What to do with Guantanamo Bay?

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
I agree with the colorful Yoshi man on this.
Nordmann said:
Therefore, as Yoshiboy said, a trial would seem the most reasonable of solutions. But what if a dangerous individual walks free because of a liberal and weak minded court (a common problem these days), and promptly blows up a plane, what then? Who takes responsibility for that? It's happened in the past, murderers walk free and proceed to kill again. This is really the same problem that Britain faced with the IRA; many walked free when they should have been locked up for life, some even walked when the evidence of their crimes was without question, all because the government wanted to put a lid on the issue and secure peace. The question is, who ends up paying for that peace? The families of the victims caught in the bomb attacks? Is peace really worth letting mass murderers walk? Something to think on.
Click to expand...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216571&title=Guantanamo-Baywatch---The-Final-Season
  Pfft.  I don't think we have to worry too much about the U.S. granting clemency to people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
"What if liberals(gasp!) bunk the prosecution and let the murdering bad guy go free, and he blows up a plane immediately?  Who takes responsibility for that?"
  You'd have to be a pretty ****ty lawyer to lose a case against a terrorist who plotted the twin towers attacks, with an inexperienced American public defender (we freeze and seize terror suspects' assets, y'know, won't be able to raise Johnny Cochran from the dead or anything), and a jury full of pissed off American citizens.  I would have to believe that the defendant was innocent, if his defense is able to overcome those kind of odds.  That would be ****ing Herculean.
 
Easy solution really. Do the trials - those that are found guilty are imprisoned, those that are innocent are all gathered up in some sort of enclosure. Drop Bush and the whole administration along with them and let the innocent folks do whatever they want with the whole pack. After that they are free men. No way anyone of these people will turn into a terrorist after being given this wonderful gift.
 
Wasn't one of Obama's first acts as president to start reviewing the cases for the prisoners in Guantanamo?  I read that he'd already started, and any in there without reason were instantly released, and all the others are soon to go up for a fair trial.
 
sneakey pete said:
Merentha said:
Yoshiboy said:
You can't prosecute people before they commit a crime.
Click to expand...
Several of them did commit them, though, and those are the ones who should be tried.  The others actually can be tried, there's just no evidence that they did anything and so the case would be thrown out. 
Click to expand...
God forbid them walking free when there's not a single shred of evidence that they're guilty! Oh well, just delay the trial...
Click to expand...
What?  If the case was thrown out, they'd...walk free.  I'm not sure where that reaction came from. 
 
Betcha Gitmo will still be open, with detainees, end of Obama's administration.  Good chance.

Presently, he's got got conservative and liberal politicians that are against it... too many to just make a stroke of a pen. That's why the compromise 'study commitee' to buy six months of persuasion. Its funny that all of the sudden released detainees, who renounced violence, are popping up do more mischief.

No one at Gitmos wasn't caught doing something real naughty, or with real naughty things in their possession. Don't kid yourselves. Anyone who didn't meet the Gitmos standard were handed over to local security for their daily beatings, once a week cold water hosings, and all the maggotty food they can get.

Gitmo is paradise on eartch compared to, say, prison in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the like. Stupid americans. maw
 
maw said:
Its funny that all of the sudden released detainees, who renounced violence, are popping up do more mischief.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because it's not like none of the would become pissed off enough to take up arms against their former abductor.
 
Sure. Trees need fertiliser. It's the great circle of life. Just like Elton John sang in his song that played in the Lion King... "It's the circle of liiiife, and it moves us all... so nuke guantanamo baaaay.... the ciiiircle of liiiife".
 
"Every cop is a criminal, and every sinner a Saint."

Having a little more knowledge than most (here on the forums) on the way the US Military works, particularly when it comes to persuing, combatting, and detaining irregulars or as they're calling them now, 'enemy combatants'... I'll give the short answer: the worst of the worst are at Guantanamo, and there are no mistakes.

To answer Gcaulk - the detainees are not treated like that because they didn't commit civil crime. They are irregulars, and under Geneva, could've been shot out of hand. Because these particular ones had some sort of intel value, they've been brought to Gitmo, isolated, and systematically broken mentally and emotionally for intelligence gains. When they are released, they will always have a certain measure of distrust by their fellow Jihadis - did they rat out their buddies for a release, or are they now providing information to the infidel Americans?

What evidence, beyond finding them installing roadside bombs, secured in a snatch-and-grab with explosives, information about how to attack US or friendlies, or with lists of contacts or financial transactions, found wounded after an ambush, or the like. Mostly, though, having some sort of connection to a high value jihadi, or having been found with info that makes them some kind of senior or courier in the whole jihadi thing.

The Gitmo detainees weren't just picking flowers and playing with butterflies when they were snagged. They earned what they got.

And, no Zaro - they were already taking up arms before they were detained, not abducted.

Easy to criticise when you dislike US influence, and happen to have zero knowledge on how things work, other than, say, what you hear from Move-on or anti-war types.

We don't have them at Gitmo because we're nice. It's because they have some kind of knowledge that damages the bad guys; when they cease to have value, or don't cooperate, they'll get released or, if what they did was really bad, get thrown to a tribunal. Hopefully getting what they want: paradise.

I doubt either of you two are qualified, or knowledgeable enough, to really understand the depth of those comments you made. Or the absolute neccessity of a place like Gitmo that holds a fighter who is not responsible to a national entity. maw
 
I'll bite:

And, no Zaro - they were already taking up arms before they were detained, not abducted.
Click to expand...

We don't know the full details, but the fact of the matter is that they were illegally detained.

Easy to criticise when you dislike US influence, and happen to have zero knowledge on how things work, other than, say, what you hear from Move-on or anti-war types.
Click to expand...

I think for myself thanks, and while I may not know how everything works (in reality, none of us do), I am sensible enough to try and be objective rather than spout baised dribble.

We don't have them at Gitmo because we're nice.
Click to expand...

No, you have them there because you have no regard for international law, and that is not winning you friends. Gitmo may be a small military victory, but it is a political disaster.

I'll give the short answer: the worst of the worst are at Guantanamo
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is suggesting that they're choir boys, so please leave your arrogance at the door next time you come in. What people dislike is that Guantanamo shows absolutely no regard for international or domestic law or international sentiment. If laws are disregarded and respect isn't given to your community, society falls apart, and this is something that the vast majority of people do not want.

To answer Gcaulk - the detainees are not treated like that because they didn't commit civil crime. They are irregulars, and under Geneva, could've been shot out of hand.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. This is only debated in the US, by those who obviously have an agenda (defending their actions).



 
maw said:
"Every cop is a criminal, and every sinner a Saint."

Having a little more knowledge than most (here on the forums) on the way the US Military works, particularly when it comes to persuing, combatting, and detaining irregulars or as they're calling them now, 'enemy combatants'... I'll give the short answer: the worst of the worst are at Guantanamo, and there are no mistakes.

To answer Gcaulk - the detainees are not treated like that because they didn't commit civil crime. They are irregulars, and under Geneva, could've been shot out of hand. Because these particular ones had some sort of intel value, they've been brought to Gitmo, isolated, and systematically broken mentally and emotionally for intelligence gains. When they are released, they will always have a certain measure of distrust by their fellow Jihadis - did they rat out their buddies for a release, or are they now providing information to the infidel Americans?

What evidence, beyond finding them installing roadside bombs, secured in a snatch-and-grab with explosives, information about how to attack US or friendlies, or with lists of contacts or financial transactions, found wounded after an ambush, or the like. Mostly, though, having some sort of connection to a high value jihadi, or having been found with info that makes them some kind of senior or courier in the whole jihadi thing.

The Gitmo detainees weren't just picking flowers and playing with butterflies when they were snagged. They earned what they got.

And, no Zaro - they were already taking up arms before they were detained, not abducted.

Easy to criticise when you dislike US influence, and happen to have zero knowledge on how things work, other than, say, what you hear from Move-on or anti-war types.

We don't have them at Gitmo because we're nice. It's because they have some kind of knowledge that damages the bad guys; when they cease to have value, or don't cooperate, they'll get released or, if what they did was really bad, get thrown to a tribunal. Hopefully getting what they want: paradise.

I doubt either of you two are qualified, or knowledgeable enough, to really understand the depth of those comments you made. Or the absolute neccessity of a place like Gitmo that holds a fighter who is not responsible to a national entity. maw
Click to expand...

Thank God somebody here has some sense.  There are no detainees in Gitmo who don't richly deserve to be there.  These people were apprehended either actively performing terrorist activities, or because they already had and would again.  Also, Bush wanted to get rid of a bunch of them, but could not, because if they are returned to their home countries (like Egypt for example, or Pakistan) they WILL get tortured.  Also, a lot of their countries did not want them back.  Additionally, a rather large percentage of the ones already released have gone right back to their happy terrorist ways.  Putting the detainees in a regular American slammer would not work, unless they were confined in solitary because the other prisoners would kill them.  In fact, that is a rather tidy solution to the problem.  Wait until they get loose and some of you bleeding hearts are on a plane or in a building one of them blows up!
 
Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar said:
Thank God somebody here has some sense.  There are no detainees in Gitmo who don't richly deserve to be there.  These people were apprehended either actively performing terrorist activities, or because they already had and would again.  Also, Bush wanted to get rid of a bunch of them, but could not, because if they are returned to their home countries (like Egypt for example, or Pakistan) they WILL get tortured.  Also, a lot of their countries did not want them back.  Additionally, a rather large percentage of the ones already released have gone right back to their happy terrorist ways.  Putting the detainees in a regular American slammer would not work, unless they were confined in solitary because the other prisoners would kill them.  In fact, that is a rather tidy solution to the problem.  Wait until they get loose and some of you bleeding hearts are on a plane or in a building one of them blows up!
Click to expand...

You are a horrible human being.

Well, not really. I'm just giving you the same response I got when I advocated bringing about the timely demise of criminals.

 
Pharaoh Llandy said:
You are a horrible human being.

Well, not really. I'm just giving you the same response I got when I advocated bringing about the timely demise of criminals.
Click to expand...

That's all right.  I'd rather be apostrophised as a horrible human being, than murdered by one.  Cheers to you Llandy.
 
That's what I say, too.

Back to the topic: It's clear to me what needs to be done. The people in Guatanamo Bay must be shipped off to live the rest of their lives in a small hut in the antarctic. Every month a helicopter will fly over and drop off supplies, which will include enough warm clothing and food/fuel provisions to last them until the next month, but not enough to allow them to make any sort of attempt at escape. Or any bombs.

Then the former prison should be bulldozed, and a grove of beautiful trees planted in its place.
 
Zaro said:
I'll bite:

And, no Zaro - they were already taking up arms before they were detained, not abducted.
Click to expand...

We don't know the full details, but the fact of the matter is that they were illegally detained..
Click to expand...


Ok. You bit. Describe 'illegally detained'.

Zaro said:
Easy to criticise when you dislike US influence, and happen to have zero knowledge on how things work, other than, say, what you hear from Move-on or anti-war types.
Click to expand...

I think for myself thanks, and while I may not know how everything works (in reality, none of us do), I am sensible enough to try and be objective rather than spout baised dribble..
Click to expand...

While I wouldn't debase you statement as dribble, I would qualify it as lacking in substance, as well as having no foundation it what actually occurred, and how it came to be. I could explain it... but really. You don't want me to. It would, however, be a lot better for you to take a long look at it yourself - examining how the detainees were selected, what they did, what the alternatives were, what protections they actually DON'T have under the Geneva Convention, and why the US is handling them in that manner.

Zaro said:
We don't have them at Gitmo because we're nice.
Click to expand...

No, you have them there because you have no regard for international law, and that is not winning you friends. Gitmo may be a small military victory, but it is a political disaster.
Click to expand...

Nope. If anything, our diregard for international law was ignored - since it allowed for a military to kill non-uniformed combatants out of hand, in process or after capture. Being the nice guys we are - we gave them a chance to make up for it. read up on international law and the Geneva Conventions, first, before we start discussing handling non-uniformed combatants, and why.

Zaro said:
I'll give the short answer: the worst of the worst are at Guantanamo
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is suggesting that they're choir boys, so please leave your arrogance at the door next time you come in. What people dislike is that Guantanamo shows absolutely no regard for international or domestic law or international sentiment. If laws are disregarded and respect isn't given to your community, society falls apart, and this is something that the vast majority of people do not want.
Click to expand...

Ah. My arrogance. Accuracy sounds that way, when put sarcastically. Yet, you are suggesting that these detainees be handled - how? Like common criminals? Like a Mugger or Armed Robber of a liquor store? Livke a repeat drunk driver? It is the arrogance of liberalism to not hold an individual accountable for thier actions. And, suprise - no laws as yet have been shown to be broken or disregarded - I think we need to show that in a court of law, first. Which... umm... hasn't and probably won't happen.

Zaro said:
To answer Gcaulk - the detainees are not treated like that because they didn't commit civil crime. They are irregulars, and under Geneva, could've been shot out of hand.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. This is only debated in the US, by those who obviously have an agenda (defending their actions).
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The Geneva Convention defines status of combatants and non-combatants. They didn't commit a civil crime. See? I do have a source, one I didn't create, or from a whacko conservative site. Hate that?

So, in a nutshell, Zaro - I know you're a great guy. But, in this case, you've bit - into the lie mostly put out by those with an anti-US, or anti-war position used to demeans any and all actions by the US. Not everything was done perfect all the time, but the general purpose of Gitmo and the handling of the violent ones there is both legal and justified - to everyone that realizes what they are. maw
 
examining how the detainees were selected, what they did, what the alternatives were, what protections they actually DON'T have under the Geneva Convention, and why the US is handling them in that manner.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that it may not have been the best solution at the time, I'm simply saying that it violated international law. You suggest that it was in fact legal, but then why the constant legal battle ever since? At various stages there have been rulings for and against. The classification of the inmates is all very convenient in an attempt to skip around the US constitution and international law. Obviously it is because the government feels the best solution is to just let them rot.

Ah. My arrogance. Accuracy sounds that way, when put sarcastically.
Click to expand...

Arrogance in the way that you suggest we think they're completely innocent, when most of us would acknowledge that there's a good chance that many of them are quite dangerous. I have no idea how guilty any of them are, and neither does anyone else since the US military won't release the details. They could have been caught red-handed, or perhaps they were just suspected and detained on a whim. Who knows?

but the general purpose of Gitmo and the handling of the violent ones there is both legal and justified
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing whether it is justified or not (as I said, I have no idea what these guys have done or planned to do), but it certainly isn't legal with clarity. I'll admit I haven't read up on in great detail, but the process has been dodgy at best. At the very least, it's the government exploiting a loophole due to unexpected classifications and the definition of a war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How do i weaken my own kingdom
Replies
5
Views
323
Broetchenholer
SP - Battles & Sieges Interactive combat menu of commands (the ability to select commands with the cursor (mouse)).
Replies
2
Views
169
fedeita
fedeita
In Progress Game stuck in after battle screen due to quest dialog conflict
Replies
2
Views
154
MArdA TaleWorlds
MArdA TaleWorlds
Back
Top Bottom