any leashes in place.
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3957
Yes. I don't even like 2010 Macbethghettoperson wrote:
You're such a cock it's not even funny.Macbeth wrote:
It's good news because the government didn't get to railroad the blackwater guys just to appease the Iraqi government.Mekstizzle wrote:
Wait, why is it great news that a bunch of guys who killed unarmed civilians basically got away with it, and the one guy who does plead guilty, he's the worst of them all according to you? What type of fucked up logic is that?
Do you know what this shit will do? Make things worse for the people still in Iraq. Why don't you go and gloat and smile to the poor bastards who will now have to face the backlash in Iraq.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3957
Victims of Assad's barrel bombings of Aleppo.
This war would have been over already if Obama had overthrown Assad when he gassed his own people.
This is why Assad has to die. So much death and destruction were caused solely by his and his family's greed.
This war would have been over already if Obama had overthrown Assad when he gassed his own people.
This is why Assad has to die. So much death and destruction were caused solely by his and his family's greed.
ghettoperson wrote:
You're such a cock it's not even funny.
The UN should take over tbh.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3957
Thank you so much for your service, Jay. My USAA auto insurance is so cheap. My descendants will enjoy the fruit of the military's labor for generations.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Blackwater Shooting Charges All Dismissed By Judge