What to do with Guantanamo Bay?
- 主题发起人 13 Spider Bloody Chain
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Ancientwanker
Master Knight
I cant rate the intelligence value of gitmo but as a strategy it's a failure. Better to have killed them on the spot. The high level targets arent held there anyway. ~750 guys go in, 3 convictions to date, hundreds released, a hundred more cleared for release. The Bush administration estimated ~50 trials might come from the group.
End result: ~700 dudes back on the street. A machine gun could have sorted it all out before they even came into official US custody.
End result: ~700 dudes back on the street. A machine gun could have sorted it all out before they even came into official US custody.
Eluqqa
Sergeant Knight
So this is right because they only put the worst there and they are the worst because they are put there? There's no way to really tell without a fair trial. Yes, they do mistakes and they have already done so. What about those innocents who have been released (some of which had been there for a rather long time), and those who are inevitably still there? There's little chance to get out if you can't get a trial.
If they aren't giving them the right to fair trial, they're breaking (well, getting around rather) only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Sixth Amendment. Yeah, totally legal and justified. Everyone is equal but some are less equal than others.
If they aren't giving them the right to fair trial, they're breaking (well, getting around rather) only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Sixth Amendment. Yeah, totally legal and justified. Everyone is equal but some are less equal than others.
''Gitmo' originates, according to what i was told by a navy guy I worked with, from the short form of GTMO, a four leader lead for report headers, navy style. Dunno how correct it is - but it started with Navy and Marines.
Zaro - I want to know how Gitmos, and the detention of unlawful combatants, violates international law, or Geneva Conventions. easy enough research - I looked again, and haven't found it. Chapter and verse; with all the anit-Gitmos types, someone has got to have already got it together.
"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."
Yet you post as if some of them, any of them, could be innocent.
How about - none. They all were caught dong very, very bad things. It is not your venue, or authority, to determine what information is released - it is the US Military, whose authority encompassed the area and whose troops were targeted. US Military is probably very sorry it does not have to comply. Thanks for your interest.
You post it is not legal with clarity, but it is only unclear to those who wish to make it unclear - the left, and enablers of terrorism, and those who are so antiwar they wish to take an opportunity to put the US, or the military, on in an artificial postion of 'illegality'.
Show me how it has been in violation of the law, or illegal. I don't believe it's gonna happen. Just repeating it over and over isn't going to make it true.
***
Some didn't read what I posted - Not all of those at Gitmo will be tried, and not all those tried will be convicted. But they've all in some way, shape or form either provided intelligence or created a vacuum that caused others to provide intelligence that has destabilized terror groups. No, you don't want to kill a golden goose, or a flock of 750 golden geese - until they stop dropping valuable eggs.
Fair trial? A fair trial would put them to death. A fair trial requires a military trial, which, if it did what it was supposed to, would have the non-uniformed combatants to be executed - under the law. Why isn't it being done? As I explained.
A big chess game, and you're criticizing it using the rules of checkers. maw
Zaro - I want to know how Gitmos, and the detention of unlawful combatants, violates international law, or Geneva Conventions. easy enough research - I looked again, and haven't found it. Chapter and verse; with all the anit-Gitmos types, someone has got to have already got it together.
"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."
Yet you post as if some of them, any of them, could be innocent.
How about - none. They all were caught dong very, very bad things. It is not your venue, or authority, to determine what information is released - it is the US Military, whose authority encompassed the area and whose troops were targeted. US Military is probably very sorry it does not have to comply. Thanks for your interest.
You post it is not legal with clarity, but it is only unclear to those who wish to make it unclear - the left, and enablers of terrorism, and those who are so antiwar they wish to take an opportunity to put the US, or the military, on in an artificial postion of 'illegality'.
Show me how it has been in violation of the law, or illegal. I don't believe it's gonna happen. Just repeating it over and over isn't going to make it true.
***
Some didn't read what I posted - Not all of those at Gitmo will be tried, and not all those tried will be convicted. But they've all in some way, shape or form either provided intelligence or created a vacuum that caused others to provide intelligence that has destabilized terror groups. No, you don't want to kill a golden goose, or a flock of 750 golden geese - until they stop dropping valuable eggs.
Fair trial? A fair trial would put them to death. A fair trial requires a military trial, which, if it did what it was supposed to, would have the non-uniformed combatants to be executed - under the law. Why isn't it being done? As I explained.
A big chess game, and you're criticizing it using the rules of checkers. maw
Sir Timothi
It is my understanding that the detainees aren't told what they are imprisoned for, or what they are charged with. That right there is violation of International Law.
Sir Timothi
Maybe I'll quote mine once you quote yours.
Pharaoh Llandy 说:
Or tell them to farm the land?
Problem is, Tim - I can't quote what doesn't exist.
I can state that what is being done in detentions, and handling of detainees, is not in violation of any international law, or in violation of any geneva Conventions.
So unless I'm missing something - I once again welcome some of the legal scholars point it out to me.
I'm stating, right now, it ain't there. maw
I can state that what is being done in detentions, and handling of detainees, is not in violation of any international law, or in violation of any geneva Conventions.
So unless I'm missing something - I once again welcome some of the legal scholars point it out to me.
I'm stating, right now, it ain't there. maw
Lt. of the tower
Pharaoh Llandy 说:
Funny, I was very tempted to say something along the same lines. Now I will just say give it to the orcs.
Sorry, maw, but that really isn't the point.
You can't have anyone - especially a major power like the US - abandoning important safeguards. Like fair trials before punishment.
Whether they're all obviously guilty or not is immaterial.
You can't have anyone - especially a major power like the US - abandoning important safeguards. Like fair trials before punishment.
Whether they're all obviously guilty or not is immaterial.
Sir Saladin
Count
Dryvus 说:
Gitmo sounds cute and cuddly, the Republicans renamed everything with the fourth estate playing along for the past eight years. Mercenaries are now contractors, rebels shall be called insurgents because even though the two words mean the same thing average Wal Mart shoppers don't know what the word insurgent means. This is nothing new, before the Great Depression they used to call an economic downturn a panic but then some spin doctor thought that the word caused too much panic so they changed it to depression now we call it a recession. Bombing the **** out of everyone for laughs becomes "surgical strike." The first time I read that a few contractors were captured and killed in Iraq I was wondering why those Iraqi's were getting so hard against a bunch of building painters or brick masons.
OK Papa - who has had an unfair trial? What important safeguards? If anything, the detainees have been treated more than fair, and are fed better with better medical, etc than fair portion of US citizens.
Zaro, you made some claims about illegalities conducted in relation to detainees. I'd like to see why you think that, and under what lawful guidelines were violated. UN and Geneva seem to be the standard. Surely you have some basis for the statements you've made?
Can you point out the myriad investigations, presumably ongoing in the Hague, for all these crimes?
My comparison to chess and checkers, well - I thought it was clear. Maybe this hits better:
Handling a terrorist in your custody is a lot different than a criminal. If the terrorist has more information on other terrorists, or knowledge in habits or training, or ways of passing around money, or moving from nation to nation, or names of other supporters or leaders - you want that info, more than you want Achmed or Jamal to be pushing up daisies.
More so, the Geneva Convention specifically designates much of the actions conducted by these terrorists as 'war crimes' in that practitioners are not beholden to a nation that can take responsibility, a nation that can hold them responsible for criminal acts, a nation with which you can negotiate a cessation of hostilities. Essentially, these 'detainees' are by any definition, war criminals, and fall under the singular authority of the military affronted power - in this case, the United States. Chapter and verse of the Geneva Convention indicates punishment up to death, and may or may not require a trial. 'caught in the act' allows punishment, up to execution.
But the left just hates that, and tries to obfuscate and twist things around - either because of an anti-military/anti-war position, or anti-american position. If we applied, today, the actual GC and allowances under International Law, the United States would be fully within their rights to hang or put to a firing squad, tomorrow, all the detainees based on military reports, after review by a senior officer - without an obligation of a trial. Might piss off the anti-death penalty types, and might cause future Jihadis to fight harder - not wanting to be taken alive.
The US, however, has decided to extend certain privileges, not rights, to the detainees - allowing them to put-out-to-get-out, as well as to attempt to convert them to offering information freely, or offering information under duress. Catch the main purpose? Keep the bad guys alive in order to get information, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the bad guys at large.
So all the foolish criticism comes from uninformed, biased, and unknowledgable sources - quote the law describing illegal detentions relating to Gitmo, point out the unlawfully conducted trials, and why, and then you can have a discussion of substance.
Just repeating over and over that 'its illegal! its illegal!' without explaining how makes a person sound silly. maw
Zaro, you made some claims about illegalities conducted in relation to detainees. I'd like to see why you think that, and under what lawful guidelines were violated. UN and Geneva seem to be the standard. Surely you have some basis for the statements you've made?
Can you point out the myriad investigations, presumably ongoing in the Hague, for all these crimes?
My comparison to chess and checkers, well - I thought it was clear. Maybe this hits better:
Handling a terrorist in your custody is a lot different than a criminal. If the terrorist has more information on other terrorists, or knowledge in habits or training, or ways of passing around money, or moving from nation to nation, or names of other supporters or leaders - you want that info, more than you want Achmed or Jamal to be pushing up daisies.
More so, the Geneva Convention specifically designates much of the actions conducted by these terrorists as 'war crimes' in that practitioners are not beholden to a nation that can take responsibility, a nation that can hold them responsible for criminal acts, a nation with which you can negotiate a cessation of hostilities. Essentially, these 'detainees' are by any definition, war criminals, and fall under the singular authority of the military affronted power - in this case, the United States. Chapter and verse of the Geneva Convention indicates punishment up to death, and may or may not require a trial. 'caught in the act' allows punishment, up to execution.
But the left just hates that, and tries to obfuscate and twist things around - either because of an anti-military/anti-war position, or anti-american position. If we applied, today, the actual GC and allowances under International Law, the United States would be fully within their rights to hang or put to a firing squad, tomorrow, all the detainees based on military reports, after review by a senior officer - without an obligation of a trial. Might piss off the anti-death penalty types, and might cause future Jihadis to fight harder - not wanting to be taken alive.
The US, however, has decided to extend certain privileges, not rights, to the detainees - allowing them to put-out-to-get-out, as well as to attempt to convert them to offering information freely, or offering information under duress. Catch the main purpose? Keep the bad guys alive in order to get information, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the bad guys at large.
So all the foolish criticism comes from uninformed, biased, and unknowledgable sources - quote the law describing illegal detentions relating to Gitmo, point out the unlawfully conducted trials, and why, and then you can have a discussion of substance.
Just repeating over and over that 'its illegal! its illegal!' without explaining how makes a person sound silly. maw
Well I'm fairly ignorant, but I know of one David Hicks (Australian) who was held there for some years without trial and I believe without charge. If that's the only case I'd be amazed.maw 说:
Edit:
From wikipedia,
"On September 6, 2006, President George W. Bush announced that enemy combatants held by the CIA will be transferred to the custody of Department of Defense, and held at Guantánamo Prison. Among approximately 500 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, only 10 have been tried by the Guantanamo military commission, but all cases have been stayed pending the adjustments being made to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld."
Like, giving people a trial before punishing them. Punishment including things like long-term detention. You can't just throw away the rules because "you're right", even if you are. To do so is to miss the point of such safeguards.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Especially when one of them - Gitmo - is highly publicised, overt policy rather than negligence.
I'm concerned about the wider effects of a prominent country like the US pulling this sort of crap. Invading Iraq without a well thought-out rationale and without objective measures for success is another example of the kind of crap a major power and rolemodel shouldn't be pulling. We can't have the US giving this sort of thing its OK.
Afterthought:
I don't actually care if it's illegal or not. I don't care about precedent for its own sake. I care if it's good policy.
Also, I don't think there's much point arguing against "the left" or some other generalised group. Treat with individuals in a debate, groups in a campaign.
PurplePuppy
Sergeant
Alright, maw, every single person in Guantanamo Bay is guilty, and needs to be killed immediately. How dare someone take up arms against a larger country.
Oh darn, myterrorismrevolutionary war aches are acting up.
I wonder how many English Colonists were taken to a desolate place with no escape and left to die.
Let's find out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia
(Jk. I didn't even read that page. I don't care.)
Oh darn, my
I wonder how many English Colonists were taken to a desolate place with no escape and left to die.
Let's find out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia
(Jk. I didn't even read that page. I don't care.)
Sir Saladin
Count
They are not prisoners of war they are merely detainees being detained in Cuba, Cuba has 1957 Chevy's and GTO hot rods and root beer floats. Those bastards are in Heaven. In Guantanamo Bay a carton of Camel cigarettes is ten U.S. dollars.
You mean this David Hicks?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801019/
Who admitted he took al Queada training? Who was caught by US forces, gun in hand? Who not only pled guilty, but gave such fantastic evidence during his trial for a plea bargain, the US has allowed him to serve out his sentence in Australia?
Must have been another David Hicks. An innocent one, with the same name.
And hundreds have been charged, and have arranged to have their sentences commuted, or reduced, even released - as they provided good information on terrorist tactics, leaders, tricks, and the like. Four, I think to date, have been or in the process of, a military trial.
Where is the rule in combat you have no authority or international right to no indefinitely detain an enemy combatant? Seems you need to review the laws that govern war. To paraphrase, after the cessation of hostilities the nations participating must repatriate any prisoners of war. Lets review:
The 'detainees' are unlawful combatants, and may be both held indefinitely, as well as being war criminals, live and die at the hands of the offended party.
Second, there is no nation to end hostilities with.
Third, there is no nation with which to repatriate them to.
So, in this case, no rules are being tossed aside, except the ones that allow summary execution of irregulars not serving under the obligations of a nation - which is why the 'detainees' are acting criminally, and are war criminals. If anything, the US is not obeying the parts of international law that allow the extreme punishment - of execution after military judicial review, which is indeed allowable for these non-uniformed criminal combatants.
The problem with the postion you seem to have taken is there are no safeguards that apply to illegal combatants, under the laws of war. They have no protections, except for generalized cruel and unusual punishment - of which indefinite detention is not one.
What wrongs? No one has yet established any wrongs. I mean, you personally may not like it, and believe it wrong - but the actions of the US regarding indefinite detention is within international law and Geneva convention.
It is good policy - it establishes that proxies cannot be used in conflict without protection of a responsible authority, or the proxies conducting the acts become criminals subject to rules other than those that would regard them as Prisoners of War.
And it is a generalized group. The majority of the critics are in fact Jihad enablers or supports, antiwar, anti-military, and/or anti-US types. There are some, a few that are not - but the overwhelming majority is how I have described.
Those who tend to be conservative, or supportive of the war, or that bother to understand the laws dealing with this issue have no problem with indefinite detention, particularly when the legal allowance is a hanging or firing squad.
Puppy - how does one nations really unrelated history compare to this discussion? You toss out a historical link - great. Back then, the winners determined what they could do with the losers, and this was considerably before an establishment of conflict law or Geneva Convention. I see no parallel - perhaps you can be more specific on how they relate?
To recap: irregular non-uniformed combatants are war criminals that have only general humanitarian rights, that don't supercede the Geneva Conventions, when being held or prosecuted for war crimes by the offended authority. Essentially, if you're gonna play that game, these are the rules, and this is how it ends if you're caught breaking them.
And I am soooo happy with that. maw
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801019/
Who admitted he took al Queada training? Who was caught by US forces, gun in hand? Who not only pled guilty, but gave such fantastic evidence during his trial for a plea bargain, the US has allowed him to serve out his sentence in Australia?
Must have been another David Hicks. An innocent one, with the same name.
And hundreds have been charged, and have arranged to have their sentences commuted, or reduced, even released - as they provided good information on terrorist tactics, leaders, tricks, and the like. Four, I think to date, have been or in the process of, a military trial.
Where is the rule in combat you have no authority or international right to no indefinitely detain an enemy combatant? Seems you need to review the laws that govern war. To paraphrase, after the cessation of hostilities the nations participating must repatriate any prisoners of war. Lets review:
The 'detainees' are unlawful combatants, and may be both held indefinitely, as well as being war criminals, live and die at the hands of the offended party.
Second, there is no nation to end hostilities with.
Third, there is no nation with which to repatriate them to.
So, in this case, no rules are being tossed aside, except the ones that allow summary execution of irregulars not serving under the obligations of a nation - which is why the 'detainees' are acting criminally, and are war criminals. If anything, the US is not obeying the parts of international law that allow the extreme punishment - of execution after military judicial review, which is indeed allowable for these non-uniformed criminal combatants.
The problem with the postion you seem to have taken is there are no safeguards that apply to illegal combatants, under the laws of war. They have no protections, except for generalized cruel and unusual punishment - of which indefinite detention is not one.
What wrongs? No one has yet established any wrongs. I mean, you personally may not like it, and believe it wrong - but the actions of the US regarding indefinite detention is within international law and Geneva convention.
It is good policy - it establishes that proxies cannot be used in conflict without protection of a responsible authority, or the proxies conducting the acts become criminals subject to rules other than those that would regard them as Prisoners of War.
And it is a generalized group. The majority of the critics are in fact Jihad enablers or supports, antiwar, anti-military, and/or anti-US types. There are some, a few that are not - but the overwhelming majority is how I have described.
Those who tend to be conservative, or supportive of the war, or that bother to understand the laws dealing with this issue have no problem with indefinite detention, particularly when the legal allowance is a hanging or firing squad.
Puppy - how does one nations really unrelated history compare to this discussion? You toss out a historical link - great. Back then, the winners determined what they could do with the losers, and this was considerably before an establishment of conflict law or Geneva Convention. I see no parallel - perhaps you can be more specific on how they relate?
To recap: irregular non-uniformed combatants are war criminals that have only general humanitarian rights, that don't supercede the Geneva Conventions, when being held or prosecuted for war crimes by the offended authority. Essentially, if you're gonna play that game, these are the rules, and this is how it ends if you're caught breaking them.
And I am soooo happy with that. maw
Sir Saladin
Count
I have established a few wrongs, Karl Rove draws blood while sucking cock but you ignore this.
