BF2S Forums Guantanamo Illegal.

lowing wrote:

And my logic is all human beings have the right not to be tortured, be-headed, blown up in a market, a plane a building etc by terroristic animals...

Which is exactly what I just said, that all humans have basic human rights.

lowing wrote:

i take a stand that we must fight back against such a world, what the hell is your stand?? talk them to death??, or succumb?

I feel my stance has been made abundantly clear, but to reiterate:

To hit back indiscriminately at people who might be terrorists is violating their rights.  You can feel free to arrest anyone, but to hold them for years without proving them guilty is illegal and immoral.

Horseman 77 wrote:

I have asked bubalo to PM me if his rant isn't specific to the post and he will not so stfu and leave me out of it if you have no idea what your talking about. ty

So, you can call me an asshole and it's my fault.  Oh, well that makes perfect sense.

aardfrith wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

You dont fucking get it do you? These prisoners WANT the same rights as US citizens. They want Private US citizens rights to due process. There frigging terrorists. They are combatants and were bearing arms against us with intent to KILL us. They are from every country in the world, thus they belong to no specific army, so the Geneva convention should not apply. You consider yourself a man of logic, wheres the logic in your thinking on this topic? did it fly out the window? I mean come on now, your hatred for Americans is so evident, yet most here dont have a blind hate for Aussie's. You judge ALL Americans at face value because of what? tourists? Thats shallow and sad. I honestly feel bad for you for not being able to see outside the little world you have created for yourself based on a few Americans you might have met.

Okay, I admit I don't get it.  Maybe if I say what I think you're saying, but in my own words, maybe you can say whether I have understood what you're saying.

As I understand it, you are saying that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens - civilians, members of the armed forces, tourists, etc.  As I understand the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution, and forgive me if I have misunderstood it - I'm not an American and I'm not practiced in legal jargon, it says that excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed.

So, and again forgive me if I have this wrong, but from what I have read, it seems unconstitutional for a US citizen to impose a cruel or unusual punishment.

No what you have read is that the legal system In AMERICA can not do this. Our constitution does not apply to prisoners in war time situations.

Again, these people are being treated with respect(since the scandal) We are bending over backwards to take care of them, make Allowances Not to offend there religion, Ect ect ect, Hell they get fed Steak. Now, as for any complaints of torture, NONE since the Picture scandal have been proven, Not one. Not any of the accusations made by ex FBI, or any of them. Those agents wont even tell there story, because alls they wanted was to start the Human rights groups on there crusade.

The red cross is stationed outside Gitmo 24/7 365 days a week. They were contacted yesterday and asked if there have been ANY complaints from prisoners inside Gitmo, they have said On record, that there has not been a single complaint of mistreatment or torture to date. The red cross does inspections daily.

I agree these people need some means of trial, but a trial with Lawyers? How do these prisoners Prove they wernt Shooting at our soldiers? What were they doing? Hunting squirrels? They do not deserve the protections of OUR constitution, but do deserve the rights granted under war time situations. But, how would this be done without a tribunal i have no idea.

These prisoners are getting there basic human rights, ask the red cross. As for the processing, i have no idea what should be done besides a tribunal. It took 4 years to convict Musawi sp? and the dude said he was guilty. I'm not going to flip the bill for these people through my tax money. Its war time(the sympathizers still dont understand that term "War Time". So private courts do not apply no matter what.

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

And my logic is all human beings have the right not to be tortured, be-headed, blown up in a market, a plane a building etc by terroristic animals...

Which is exactly what I just said, that all humans have basic human rights.

lowing wrote:

i take a stand that we must fight back against such a world, what the hell is your stand?? talk them to death??, or succumb?

I feel my stance has been made abundantly clear, but to reiterate:

To hit back indiscriminately at people who might be terrorists is violating their rights.  You can feel free to arrest anyone, but to hold them for years without proving them guilty is illegal and immoral.

illegal??.............what are you a fucking lawyer now??...........how the hell do you know what is illegal or legal on international affairs such as this?......All of this terrorist shit is pretty much new ground for America and we are dealing with it by putting OUR safety first!!. Tough shit if you think we are wrong for being proactive in our defense. 911 showed us we have to be. No apologies.

No you tap dance around your position. When you alllllllllllll most get fucked by your own words you start jumping around and answering direct questions with questions, dissecting sentences and twisting them into something absurd, implementing the ole' reversal tactic and for most part just being nothing but a smart ass.

Which is cool I don't give a shit, but you sure look like a dip shit when you do it. I guess the reason for your -37 or so karma.

I am all for locking terrorists up for life, no question. 4 years without trial is way out of line. Isn’t that one of the founding principles of the US of A? Fair trial by your peers, innocent until proven otherwise or is that only when you feel like it?

Havazn wrote:

Miller wrote:

I hate the Supreme court, they try to help people but make it worse.  Now that this is in order, rather than bringing people home to a trial where they can easily get out of prison and fight, our marines and military will conduct an interrigation and execute on site.  Too bad they don't want to see another Marine killed before the terrorists, right?

The Supreme court is the body that upholds your civil rights and laws. Im sure you wouldn't be hating them so much when YOUR rights become infringed.

and look, a canadian is telling you!

lowing wrote:

illegal??.............what are you a fucking lawyer now??...........how the hell do you know what is illegal or legal on international affairs such as this?......

No, but funnily enough the UN considers violating people's basic human rights a crime.  Minor detail, I know.......

lowing wrote:

All of this terrorist shit is pretty much new ground for America

But I thought you'd been dealing with it since the Clinton administration, no?  Regardless, human rights is not a new thing.

lowing wrote:

and we are dealing with it by putting OUR safety first!!.

And it's that sort of attitude that causes much of the anti-American sentiment.  At least, the stuff that I see.

lowing wrote:

Tough shit if you think we are wrong for being proactive in our defense. 911 showed us we have to be. No apologies.

So, the fact that you got attacked means you can do whatever you like?  You can be proactive without indiscriminate attacks.

lowing wrote:

No you tap dance around your position.

I though I stated it pretty clearly, would you like me to try again?

lowing wrote:

When you alllllllllllll most get fucked by your own words you start jumping around and answering direct questions with questions, dissecting sentences and twisting them into something absurd, implementing the ole' reversal tactic and for most part just being nothing but a smart ass.

You mean that time when you said Liberals were the greatest allies terrorists had and I said Conservatives were the greatest allies fascists had?  So, me applying to you the same logic as you applied to me is being a smartass?

lowing wrote:

Which is cool I don't give a shit, but you sure look like a dip shit when you do it. I guess the reason for your -37 or so karma.

Actually, I think that has to do with the fact that most of the people who agree with me take part in the discussion rather than just +ing those they agree with, and some of those against me - instead of taking part.  Of course, I'm sure vice vera is true.  In this section of the forums, it's easier to get minus karma than positive karma.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

And my logic is all human beings have the right not to be tortured, be-headed, blown up in a market, a plane a building etc by terroristic animals...

Which is exactly what I just said, that all humans have basic human rights.


I feel my stance has been made abundantly clear, but to reiterate:

To hit back indiscriminately at people who might be terrorists is violating their rights.  You can feel free to arrest anyone, but to hold them for years without proving them guilty is illegal and immoral.

illegal??.............what are you a fucking lawyer now??...........how the hell do you know what is illegal or legal on international affairs such as this?......All of this terrorist shit is pretty much new ground for America and we are dealing with it by putting OUR safety first!!. Tough shit if you think we are wrong for being proactive in our defense. 911 showed us we have to be. No apologies.

No you tap dance around your position. When you alllllllllllll most get fucked by your own words you start jumping around and answering direct questions with questions, dissecting sentences and twisting them into something absurd, implementing the ole' reversal tactic and for most part just being nothing but a smart ass.

Which is cool I don't give a shit, but you sure look like a dip shit when you do it. I guess the reason for your -37 or so karma.

Wow... just wow. You really are a fucking moron.

You asked: "i take a stand that we must fight back against such a world, what the hell is your stand?? talk them to death??, or succumb?"

He answered: "To hit back indiscriminately at people who might be terrorists is violating their rights.  You can feel free to arrest anyone, but to hold them for years without proving them guilty is illegal and immoral". I think he's pretty fucking clear on his position, no?

And what the fuck is your answer? Some pile of shit?

Don't fucking attack people for not answering questions if answering questions brings about that sort of response.

Now onto my response.

OK. IT's fine that you want to detain potential terrorists. Its fine that you want to be "proactive" in your defense.

BUT:

LOCKING PEOPLE UP FOR YEARS ON END WITHOUT CHARGE, in my opinion, is pure laziness. Do I have the right to lock you up for years and then not tell you why? Don't fucking tell me this is different. It's as simple as that. Lock them up. Charge them. Get them out of the way.

Lift your work rate.

The CHARGE is Terorism. Terrorism against america and americans, and against there own afgan peoples. So far thats it, and as i said, how to deal with it is up in the air, This is new to everyone. Even The UK has quite a few locked up, and dont your ouw country have a few? dunno, never really looked it up.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

BN wrote:

I am all for locking terrorists up for life, no question. 4 years without trial is way out of line. Isn’t that one of the founding principles of the US of A? Fair trial by your peers, innocent until proven otherwise or is that only when you feel like it?

AGAIN for the 100th time, That Applies to US citizens! Under the constitution and the bill of rights. Does NOT apply during war time. It didnt in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, And now in the war on terror.

so its justce for all...so long as your american

Australia has a citizen who has been imprisoned in Gitmo at Delta. No proof has been provided for why he is there besides some shakey stuff about a visa being overstayed. In which case we here in Australia should be dealing with him.

Oh, they do have a pic of him holding an RPG... Which doesn't prove anything.


If the US of A provide evidence as to what terrorist activities he was involved in when taken prisoner in Pakistan besides overstaying a visa I would quite happily watch him be tried in an international/Australian court. Not a US of A military tribunal.

Headstone:  No, I am saying that the actions America have taken show that it places it's safety above all else, whilst going on about how it's the home of freedom.  And that is where the anti-American sentiment comes from: on the one hand, America talks about being the leader of the free world, on the other, it locks people away for years without proof of guilt and wages wars on it's enemies in the name of "democracy" whilst sponsoring dictatorships.

In short it is the America's arrogance that generates enmity toward it.  Same as every other empire in the history of the world.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-05 03:17:29)

You are arrogant for declaring that you know better than everyone else, and then inforcing your idea of the best course of action by force.

See, you go on about how I dance around issues, but the fact is I don't.  I speak directly to them, and then you tell me I've said whatever you want me to have said when I quite obviously hadn't.  So, I have to go over it again:

There is nothing wrong with taking the fight to an enemy who has already attacked you, but this isn't what America is doing.  I have yet to see proof that those in Guantanomo Bay are terrorists.  Further, the attack on Iraq was unprovoked.  And don't accuse me of being heartless because Saddam was killing people.  If you're wanting to help save lives, why do you ignore the rest of Africa?  Why to you allow power to remain in dictators hands the world over?  Why was that not the first reason stated for going in?

I fail to see the link to Spain.  A bomb was blown up there.  They have recently been concentrating on internal rather than external counter-terrorism initiatives.  By your logic, they have been succesful.

I have never said that we should leave terrorists alone, have I?  But I fail to see how destabilizing a country which was opposed to terrorists serves anti-terrorism ends.

I also fail to see how you make the leap that objecting to what America is doing makes me anti-American an any sense other than that I oppose America's current actions.  So, objection to the policy of the current government makes a citizen anti-American?  Doesn't that mean it would be anti-American to vote them out of power?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-05 04:04:27)