BF2S Forums Guantanamo Illegal.

Colfax wrote:

-1 Karma should be disabled in this section of the forum.  I got neg for my opinion 4 days ago

"you need to wake up. "anti-terrorism" is a catchword for "impeding your rights" " -1 karma

We are at war some rights may need to be "impeded" on in order to protect the safety of our nation.  Your still free what has honestly changed in your life that you can't do because the gov't is keeping you down. How many attacks have there been since 9/11? 0.....  There have been many attacks on other countries.  i.e. Subway and bus bombs in UK.  They have to be doing something right. 

also  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Please look specifically at Title II and Title III.  These support my points from earlier post.

________________________________________

Please don't -1 me for my opinion....thought opinons were safe in these threads but i guess not

If we are at "war"  then these folks deserve a military tribunal.  I agree they are not associated with any particular country and are not deserving of the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention.  If they are not combatants, then we are not at war and this exercise is illegal.

Don't feel bad about the neg Karma, it's only Karma and means nothing.  I don't believe in giving negative Karma for opinions.  They are like assholes, everyone's got one.  Some two.

kr@cker wrote:

I would have thought it was obvious that I was just descending the number pad on my keyboard to make a point, make an exception and use context clues, you'll find an overwhelming number of my posts consist of lists of facts, as opposed to others on these forums who list accusations or opinions stated as fact.

and no, math is not my best skill, my best skill involves my tongue and the index and middle fingers of my right hand

Yes it was obvious. But it is also obvious that also rest of your post had nothing to do with reality.

So you're good at bowling but you don't have thumbs and have to use tongue instead?

And I thought Gene Simmons has a long tongue...

Sorry for getting totally offtopic, but I didn't start.

Did you lose your virginity last night or what took your thoughts from gitmo to human anatomy?

Last edited by PekkaA (2006-07-06 16:20:04)

GATOR591957 wrote:

If we are at "war"  then these folks deserve a military tribunal.  I agree they are not associated with any particular country and are not deserving of the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention.  If they are not combatants, then we are not at war and this exercise is illegal.

Just because I'm bored, on what grounds would these folks "deserve" a tribunal?  Geneva Convention doesn't hold ground so what are we left with?

What I find interesting is how everyone seems to be squabbling in the mud.  Instead of fighting over out-dated treaties written over 50 years ago, why doesn't someone try and update a few of them?  Bush is able to find a loophole so why isn't there a clamour to create a law to patch it up?

Ah well, I guess I'll keep fighting it out in the mud.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

As for the tourist comment i wrote about, it was a reason Bubbalo gave long ago on why he has such opinions of ALL Americans. He has Judged us by the examples of a few tourists he didn't like i guess. He has even stated this, so that was the reason for the comment.

Actually, I don't think I ever have said that.  In fact, I've never said I hate Americans to my knowledge.  If I have, I apologise.  What I do believe I've said, is that many tourists give Americans a bad name by being rude and obnoxious (though not in those exact words).

Bubbalo wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

As for the tourist comment i wrote about, it was a reason Bubbalo gave long ago on why he has such opinions of ALL Americans. He has Judged us by the examples of a few tourists he didn't like i guess. He has even stated this, so that was the reason for the comment.

Actually, I don't think I ever have said that.  In fact, I've never said I hate Americans to my knowledge.  If I have, I apologise.  What I do believe I've said, is that many tourists give Americans a bad name by being rude and obnoxious (though not in those exact words).

yeah, bubbalo loves Americans, can't ya tell by his flattery in every one of his posts. How could you misinterpret it?

lowing wrote:

yeah, bubbalo loves Americans, can't ya tell by his flattery in every one of his posts. How could you misinterpret it?

You seem not to notice the emphasis:

I have nothing wrong with Americans as a people.

I have serious issue with America the nation.

joewardog wrote:

What you are arguing is not "rights" but the "principle" of the matter.  On the principle of the whole thing, I agree with you.

No, I am arguing rights.  Otherwise, Saddam Hussein never committed a crime, as he didn't give his people the right to life.  Is that you stance?

joewardog wrote:

However, as we are arguing legality we must focus upon law.  It should be ntoed that rights are defined and protected by laws.  So my point when asking "what grounds" protect the Gitmo prisoners is that there are no US laws that apply to protect their rights.  As the Geneva Convention does not hold up, what else is there?

Well, there is this little document made by the UN that the US itself pushed through.  Minor issue, I know.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-07 04:10:07)

Bubbalo wrote:

joewardog wrote:

What you are arguing is not "rights" but the "principle" of the matter.  On the principle of the whole thing, I agree with you.

No, I am arguing rights.  Otherwise, Saddam Hussein never committed a crime, as he didn't give his people the right to life.  Is that you stance?

No incorrect still laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Special_Tribunal

Hussein is being tried by the Iraqi people under Iraqi law, hence law still wins out over tyranny (kinda cool really).

To commit a crime you must first break a law, so try again or stay on track.

Out of curiousity, what document is that by the UN that the US itself pushed through?

joewardog wrote:

No incorrect still laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Special_Tribunal

Hussein is being tried by the Iraqi people under Iraqi law, hence law still wins out over tyranny (kinda cool really).

To commit a crime you must first break a law, so try again or stay on track.

Laws which did not exist when he was killing people.  And what about Stalin, or Hitler, or any other totalitarian government?

joewardog wrote:

Out of curiousity, what document is that by the UN that the US itself pushed through?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

joewardog wrote:

Now you are catching on.  There is no law within the US or international that forces a country to try combatants that fall outside of the Geneva Convention according to said Geneva Conventions.  Hence the reason I raised the question, what grounds grounds would these folks "deserve" a tribunal?

On the grounds that everybody has the right to freedom unless it can be proved that they do not deserve it.  And I think there'd be a fair case for arguing that given that they are on US soil they have the right to a due process.

joewardog wrote:

Side note, when did the US SENATE ratify the "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" ?

Never, it's not technically law (or I would have already cited it), but the US seems happy to criticise other countries for human rights abuses, and that document lays out human rights.

aardfrith wrote:

I thought by pronouncing the military tribunals to be illegal, the Supreme Court had decided that US laws applied.

First off, the Supreme Court's decision ultimately placed a check on the powers of the President (a VERY good thing) by saying the President cannot prosecute the prisoners under a military tribunal.  However, the Supreme Court did not declare Gitmo to be illegal or that prosecuting prisoners in Gitmo to be illegal or even decide the legal status of these prisoners under US law (so in essencestill no real rights for the prisoners).   

So what I'm trying to say, the Supreme Court is trying to inject some form of legal process into the whole Gitmo affair (and good for them).  However, it should come down to the law-makers in Congress to pass a law whether Gitmo should be closed or remain open.  Arguably, the Supreme Court would over step its bounds if it declared Gitmo illegal. 

Of course the Supreme Court has been wrong in the past, look at the whole principle of "Seperate but Equal."

Last edited by joewardog (2006-07-07 07:10:04)

Bubbalo wrote:

As I understand it, any law which contradicts the US Constitution is un-Constitutional, and therefore not legal.  Am I wrong?

It goes more in depth than that.  There is the realm of precedents based upon case law.  Yet as I keep pointing out, what law is there to cite?

Bubbalo wrote:

So the fact that they only do it for selfish reasons makes it ok?

Thanks for trying to read into my post.  I did not say it was okay, instead I agreed with you on the hypocrisy of my government (once again look at US history). So PLEASE read my entire post instead of just picking and choosing you are just making yourself look like a moron

Bubbalo wrote:

To clarify:  whether the Guantanamo Bay camp is legal is, IMHO, immaterial, as it is immoral.

But this topic is titled: "Guantanamo Illegal"
If you want to discuss it's morality go START ANOTHER THREAD and STOP trying to inject that argument into this one.