BF2S Forums The US Constitution and Gitmo

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

If the terrorists don't follow the geneva convention... why should the US treat them like they follow the convention?

If the terrorists blow a building, why shouldn't US do the same?

These terrorists are at club med for cryin out loud! They are eating 4 meals a day, in air conditioned rooms, they read their Koran and now and again they are put into a cold room and the chilli peppers are blasted through to get info out of them. They have it easier then almost every person in the US prison system and that includes the guards.

America needs to get back to its old ways (flame me on this one guys). When the red coats came over and the US militia fought the same way they did, it turned into a disaster. Standing in a line and shooting was just too much of a nightmare and they were loosing to a far better trained and armed army. So they came up with new tactics and hid amongest the trees, or behind rocks and ambushed the british army. They created the hit and fade and hit again tactics. Now they are being held to pretty much the same things as the british army held back in the revolutionary war by not adapting. They need to adapt or it will be a much higher death toll for the US. Send in the spec forces, delta squad, rangers, make these guys sweat and rout them out. Either that or just blow the frell outta the Sunni triangle (getting women and children and the elderly out first)

Just my 2 cents.

N.A.T.O wrote:

I think the Geneva Convention should only apply if both sides follow by it. So go Gitmo.

Sounds good in principle but legally would be unworkable. That's not how the Geneva convention works. In signing it the signatory nations agree to treat ALL enemy prisoners by the standards laid out under article 3.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

If the terrorists don't follow the geneva convention... why should the US treat them like they follow the convention?

They don't. The fact is the US have ratified the Geneva convention, so are bound by it, whether their enemy is or not.

The US have to follow the rules of the convention, because it's the law. They could withdraw from the Geneva convention, but would be universally condemned for it.

I don't see what the US constitution has to do with any of this.

kr@cker wrote:

but as for as the USC goes, ummmm, US rights for US citizens, Aus rights for Aus citizens, uk rights for uk citizens, you get the picture

So according to you, if you happened to be born in some shitty country where, for one reason or another,  they haven't come round to creating a decent constitution that will ensure their rights you are LESS OF A HUMAN BEING. This has nothing to do with the fucking Geneva Convention everyones been talking about!

It's simple: If you think that your place of birth has anything to do with your basic human rights you are a discriminating fascist. Get this: all people no matter where they were born, the color of their skin, where they live, what god they believe in etc are equal and should be treated as such before the law of any country in the world, period. Gitmo and the alledged terrorists it imprisons are not an exception.

Last edited by oug (2006-10-06 08:24:56)

oug wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

but as for as the USC goes, ummmm, US rights for US citizens, Aus rights for Aus citizens, uk rights for uk citizens, you get the picture

So according to you, if you happened to be born in some shitty country where, for one reason or another,  they haven't come round to creating a decent constitution that will ensure their rights you are LESS OF A HUMAN BEING. This has nothing to do with the fucking Geneva Convention everyones been talking about!

It's simple: If you think that your place of birth has anything to do with your basic human rights you are a discriminating fascist. Get this: all people no matter where they were born, the color of their skin, where they live, what god they believe in etc are equal and should be treated as such before the law of any country in the world, period.

They should? Well then Fucking preach that fucking bullshit to Iran, Syria, Palistine, Northern Pakastan, Should i name some more? Your preaching that shit to the wrong folks Bud.

Sambuccashake wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Sambuccashake wrote:

It would, wouldn't it?
But even so, I don't think it's a good thing to throw all moral values out the window because an adversary is using "questionable tactics".

And the problem is that it looks even worse when it's the US who're doing it.
("...and justice for all" and so on and so forth)

More and more people are getting tired of the "waaah he hit me first!" defence.
The chewbacca defense, now that I can respect.

Are you comparing Gitmo to cutting Westerners heads off? I expected the moral high ground remark after I said that, and I agree that we need to hold ourself to higher standards. Pay attention to what I said. "It would be nice".. don't fill in the blanks to where you think my opinion was headed. Since you agreed that it would be nice, the rest of your statement can be sent to the trash.

I never said we should act like they do. Stop placing your feet in your mouths.

I've never said anything about cutting peoples head off so don't fill in any blanks to where you think my opinion was headed.

I was agreeing with you and then embellishing on the point (that we both agree on by the way) that the US is more than just your avarage country. The democratic super power (a.k.a. The good guys) who should set an example for the rest of the world.

Now I understand that this makes this "war" even harder for the US because everything they do will be criticized by so many, both in the US and abroad.
It may be hard but not impossible. And I believe Guantanamo is the wrong way to go.

Nice of you to send the rest of my statement to the trash by the way...

My apologies then, tone and attitude are sometimes misinterpreted in forums.

Dang what happened to sergeriver .