PDA

View Full Version : The Collapse of the Guantanamo Myth


Dethbob
12-12-2010, 05:54 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011390769140846.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

"This week a Democratic Congress ratified Bush-era policy by refusing to fund any effort to shut the detention facility."

Well, I did tell you so.

Tyburn
12-12-2010, 07:06 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011390769140846.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

"This week a Democratic Congress ratified Bush-era policy by refusing to fund any effort to shut the detention facility."

Well, I did tell you so.

I dont think they should release anyone...but niether should anyone be held without trial.

Try them under Civil Law. Reasonable doubt.

All the world wants is for them to be charged with terrorism rather then held with no trial. It only takes one Judge to sit at a table and be given the circumstances of their capture, and a theory as to what they were doing. You could easily charge one inmate per hour, within a week, they would all be held on terroristic charges...and then noone in their right mind would care what you did to them.

Its just shoddy that the Americans cant provide a legal judge to rule on a few open and shut cases. Lets face it...if they get caught, then what other then being a terrorist were they actually doing there????

But you DO have to make a formal charge, or else you arent taking prisoners of war, you are holding people hostage. its a mere formality that the US is WELL capable of tackling.

Dethbob
12-12-2010, 07:49 PM
Iím not sure I understand where people are finding the requirement that prisoners of war need to be charged with a crime. In WWII a hundred thousand would be captured in a single battle, are you saying they should all have been charged with...what, trespassing? Disposing of ammunition without a permit? Just because cops and soldiers both have guns doesnít mean they are the same thing, and just because terrorists are also criminals doesnít mean we owe them a lawyer.

...Try them under Civil Law. Reasonable doubt... It only takes one Judge ...

That is not even close to how it works.

NateR
12-12-2010, 08:12 PM
Due process only applies to citizens, not foreign invaders or enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Tyburn
12-12-2010, 08:20 PM
1)Iím not sure I understand where people are finding the requirement that prisoners of war need to be charged with a crime. In WWII a hundred thousand would be captured in a single battle, are you saying they should all have been charged with...what,

2) trespassing? Disposing of ammunition without a permit? Just because cops and soldiers both have guns doesnít mean they are the same thing,

3) and just because terrorists are also criminals doesnít mean we owe them a lawyer.



That is not even close to how it works.

1) because this is not natural warfare, there needs to be some provision from the state that they are not just locking up people they dont like. You understand how that could lead to corruption.

2) If they were captured on foreign soil I would charge them with attempted terrorism against The United States, if they were captured on home soil I would charge them with Treason against the Federal Government. If they were Citizens I would charge them with Treason also. If I found them guilty of the first charge I would give them a life sentance, If I found them guilty of the second or third charge I would execute them by hanging.

3) Civil Law doesnt require a lawyer. I would not be charging them under criminal law, because that would take to long and involve exposing evidence which could lead to the deaths of others.

4) in a Civil Case, I believe you only need a Judge, or maybe A pannel. The Administration could effectively create their own judicial rules to govern this because its not really an area where formal rules govern well, or are applicable.

Can anyone explain to me how a Military Court Marshall works...I figure it would be more like that then a Judicial Court....maybe if I knew the procedures and rules governing a Military Court I could tell you if that is better suited then Civil. But certainly, it carries the weight of the whole judiciary without the lengthy shyte that goes with criminal procedures.

I remember the case of the guys at the Army Foundation College, it broke for its winter break, and several of the boys decided they wanted to drop out from the college and simply didnt turn up for School when term began the following year.

Do you know what the response of the Army Foundation College was?

:laugh: they issued warrents of arrest for both the guys AND their parents :laugh: of course these were dropped when the guys decided suddenly they wanted to resume their studies afterall.

You see, in a Military setting, you cant just decide you dont want to do something, you cant just decide you dont want to turn up...and if you do decide that, and dont do it...that is classed as being in violation of the Law.

Let us not forget, those who we capture SHOULD be classed and treated like enemy forces...not disgruntled citizens...but members of a militant movement. Could we not use that argument to force them to partake in a military trial rather then a civil or criminal one??

Tyburn
12-12-2010, 08:21 PM
Due process only applies to citizens, not foreign invaders or enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Trials apply to all human beings. Holding someone without trial is hostage taking.

Though I aggree...I dont think "Due Process" in terms of normal legal procedings need to be adhered to...I think there are other processes as I have listed above.

Neezar
12-13-2010, 10:54 AM
Iím not sure I understand where people are finding the requirement that prisoners of war need to be charged with a crime. In WWII a hundred thousand would be captured in a single battle, are you saying they should all have been charged with...what, trespassing? Disposing of ammunition without a permit? Just because cops and soldiers both have guns doesnít mean they are the same thing, and just because terrorists are also criminals doesnít mean we owe them a lawyer.



Thank you.

County Mike
12-13-2010, 12:12 PM
1) because this is not natural warfare

Define "natural warfare".

Tyburn
12-13-2010, 12:47 PM
Define "natural warfare".

Trench Warfare, or battlefield warfare, or gorrilla warfare...Terrorism is like an evolution of the latter, whilst Nuclear warfare is the evolution of the former. Battlefield Warfare still exists.

County Mike
12-13-2010, 01:14 PM
Trench Warfare, or battlefield warfare, or gorrilla warfare...Terrorism is like an evolution of the latter, whilst Nuclear warfare is the evolution of the former. Battlefield Warfare still exists.

What makes those more natural than any other?

I knew what you meant. Just teasing you a little about the choice of the word "natural".

Tyburn
12-13-2010, 01:33 PM
What makes those more natural than any other?

I knew what you meant. Just teasing you a little about the choice of the word "natural".

they havent changed since the start of human civilization. They are Traditional, Standard, Normal, and one can easily deal with them

But defining a Terrorist is hard enough, let alone treating one...without legal guidelines of how to define a terrorist...what is stopping ANY State basically using Terrorism as an excuse to throw those problem people into a pit and forget about them?

You realize that the United States would consider Wikileaks a Terrorist Network, because it is leaking important, and secret information to the public, and it found that information by breaking in electronically and stealing. They also consider the guy who is seriously autistic, and broke into NASA looking for green men...they consider him a terrorist to.

How long before posting a decenting view on a monitored forum, means you get flagged??

So you cant keep people without trail on ANY account, because everything must be legitamized to avoid the State becoming a monster and locking anyone up, for any reason without a trial.

Its easy if you arrest someone on a battlefield, or in a trench, you dont need to charge them because of the location where you found them...but the same cant be said for Terrorists who could be anywhere, and could seem harmless.

Do you follow? If the American Government can keep ANYONE under lock and key without trial...what is to stop them doing it to ANYONE ELSE?

Even Adolf Hitler set up a Court to try people for things he considered Crimes...it was the biggest pharse of the Century...but he did it. You can dissagree with the crimes and the punishments...but they didnt just dissapear into a black hole. They were brought to trial and charged...it was a mere formality, it was a pharse, it wasnt justice...BUT it did attempt to show something judicial.

I am confident the people in Guantanamo belong there...all they need is a little bit of formality to preserve the legality of it...But this Confidence I place in the US...doesnt extend to all countries...I dont extend it to The Peoples Republic of China...or most of Sub Saharan Africa....but the United States has too much to looose to be using Guantanamo as an excuse, they are too open and to scrutinized to get away with anything naughty like throwing citizens they dont like in there and hoping noone will notice. So I say, fair enough, if they can come up with a legal trial, of their own making that can produce a few sentances of viewable information on conviction...I say let them keep Guantanamo and do whatever they like to the inmmates.

(once a criminal by trial you looose your rights, because they are given to you by the law you just broke)

NateR
12-13-2010, 01:36 PM
Trials apply to all human beings. Holding someone without trial is hostage taking.

Though I aggree...I dont think "Due Process" in terms of normal legal procedings need to be adhered to...I think there are other processes as I have listed above.

I disagree. These guys are prisoners of war, not mere criminals. Nothing that we are doing is inconsistent with the way ANY nation treats their prisoners of war. Although our POWs are treated much more humanely than they would be treated by their own government.

Tyburn
12-13-2010, 01:44 PM
I disagree. These guys are prisoners of war, not mere criminals. Nothing that we are doing is inconsistent with the way ANY nation treats their prisoners of war. Although our POWs are treated much more humanely than they would be treated by their own government.

Who defines them as Prisoners of War?? Your Government, which by your own admission you say is out to destroy your freedom given half the chance.

What happens when your Government considers itself at war with you?

Without a Trial, without a Charge....tell me Nathan...what is stopping them from calling anyone they dont like a Terrorist, and therefore a prisoner of war!

and FYI outside of those countries that do not accept Human Rights...the United States is THE ONLY Western Country to keep people locked up without charge or trial INDEFINATLEY

The rest of the world puts them on trial...thats why, to a Non American, Guantanamo is such a big deal. The other countries that do that are in sub saharan africa, and the Orient! we do not approve! We do NOT treat our Prisoner of War like that!

Dethbob
12-13-2010, 02:16 PM
You do not have a cohesive point. Doing what Hitler did and scraping a thin veneer of legality over the face of what we are doing would make our freedoms LESS secure, not more. Establishing a kangaroo court is a horrible idea, and dealing with these people in any other court system is just not practical.

Tyburn
12-13-2010, 02:39 PM
You do not have a cohesive point. Doing what Hitler did and scraping a thin veneer of legality over the face of what we are doing would make our freedoms LESS secure, not more. Establishing a kangaroo court is a horrible idea, and dealing with these people in any other court system is just not practical.

Well you cant just pretend they dont exist.

I strongly suggest you create a court system that IS practical, or find someway of justifying it in a legal manner.

Ive already suggested Civil Court...which WOULD work...and I'm still waiting on anyone who can explain whether a Military Court would work.

I think those a very "cohesive" actually

Dethbob
12-13-2010, 03:17 PM
The current system does not pretend any such thing, and holding POWs in a time of war is perfectly legal.

If creating a court system is so easy, I suggest you get started right away!

Civil courts do not have the authority to confine anyone; the worst they could do is levy a fine or issue a restraining order.

Courts martial do not have the authority to try anyone who is not in the military.

You are arguing that we should stop doing this shady thing and do some other shady thing instead, not a cohesive argument.

flo
12-13-2010, 04:13 PM
I'm glad they saw the folly in closing Gitmo. As the article says, the 25% recidivism rate (which they acknowledge is likely higher) and the outcome of the Ghilani trial should convince even the hardliners on the left that Rumsfeld was right in his description of Guantanamo as the "best least worse place" to detain these people. Actually, I think it's the ideal place.

This just proves that these terrorists should NOT be tried civilly. I hope Obama and his DoJ have seen the error of their policies concerning detention and trial for these people.

flo
12-13-2010, 04:14 PM
Good points, Dethbob, and thanks for posting the article.

Dethbob
12-13-2010, 04:50 PM
Thanks! And thanks for the UFC 124 spoilers, really first rate!

Tyburn
12-13-2010, 04:59 PM
Courts martial do not have the authority to try anyone who is not in the military.

You are arguing that we should stop doing this shady thing and do some other shady thing instead, not a cohesive argument.

Try them as Military Combatants...for that is what they are.

Is that Cohesive enough for you?

You claim you are in a time of war? who are you at war with? which country? which Military? Your Government cant even DEFINE what Terrorism is!!

You must realize that this is most odd what you guys are doing...going to war...with what? an Ideology???

Contrary to popular opinion, there was actually Terrorism before 9/11 and you will never live in a world without the threat of Terrorism, we never have, we never shall be, because at heart its not a war against anyone in particular, and yet every single person has the potential to carry out a threat.

....and what is Terrorism? Someone who stands up to authority? someone who stands up for what they believe in? someone who hacks a computer because they are mentally unstable? someone who hacks a computer to publish dirty laundry and embariss a Government? Do they have to actually committ Terror and kill anyone to dissapear into this black hole of yours? is planning enough...is inciting others to do it enough, is being in possession of articals that could be used for it enough...is the mere suggestion enough?

See the problem is it totally depends on the Government making the decisions...and you Americans have spent your entire history saying that Governments are a required Evil, and worrying, and planning for the day when they will come get you and take your guns away...Your going to let them have the power to throw anyone they want into a black hole on this vauge notion of "terrorism".....you honnestly think that they wouldnt be tempted to do EXACTLY what other Tyrannies with the same system of justice in this respect do? Take advantage, and use this power as a force to rule over their citizens exactly how they like.

This sort of thing has HAPPENED in Europe! this sort of thing is HAPPENING in China right now!! of all the peoples who are afraid of their Governments, you really dont see what they could do if they decided to use Guantanamo to their political advantage to get rid of annoyances, or perceived threats.

Now I am NOT advocating the release of people at Guantanamo...but you CAN NOT hold people hostage, and that is EXACTLY what you are doing. The English Government is so disturbed by what you have done, that they are paying MILLIONS OF POUNDS to silence those released from Guantanamo that have ended up back here.

They are paying Criminals, because the rules of engagement were basically not followed. You do not lock someone up without a Trial, Period, there is no Descent Western Country that supports you on this, NOT ONE, and we have been attacked aswell.

I'll never get over the polar opposites that are in American Culture...you know, freedom of expression, but burn the Quran, Freedom and Liberty for all, but undefined Terrorists can dissapear into a black hole, Fear towards a government on the grounds of Socialism and the control of fire arms...but with life changing, and life threatening Justice, the Government can do what ever they like! Branding of a "war" whose premise has existed since time began, because it was the first time a successful attempt was launched against you, Fear of weapons of mass destruction, when the only country to use them on another is your very own, against Japan. Branding others that break international law as rogue states, but being perfectly fine with doing it yourself, whenever, and however you like.

I'm sorry to be inconvinient, but the rest of the world struggles to take you seriously when your whole attitude is "do as I say NOT do as I do" and what does it say about a Christian Nation when we are to judge another by the fruits it produces. This country preaches freedom the loudest, and is the only country in the whole of the west to lock someone up and subject them to GOD knows what without trial, without charge, indefinately.

Dont pretend you cant see the very "cohesive" points I am making here.

Dethbob
12-13-2010, 06:24 PM
You can’t just vomit a tangle of anti-American bigotry and expect anyone to think it is cohesive. I’ll bet money that you have never met a single individual who actually thinks terrorism didn’t exist before 9/11, but you call it ‘popular opinion’. You note that it is just as legal here to own a Koran as to burn one, and you claim that proves a lack of freedom.

The fact that you don’t understand something does not prove hypocrisy. You may also want to bear in mind that the existence of a conspiracy theory does not prove the existence of a conspiracy.

Tyburn
12-13-2010, 07:32 PM
You can’t just vomit a tangle of anti-American bigotry and expect anyone to think it is cohesive. I’ll bet money that you have never met a single individual who actually thinks terrorism didn’t exist before 9/11, but you call it ‘popular opinion’. You note that it is just as legal here to own a Koran as to burn one, and you claim that proves a lack of freedom.

The fact that you don’t understand something does not prove hypocrisy. You may also want to bear in mind that the existence of a conspiracy theory does not prove the existence of a conspiracy.

Charge then under a military court, if they are combatants of enemy forces, its not rocket science, and I made that point twice already.

You know what?

Forget it.

I am absolutely sick of people who refuse to admit the failings of their Nation. Who evidently are not corageous or honnest enough to be able to love a Nation for her imperfections as well as her Greatness.

I am absolutely sick of people calling me anti american. Simply because I tell a few uncomfortable home truthes.

So please. Continue in my absence. I shall be a party to this no longer, for you have caused me great offense

Dethbob
12-13-2010, 08:44 PM
Well, for my part I apologize if my tone seemed a bit uncharitable. I was not trying to hurt feelings, but to make what I think is an important point.

Tyburn
12-13-2010, 09:06 PM
Well, for my part I apologize if my tone seemed a bit uncharitable. I was not trying to hurt feelings, but to make what I think is an important point.

Its okay...I appologise to.

I have since talked to Nathan offside...and we came up with a perfect solution.

Okay, so you capture enemies on the battlefield, and you charge them as prisoners of war under terrorism...then you proclaim that the trials will take place.

When the war is over :ninja: I can live with that.


He also insinuated that its alright to give an evil government this power, because the Military would over throw the Government if it decided to use these powers against its own...and in the event of the military not doing that, he said, that I would soon discover in that scenario why the right to bear arms is so important for the civilian population. I think I understand what he means by that LOL