BF2S Forums Guantanamo Illegal.

Bubbalo wrote:

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.

Theres ALOT of countries that support Dictatorships includeing yours, that are part of the UN.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Flecco wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Bubbalo? So your saying, because we Are thinking of OUR safty(and the rest of the worlds) first, thats the reason You and the rest Hate america? Sounds kind of shallow now doesnt it? Specially when your country even seen the importance in stopping these fools? Sending troops to fight side by side with the evil america?

Still don't see the point of locking up a young Australian man with no proof that he did anything.

EDIT

Don't see how it keeps me safe either.

Hes holding an AK, probably Dressed in the regional garb, And Was probably there training. If he was cought up during the retaliation by the US, the US has the rights during war time, same as any other counrtry. We even have a few americans locked up that we cought there. And guess what, there still there to this day.
WHY would you be in afganistan Holding an AK if your Just a tourist?

Why does johnnykill own three Druganov sniper rifles? Hell, if I got the opportunity I would get a photo of myself holding an AK. If I ever get to go to Asia I'm definitly gonna get myself some of the clothes that the cultures there wear, I've already got a pommy bowler hat.

David Hicks was picked up in Pakistan, I don't believe there is evidence he ever entered Afghanistan and even if he did, once again all it proves is a visa violation.

What dictatorships does Australia support, please enlighten me as I have never heard this before...

lowing wrote:

Again you twist my words.

Where did I twist your words?  Throughout that whole thing, all I did was state (technically restate, for the umpteenth time) my opinion/s.

lowing wrote:

So you haven't seen proof yet that the people in Gitmo have terroristic ties? Gee did the president or congress or the CO of Gitmo fail to include YOU in on the conference call??

So, we're just going to trust them?  Becuase it's not like they have any reason to make us believe there are more terrorists than there actually are.  I mean, it's not like they run their campaign on their anti-terrorism policies or anything..........

lowing wrote:

Iraq was not attacked unprovoked I explained 1000 times why the cease fire ended, go back and find it, or keep dismissing facts the choice is yours.

And yet when it was pointed out that the breaches were technical and not serious, you ignore it.

lowing wrote:

We were in Africa, and probably still are.

I'm sure minorities in Sudan will be glad to hear that the US troops aren't not helping them because they're not there, it's just that they don't feel like it.

lowing wrote:

Yes Spain is quite successful with their counter terrorism plan........it is called cower to them.

So safety comes before everything except pride?  Besides, I seem to remember a quite daring rescue attempt, which was ironically almost foiled by US soldiers

lowing wrote:

How can a country be opposed to terrorism when there are links to that govt. and the terrorists??

Uh.............what links?  Al Qaeda hated Saddam because his government was secular.  In fact, IIRC they were fighting him at one stage (but that was before the First Gulf War).

lowing wrote:

Oh I must have miss understood you alllllllllll along, you are in fact one of America's great admirers, I see that now.

I didn't say that I was.  But you didn't say that I opposed America's current actions and was anti-American.  You said I opposed America's current actions and therefore was anti-American.

<[onex wrote:

>Headstone]Theres ALOT of countries that support Dictatorships includeing yours, that are part of the UN.

So your excuse is that everyone else is doing?  I thought America was the leader of the "Free World".  Here's a hint:  leaders lead.

<[onex wrote:

>Headstone]The interorgators under supervision of the red Cross

What's that about the Red Cross*?

On a related note, according to the latest Time magazine Seton Hall University has determined using the governments data that only 8% of Guantanomo Bay detainees were actually Al Qaeda fighters, and more than half have not committed hostile acts against America or it's allies.  What was that about denying fact, lowing?

*Borrowed from JahManRed.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-05 04:38:29)

aardfrith wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

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.

But it does apply to soldiers in war time situations?  Is it not the US soldiers and citizens who are applying the cruel and unusual punishments?  As far as how the Constitution reads, the imposition (not the receiving) of cruel and unusual punishement is banned so it doesn't matter who is on the receiving end.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

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.

Sounds like that's offending their religion.  Is it Halal steak?

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Now, as for any complaints of torture, NONE since the Picture scandal...

So you admit that torture is used by the US?  Why was it a scandal if it's allowed, as you say?  Why have US soldiers been charged and sentenced for doing these things?  I get the feeling it's not actually allowed.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

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?

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution?  Isn't that the normal way for trials to be conducted in the US? Your questions make sense.  How would someone prove they were just a random citizen picked up on a road in some nameless place, having done nothing wrong?  For all we know, there could be innocent civilians in there.

Ok let me try again, Torture is wrong and Not allowed, If you remember correctly, those soldiers were prosecuted and are paying the price for breaking that rule. Since then, There hasnt been a SINGLE complaint by the prisoners. Not one documented case, steming from Human rights groups inspections and interviews.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Leave them there for the Iraqi"s to use. Simple really.

You honestly believe that?

Bubbalo wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Leave them there for the Iraqi"s to use. Simple really.

You honestly believe that?

Sure why not? It does kind of accomodate both sides opinions on what should be done and how we get out of Iraq.

Time is biased?  One of the world's most respected information givers and you're calling it biased?  Right at the end it has an article about how current issues in Israel/Palestine are the Palestinians fault.  Seriously, are you guys just gonna call every source you don't like biased?  What, in your opinion, is unbiased (as full a list as you can reasonably give)?  And what about the rest of what I said?  Or was that too biased to respond to?

My exit strategy was more sarcastic than an actual plan LOL hope you got it?

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

My exit strategy was more sarcastic than an actual plan LOL hope you got it?

Err... So? The idea isn't a bad one except you would be leaving behind the bases.

There is no such thing as an unbiased source of information. All information is tainted by the perception of the human mind. The CIA has a large book on analysing intelligence, that can be read on the CIA site.

aardfrith wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

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?

If you're looking for an example of how to hold a trial, try looking at France.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5139622.stm  On Monday, they started a trial against six of their citizens who had been held at Guantanamo.  Note that a seventh Frenchman, who was also held at Gitmo, has been released without charge because he had done nothing wrong.

When the four Britons held at Guantanamo were released to British custody http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163911.stm, they were released without charge after just 24 hours, because they had no crimes to answer for.  Yet, they were still held at Gitmo and tortured, according to claims. 

How many more innocent people are still being held in Gitmo because their own governments aren't as influential as France or the UK?

One of the Britons was picked up in Zambia.  Tell me again how everyone in Gitmo was arrested in Afghanistan after attacking US troops?

As you said, according to claims, where are the claims? They sure didnt make the complaints to the Human rights groups camped outside the camp.  But you did answer your own question, people ARE being let out, but do you really think if they are given back to the terrorist countries they are from, that they would be prosecuted? Thats just not feasible.

PekkaA wrote:

anonymous nobody wrote:

Your signature tells me you are a pussy. STFU. Finnish Army? LMAO

What are you trying to tell? Our army fought russians in WWII with great success. And at least I've been in army...

Dont make fun of the finnish, they are on of the bravest fighters you'll ever encounter. An army you dont wanna be messing with. Ask the Russians, just as Pekka said.

Last edited by Snorkelfarsan (2006-07-05 05:10:05)

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

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?

If you're looking for an example of how to hold a trial, try looking at France.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5139622.stm  On Monday, they started a trial against six of their citizens who had been held at Guantanamo.  Note that a seventh Frenchman, who was also held at Gitmo, has been released without charge because he had done nothing wrong.

When the four Britons held at Guantanamo were released to British custody http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163911.stm, they were released without charge after just 24 hours, because they had no crimes to answer for.  Yet, they were still held at Gitmo and tortured, according to claims. 

How many more innocent people are still being held in Gitmo because their own governments aren't as influential as France or the UK?

One of the Britons was picked up in Zambia.  Tell me again how everyone in Gitmo was arrested in Afghanistan after attacking US troops?

As you said, according to claims, where are the claims? They sure didnt make the complaints to the Human rights groups camped outside the camp.  But you did answer your own question, people ARE being let out, but do you really think if they are given back to the terrorist countries they are from, that they would be prosecuted? Thats just not feasible.

Why haven't they let the two Australians out yet (not sure if the other guy was sent back here but I know that Hicks is still there)? As far as I know sending him back to Australia is feasible. We aren't terrorists. My problem is not with those you have proof of committing a crime. I don't like the idea of people who haven't been proven of doing anything at all being held in a prison.