The baddest of the bad Gitmo style

[Tribesman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13184845
So to be very generous America thought 1 in 4 detainees worth throwing their nations standing into the cess pit of modern history were actualy possibly dangerous and 1 in 5 were known to be really innocent entirely but may have had some scraps of information about something pretty irrelevant on any level if they are tortured enough.

USAUSAUSA:rock:
What a sorry state the supporters of these measures have left their country in.
Good luck in the search for paying someone to get the innocent released or in ever getting any reasonable conviction of any of the guilty:nope:

[Onkel Neal]

Ignore.

[Tribesman]

Ignore.
Its US taxpayer that pick up the bill:yeah:

USAUSAUSA:rock:

This of course refers not to Americans but only those who rock with the USA chant in a my country right or wrong you are with us ior against us way instead of thinking.

[mookiemookie]

How many terrorists has the existence of Gitmo created vs how many has it stopped? And Tribesman brings up a good point - how much have we been paying to put lowly foot soldiers under maximum security conditions? This place is a stain on our national history.

[Tribesman]

how much have we been paying to put lowly foot soldiers under maximum security conditions?
Foot soldiers? at least there would be some sort of rationale there.
But there is the taxi driver sent there because ....well taxi drivers know what goes on in the area they drive round??????
The bloke who was a prisoner of the Taliban ....well he understands their interrogation proceedures??????

Pure wasteful madness.

[Growler]

The reality lies somewhere between these extremes, gentlemen.

Are there innocents in Gitmo? Perhaps. Are there guilty in Gitmo? Perhaps.

Replace "Gitmo" with the name of any other prison in any other country at any other time in history, and the statement still stands.

There are far greater forms of evil than Gitmo, and there are far greater forms of good than Gitmo.

Look to your own neighborhoods before casting aspersions at distant ones.

[mookiemookie]

The reality lies somewhere between these extremes, gentlemen.

Are there innocents in Gitmo? Perhaps. Are there guilty in Gitmo? Perhaps.

Replace "Gitmo" with the name of any other prison in any other country at any other time in history, and the statement still stands.

There are far greater forms of evil than Gitmo, and there are far greater forms of good than Gitmo.

Look to your own neighborhoods before casting aspersions at distant ones.

It's not the conditions of Gitmo that are the problem - it's not even the fact that innocent people have been rounded up. It's the fact that it's a symbol of the abdication of 800 years of judicial tradition. If you imprison someone with no trial proving their guilt, then that. is. wrong.

[Feuer Frei!]

Take it all with a shaker full of salt.
And to think that al-Qaida wanted to set off bombs concealed in your game cartridges once!

[tater]

How many POWs did we have during ww2? How many were "dangerous?"

How dangerous they are doesn't matter. They were grabbed as POWs, and as far as I'm concerned they should all be held until AQ unconditionally surrenders.

The total number detained in tiny compared to the number of people killed. The total number of innocents wrongly held at Gitmo is a vanishingly small % of the number of combatants, and the number of combatants and non-combatrants killed in the theaters of operations.

As I said in some other threads, the comparison needs to be made with how many would be dead if we used more "military" and less "police" tactics. Instead of grabbing people up, just kill threats (real, perceived, or wrongly accused by intel assets).

For example:
Potential target of value in that house compound over there. Send troops at grave personal risk to clear the house, using minimal force. 3 guys are grabbed up, of which we'll say NONE are guilty for argument. That's 3 guys who lose their liberty, which is bad. The compound, however, contained 4 men, 3 women, and 4 kids. 3/11 lose liberty, happily none were killed.

Alternate tactic. Potential target of value in compound. JDAM hits compound. 6 people killed, 3 wounded, 1 unharmed (other than his extended family all getting killed or maimed).

Which scenario is better?

[Growler]

If you imprison someone with no trial proving their guilt, then that. is. wrong.

That's obfuscation, mookie. Fact is, most nation imprison people before proving guilt. these folks in Gitmo are still alive - that's something others like them are no longer capable of saying, either through misidentification, accident, or genuine malice.

Justice is a perfect ideal imperfectly strived for.

[mookiemookie]

That's obfuscation, mookie. Fact is, most nation imprison people before proving guilt. Indefinitely? No? That's what I thought. these folks in Gitmo are still alive - that's something others like them are no longer capable of saying, either through misidentification, accident, or genuine malice.

"We're going to take away your rights but you're still alive" is a terrible argument.

[tater]

POWs are not given due process. Never have been—except after hostilities end, THEN, some might be tried for war crimes.

Saboteurs, etc, were sometimes tried during wartime, and sometimes executed (very quickly, in the case of the Germans captured in NY).

I think it's rather nice of us to even consider giving them due process before hostilities end. (if the combatants are AQ, then hold until AQ surrenders, if Taliban, then hold til that war is over, Iraqis could likely be repatriated soon (when US forces are gone), and only try those who we can charge with war crimes, etc).

It's a cliché, but this is indeed a different kind of conflict, and I think that the "rules" should be reevaluated. The GC as originally drawn up and understood, was an agreement between powers (and their clients) that was considered reciprocal. All the wording implies reciprocity, and testing for same (why define how combatants are supposed to appear/behave if there is no sanction for not appearing/behaving in that way? The implication is clearly "to be treated as defined in this document, then you must do X, Y, and Z" (else you won't be treated that way). It has since been considered largely unilateral. Regardless, it is designed for use with nations that have an interest in being part of a larger community of nations.

Non-state actors like AQ exist outside any limitation on behavior. Treating their combatants the same way as soldiers of nations is anachronistic, IMHO. "Rules" for combat need a carrot and a stick approach. The penalty for intentionally targeting civilians, or for murdering prisoners, etc, should be harsh. In WW2, the Allies largely followed the GC, and the rules of war, but vs combatants who were in clear violation (or who were not even signers, like the Empire of Japan), we violated those rules with our eyes wide open. The obvious example being area bombing. They started it and broke the rules, so that rule is now off the table. We largely treated prisoners very well, indeed, but there were many cases of summary execution in WW2, as well as shooting survivors in the water, etc (not just subs, I'm thinking about the Battle of the Bismark Sea).

I think for the modern world, terrorists should be considered, to use an old term, "outlaws."

Outlaws were "outside the protection of the law." Legally no longer people. Shoot an outlaw in the street, and you might get charged with "discharging a weapon within city limits," but nothing more. IMO, AQ absolutely deserve this treatment. Clearly US citizens would require some sort of due process to be made "outlaws," though this could happen in absentia, obviously (my passport says that citizenship can be revoked for joining a foreign military, I'd say going to any AQ camp should result in summary removal of citizenship, and outlaw status).

The carrot would be that if they changed their ways, and adopted uniforms, badges of rank, and ceased intentionally attacking civilians, etc, that they'd get treated as legal combatants, instead.

[Growler]

Indefinitely? No? That's what I thought. Pretty sure I never said that - again, obfuscation and distraction. Fact: We KNOW innocents have been held in prison for years - HERE (30 years) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40909822/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)- is an example. HERE (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml)(26 years) is another. HERE (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/133401716/flawed-autopsies-send-two-innocent-men-to-jail)(combined 30 years) a third. Four men, three cases, nearly ninety years in jail combined. Innocents go to jail all the time, and aren't always quickly exonerated. That's the facts of the system.

"We're going to take away your rights but you're still alive" is a terrible argument.

Being unjustly killed is better than being unjustly held? That's a stretch, amigo.

And with that, off to the dentist. I think I'd rather stay here and speak about this. :)

[tater]

Indefinitely? No? That's what I thought.


Not indefinitely, until hostilities are over. In the case of AQ, I'd say that we should require unconditional surrender from them.


"We're going to take away your rights but you're still alive" is a terrible argument.

No, it's a good argument. The alternative to grabbing up possible threats is to deal with them as targets. If every person grabbed up in Afghanistan had instead been killed by the least dangerous (for Allied forces) way, MANY more people would be dead, including many more innocents.

Loss of freedom for a few is a grossly lower "cost" than loss of life for even the same few, and certainly for the larger number it would be (bombs are not terribly discriminating).

Realistically, that is the choice. Many compounds have been bombed over the years, we hear about those far, far less than "Gitmo." if people are gonna keep whining about holding people, we should cease taking prisoners from combatants out of uniform. Think that is a house of bad guys? Bomb it. Thousands of Allied lives have been lost walking patrols, and entering houses to mitigate the danger to innocents. It would be interesting to look at how many Americans have died doing such duty compared to the number held in Gitmo as the result of such duty. Those guys lost everything to deny a few liberty so that innocents might live.

[mookiemookie]

Pretty sure I never said that - again, obfuscation and distraction. Fact: We KNOW innocents have been held in prison for years - HERE (30 years) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40909822/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)- is an example. HERE (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml)(26 years) is another. HERE (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/133401716/flawed-autopsies-send-two-innocent-men-to-jail)(combined 30 years) a third. Four men, three cases, nearly ninety years in jail combined. Innocents go to jail all the time, and aren't always quickly exonerated. That's the facts of the system. Sentencing an innocent to jail after a fair trial is not analogous to sentencing an innocent to jail with no trial.


Being unjustly killed is better than being unjustly held? That's a stretch, amigo.


How about we do neither?

[tater]

Sentencing an innocent to jail after a fair trial is not analogous to sentencing an innocent to jail with no trial.

POWs don't get trials until hostilities are over.


How about we do neither?

There is only one possible way to do this. Let all terrorists win. That's it. Or do you think that we can have Napoleonic battles where all combatants dress in bright colors, and line up away from civilians and fight like men? As long as the enemy intentionally blurs the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, as long as they hide among innocents, etc, ad nauseum, then engaging them ALWAYS will result in a % of innocents being killed. Always.

Every one of those deaths, and every innocent loss of liberty is not the fault of the US. It is the fault of the "terrorists" (I'm using that for these combatants who willfully violate rules of war designed to protect innocents). If you rob a bank, and a guy in the bathroom has a heart attack and dies during the robbery—completely unaware that said robbery is taking place—the robbers are now murderers. If the enemy (AQ, for example) wanted to reduce innocent deaths, they'd wear uniforms. Instead, innocent deaths help them because they can rely on the (unwitting, I hope) aid of people in the West willing to blame the wrong side.

That said, it's very progressive of us to treat them well, and make the effort at great cost to harm as few innocents as possible. Good for us.

[Tribesman]

Not indefinitely, until hostilities are over. In the case of AQ, I'd say that we should require unconditional surrender from them.


Yet due to the stupidity of the process that was started you have prisoners who are not Al-Qaida, who are not wanted for any crime by the people holding them in prison yet they still cannot be set free.
So that isn't just indefinate detention, it is indefinate detention for absolutely no purpose because from some dickwad in Washington deciding that it was better to apply a flawed logic like.....Loss of freedom for a few is a grossly lower "cost" than loss of life for even the same few ....than to actually think.

Tater, your approach seems to be "we could have done worse". Pointing out that something that was wrong could have been more wrong doesn't alter the fact that it is still wrong.

POWs don't get trials until hostilities are over.


Errrrrr....they can if they have commited a crime, those people who are rightly held are only accused of commiting crimes ain't they.

There is only one possible way to do this. Let all terrorists win.
That shows that you know you have no point but do not wish to admit it.

[Armistead]

Most accept many innocent players end up in prision, it only becomes a problem when it happens to them or someone they love.


Heck, american prisions are full of innocent people, just look at how many DNA has set free.

Everyone deserves a trial. I think these deserve a military court with congressional oversight from both parties.

Only problem, if I were locked up for years knowing I'm innocent, if I got out I might want payback. My guess is in years to come we'll be paying millions in reparations or creating more terrorist.

At least they get good healthcare, more than millions of US citizens can say.

[Platapus]

It's not the conditions of Gitmo that are the problem - it's not even the fact that innocent people have been rounded up. It's the fact that it's a symbol of the abdication of 800 years of judicial tradition. If you imprison someone with no trial proving their guilt, then that. is. wrong.

My thoughts exactly.

If there any guilty people at Gitmo, I want them punished and locked away. But to establish guilt, they need to be tried and the evidence presented and evaluated. That is the only way the detention at Gitmo can find any legitimacy. Otherwise it is a concentration camp for political prisoners. :nope:

[mookiemookie]

Otherwise it is a concentration camp for political prisoners. :nope:

Indeed. And when there are reports of people like the al Jazeera cameraman who was held for no other reason but to grill him about the network, then that proves it. And it's disgusting.

[Skybird]

Gitmo never had anything to do with law and order in Western understanding, it always was a populistic and opportunistic easy way of going like usually you see it being practised in rogue states. This bilance revealed now spells a condemning verdict.

Guilt must be proven, not just claimed and assumed. This is one of the most basic, most elemental, most fundamental, most essential principles of Western tradition of law and order. Unlimited imprisonment without court procedures or evidence of guilt, is not acceptable - it's police state measures, it is arbitary "justice".

The whole Guantanamo project was a stupid idea from stupid minds from the very beginning on.

[tater]

I have no point? Come again?

There is no way to prevent innocent deaths in military action where combatants intentionally dress and hide among civilians. None at all save not ever engaging them. Terrorists strike, and you make zero response. That has a 100% chance of not killing innocents. ANY other military action can cause unwanted deaths, period.

Show me otherwise, and I'll happily correct myself. US police SWAT teams kick the wrong doors down periodically, and they act within full due process (warrants, etc). People die by those mistakes, too.

My point is we could do very much worse. Any action other than grabbing these few up (total throughput at Gitmo is what?) would be presumably attacking said targets of presumed value (some of which will certainly be mistakenly placed at value). That would mean more innocent dead, period.

"Could have done worse" is fine, and realistic. A "zero tolerance" policy is an impossible standard, and in fact "actionable" intel that results in the use of deadly force has a far lower standard than the due process we afford citizens.

I'm fine with mitigating such unwanted imprisonment as much as is possible, but some loss of freedom by a few is without question better than killing more people. It's a sad calculus, but it is realistic, and has an end result that is better than not doing it.

The 2 atomic bombs, for example, without question resulted in fewer deaths than had the war continued. Fewer Japanese deaths, in fact. Kill a couple hundred thousand to save many more. Tough call, but a good call.

[MH]

Gitmo never had anything to do with law and order in Western understanding, it always was a populistic and opportunistic easy way of going like usually you see it being practised in rogue states. This bilance revealed now spells a condemning verdict.

Guilt must be proven, not just claimed and assumed. This is one of the most basic, most elemental, most fundamental, most essential principles of Western tradition of law and order. Unlimited imprisonment without court procedures or evidence of guilt, is not acceptable - it's police state measures, it is arbitary "justice".

The whole Guantanamo project was a stupid idea from stupid minds from the very beginning on.

Leaving out for a moment the possible abuse in gitmo-wasn't the idea of detaining Al Quaida collaborators/POWs whole purpose of the prison?


Maybe it should be looked more at who and why is send there and not existence of the place itself.
I wonder really how many cases of abuse/false impressment happened comparing to militants and collaborators that are held there.
So we hear about some wrongly detained people that instantly make to all the news what about all the rest?

So what about the POWs should US just should them between the ayes or charge them with guerrilla warfare and shoot them then.

[tater]

The total held at gitmo has been 778 apparently. The max at one time was 660, and currently the population is around 250.

778 imprisoned, of which ~500 have been transferred or released.

There are what, 1.6 billion muslims? Say 10% support AQ's efforts (a recent study of indonesia, morocco, pakistan and one other country showed 15%, and the US support level is 5%, so 10% seems a nice, lowball number). That's ~160 million people who think what AQ is doing is a good idea. 250/160M is 0.0002%. As a reality check, 0.7% of Americans are currently in prison (and a substantial multiple of that are under supervision (parole, etc)).

It's a tiny %, statistically insignificant.

[Tribesman]

I have no point? Come again?

You have no point.

My point is we could do very much worse.
That is your only response which is null and void so demonstrates that you have no point.

Come along tater , you are throwing out lots of little irrelevant things. Justify the program being run that is pointless, has made a mockery of america and its values and continues to cost a big pile of money for no real purpose and seems to produce only negative results.
Deal with the issues at hand not some little irrelevance of how you can treat people even worse as that doesn't justify the program at all.

It's a tiny %, statistically insignificant.
Really clutching at straws there ain't ya:rotfl2:
Murderers are statistically insignificant so are rapists.

@MH
Maybe it should be looked more at who and why is send there and not existence of the place itself.

Thats easy, the problem with who and why stems from the same reason the place exists. It was a dumb attempt to dodge legal complications.

[AVGWarhawk]

Let's send them all to Galway , Eire. Since Tribesman has such a concern for the taxi driver and such he can house them. :03::O:

[Skybird]

Leaving out for a moment the possible abuse in gitmo-wasn't the idea of detaining Al Quaida collaborators/POWs whole purpose of the prison?


Maybe it should be looked more at who and why is send there and not existence of the place itself.
I wonder really how many cases of abuse/false impressment happened comparing to militants and collaborators that are held there.
So we hear about some wrongly detained people that instantly make to all the news what about all the rest?

So what about the POWs should US just should them between the ayes or charge them with guerrilla warfare and shoot them then.

Gitmo was about finding a place outside of and unavailable to US laws. Plain and simple.

[MH]

Gitmo was about finding a place outside of and unavailable to US laws. Plain and simple.

Exactly

They should read their rights emphasizing on right to remain silent :)

I guess its another of those things that law struggles with.

[Armistead]

Gitmo never had anything to do with law and order in Western understanding, it always was a populistic and opportunistic easy way of going like usually you see it being practised in rogue states. This bilance revealed now spells a condemning verdict.

Guilt must be proven, not just claimed and assumed. This is one of the most basic, most elemental, most fundamental, most essential principles of Western tradition of law and order. Unlimited imprisonment without court procedures or evidence of guilt, is not acceptable - it's police state measures, it is arbitary "justice".

The whole Guantanamo project was a stupid idea from stupid minds from the very beginning on.

I don't think it was a bad idea, if we had turned them over to the newly formed goverments they probably would've been tortured or killed.

The bad of it was how it was run, little oversight.

It's our history, we did it to the american indian, japanese americans and now gitmo..

[Skybird]

POWs don't get trials until hostilities are over.

What POWs? Guantanamo was exactly about denying the prisoners that status, instead making them unavailable for legal procedures by declaring them as illegal somethings. It was also claimed that no international convention would cover them for that reason. Whatever they are, they are neither internees nor POWs in this kind of thinking. And as we now know, one quarter of them were not even dangerous enemies at all, one half of them were no activists but just "Mitläufer" and opportunists, and just one quarter were really dangerous men. A disastrous balance, and a declaration of bancruptcy of essential legal principles and morals as well.

[Sailor Steve]

You have no point.
No, you have no point.

That is your only response which is null and void so demonstrates that you have no point.
And your lack of any response other than "See, you have no point" proves that you have no point.

See how easy it is to play that silly game. Actually his points have been very relevant. If the enemy is going to dress as civilians, it becomes exceeding difficult to kill them without killing civilians, and equally difficult to arrest them without also arresting civilians. If Tater's numbers are correct the 69% of everyone who has been there has been released or transferred to another prison. So something is being done.

It looks to me as if you are the one grasping at straws, or at least throwing out irrelevancies for lack of a better response. You seem to be less concerned with setting things right than with taking potshots at anyone you disagree with.

[Skybird]

I don't think it was a bad idea, if we had turned them over to the newly formed goverments they probably would've been tortured or killed.

It is a better idea to not throw basic and most essential principles over board just because somebody thinks something might not be a bad idea. Law and order, and the need to prove guilt within a reasonable ammount of time, for example.


The bad of it was how it was run, little oversight.
It was designed to break inner resistence of the individual by disgrace. For serving that purpose, it was run remarkable nice.

It's our history, we did it to the american indian, japanese americans and now gitmo..
All three do not compare.

[Skybird]

Persistent exaggeration and a lax attitude to the facts (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-758916,00.html)

The other key understanding the documents lead to is a sobering one that doesn't come as much of a surprise. The Guantanamo system was kept alive through persistent exaggeration and a lax attitude to the facts. The raft of detail in the personal files that have been obtained makes this insight seem more shocking than previously known -- they document how the detainees' alleged actions were recorded and described in a way that was arbitrary, incomplete and far removed from the kind of evidence-taking a normal court would require.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I think Gitmo was bad idea. What it did was to close insignificant number of real terrorist into prison and what else it did? It created perfect propaganda tool for Al Qaeda.

"'Great Number One Satan' is preaching of values such as human rights, freedom of speech, liberty and peace while it's acting against them. Class example of double standards." That is what Gitmo makes USA to look like and is practically a recruitment poster for Al Qaeda.

[Tribesman]

AVG
Let's send them all to Galway , Eire. Since Tribesman has such a concern for the taxi driver and such he can house them.
How much are you offering?


Steve
And your lack of any response other than "See, you have no point" proves that you have no point.


He doesn't address the issue which is why he hads no point.

Actually his points have been very relevant.
Really?

If the enemy is going to dress as civilians, it becomes exceeding difficult to kill them without killing civilians, and equally difficult to arrest them without also arresting civilians.
Which has what to do with the topic?
would you like to refresh your memory on the creation of the facility and the stated reasdons for its existance and the process by which prisoners in detention are selected for this very misguided facility, as problems over combat situations and making arrests have absolutely nothing to do with the facility itself.

If Tater's numbers are correct
What do taters numbers have to do with it?
Though it could be said that they show how silly Gitmo is, which is the opposite of what he is aiming for

[Brons]

I would like to remember the people that try to use the false equivalency with POW's that they are wrong. Guantanamo Bay was specifically set up to prevent the rules and regulation's of POW's to apply to them. Apologists can't use the POW argument now that it's convenient for them.

[MH]

I would like to remember the people that try to use the false equivalency with POW's that they are wrong. Guantanamo Bay was specifically set up to prevent the rules and regulation's of POW's to apply to them. Apologists can't use the POW argument now that it's convenient for them.

True.
Its a camp for terorists who kill without discrimination including their own if its good for their couuse.
Standart POW atitude may not aplay here.

[MH]

I would like to remember the people that try to use the false equivalency with POW's that they are wrong. Guantanamo Bay was specifically set up to prevent the rules and regulation's of POW's to apply to them. Apologists can't use the POW argument now that it's convenient for them.

True.
Its a camp for terorists who kill without discrimination including their own if its good for their cause.
Standart POW atitude may not aplay here
Its .not very nice place for not very nice peaple.

Maybe they should let sherlock holmes handle them.

[Tribesman]

True.
Its a camp for terorists who kill without discrimination including their own if its good for their couuse.

If that were true then it wouldn't be as much of a problem and would be easier to justify if you chose to ignore the complications in its creation and its reason for existing.

Its .not very nice place for not very nice peaple.


That sounds like what a prison is supposed to be, but that isn't the case here is it.

[Snestorm]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13184845
So to be very generous America thought 1 in 4 detainees worth throwing their nations standing into the cess pit of modern history were actualy possibly dangerous and 1 in 5 were known to be really innocent entirely but may have had some scraps of information about something pretty irrelevant on any level if they are tortured enough.

USAUSAUSA:rock:
What a sorry state the supporters of these measures have left their country in.
Good luck in the search for paying someone to get the innocent released or in ever getting any reasonable conviction of any of the guilty:nope:

Here we agree.

[Brons]

True.
Its a camp for terorists who kill without discrimination including their own if its good for their couuse.
Standart POW atitude may not aplay here.

Well, apparently it's also a prison for a lot of innocent people. And if they're that dangerous they should be judged and sentenced in the court of law. Yes, that might cause some of them to go free but I'd rather have 10 guilty guys free than have 1 innocent guy in prison.

Also, would you be in favor of imprisoning innocent people in your hometown if it potentially also removes violent criminals?

[tater]

There has to be a facility someplace. The POWs there are not mistreated, and they should not see trial until hostilities are over.

My point is that there is nothing to see here, move along. The number held is insignificant, and any wrongful loss of liberty is insignificant compared to the alternatives (wrongful deaths trumping wrongful imprisonment). Complaining about the existence of a camp to hold detainees is, well, absurd. Again, the alternative is to never detain anyone, which means surrender, or wholesale slaughter of anyone near any "actionable" intelligence.

The principal complaint seems to be that the facility belongs to the USA, and that makes it hateful. Tribesman would find any possible reason to say we're in the cesspool, this is merely convenient. Anyone else who agrees has not thought it through, or they'd come to my conclusion—that compared to the alternatives, the wrongful imprisonments are trivial. Saying we've defended to some historically low level when we imprison only 778 people (500 already released) is frankly bizarre. The US summarily executed more people that than during ww2. We killed huge multiples of that fire bombing—and yet the world did not consider us barbarians descended into a cesspool. If holding 225 people—a fraction of which are innocent—makes us lesser as a people, then we must have been at a historical low in world opinion just post ww2.

[Skybird]

The POWs there are not mistreated, and they should not see trial until hostilities are over.
:dead:
That's even a double self-contradiction in that sentence. First, the POWs are no POWs, and second: if they were POWs they would automatically qualify for access to legal rights and protections - that to deny them was the explicit goal when declaring they were no POWs.

Now read carefully, it does not happen often that I quote Faux News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44169,00.html


Still, Bush said, those being held in Cuba are not prisoners of war. Ambiguity about whether a captive should be considered a prisoner of war requires a special three-person military tribunal to decide, the Geneva Conventions say. There is no ambiguity here, the administration says.

The POW designation would confer an array of rights on the terror suspects.
Under the Geneva Conventions, it would entitle them to trials under the same procedures as U.S. soldiers -- not through the military tribunals the administration has authorized. The conventions also require captors to pay prisoners advances on their military salaries, and make soap and tobacco available.

In April 1999, the United States government insisted that three U.S. Army soldiers captured by Yugoslavia near the Macedonian-Yugoslav border were prisoners of war and were covered by the Geneva Conventions. The three were later released unharmed.
"We are not going to call them prisoners of war," said Bush, who repeatedly called them "prisoners" and then caught himself to refer to them as "detainees."

"And the reason why is al-Qaida is not a known military," Bush said. "These are killers, these are terrorists, they know no countries."


Even the Republican's own propaganda channel had it right this time back then. So what are you trying to rewrite history here, eh?

[Bakkels]

There has to be a facility someplace. The POWs there are not mistreated

As SkyBird already pointed out, the facility was deliberately placed outside the US so that normal POW laws don't apply or could be more easily worked around.
And to say that they are not mistreated... well, let's just say there are a hell of a lot of organisations and people out there that would contest that. (The Red Cross, Amnesty International and the UN among others)

..and they should not see trial until hostilities are over.

And when would that be exactly? As the US aren't officially at war with anybody, 'until hostilities are over' is quite arbitrary.
There are Pakistani prisoners there too, and as far as I know, there's no war with Pakistan. Wouldn't that mean that they deserve an immediate trial?

If holding 225 people—a fraction of which are innocent—makes us lesser as a people, then we must have been at a historical low in world opinion just post ww2.

That's a dangerous numbers game you're playing there. Just because this fraction of innocents (of which we have no idea, since they are denied trial) is too small for you, the existence of Guantanamo and what they do there is just fine?
And this doesn't make you lesser as a people, that would just be generalizing. It is an indication however that the US government have made an incredible mess of things.
First invading two countries for all the wrong reasons, then randomly arresting people for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, bringing them to a detention camp, not allowing them any form of trial and completely disregarding human rights, and now they have no idea what to do with them. I think some criticism would not be entirely out of place..

There's a certain number of people among them that are guilty, but keeping everybody there without giving them any legal status, thereby denying them any form of trial 'until the hostilities are over'.... well I just can't see how you can defend that.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

There has to be a facility someplace. The POWs there are not mistreated, and they should not see trial until hostilities are over.
Really? Waterboarding is just a new water sport?

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

[mookiemookie]

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."

— John Adams

[Brons]

There has to be a facility someplace. The POWs there are not mistreated, and they should not see trial until hostilities are over.
No, they're not POW's. They're not held according to the standards POW's should be held at. And you're twisting in weird ways here to say that they're POW's while at the same time they're not. Make a choice.

Also: torturing isn't mistreating?


My point is that there is nothing to see here, move along. The number held is insignificant, and any wrongful loss of liberty is insignificant compared to the alternatives (wrongful deaths trumping wrongful imprisonment). Complaining about the existence of a camp to hold detainees is, well, absurd. Again, the alternative is to never detain anyone, which means surrender, or wholesale slaughter of anyone near any "actionable" intelligence.


Another alternative is that they're given a fair trial. You realize that your argument here can be made for domestic criminals too? Do you support the president and/or CIA singling out citizens in your city to be imprisoned without trial?

[MH]

No, they're not POW's. They're not held according to the standards POW's should be held at. And you're twisting in weird ways here to say that they're POW's while at the same time they're not. Make a choice.


Its a twisted wired war with lots of contradictions.
Its not exactly that US is fighting Afghan army.
US is fighting religious fanatics and murderers to whom its difficult to apply normative rules.
They are not regular army POWS they are terrorist who don't use western rules of engagement and conducts.
Who never heard of Geneva Conversion but just Allah will.

The evidence obtained against them while solid may not necessary be acceptable in court of law for various reasons.
Not necessarily torture.

[August]

I think Taters right. We should have just executed those AQ killers upon capture, preferably in a nice gory and painful way.

After all nobody gave a nice cushy cell and a personal copy of the Koran to any of the 9-11 victims.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kBeBofswWZE/TVcOZnH5fJI/AAAAAAAAFTY/x0brjMYMUJE/s1600/9-11-Victims.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

He doesn't address the issue which is why he hads no point.
Which you state with no justification. Anyone disagrees with you? You just say they have no point. As I said, it's an easy game to play.

Really?
Yes, really. His relevant point was that mistakes made there have actually been looked into and corrected. The majority of prisoners there have indeed been released or moved. You call that irrelevant?

Which has what to do with the topic?
Since your original point was your usual trashing of America, period, I guess not much. Your obvious hatred wears thin after awhile.

would you like to refresh your memory on the creation of the facility and the stated reasdons for its existance and the process by which prisoners in detention are selected for this very misguided facility, as problems over combat situations and making arrests have absolutely nothing to do with the facility itself.
The difficulty of identifying of guilty and innocent has very much to do with the complications of running the facility. You dismiss that as "irrelevant" because it suits you to ignore it.

What do taters numbers have to do with it?
Though it could be said that they show how silly Gitmo is, which is the opposite of what he is aiming for
I addressed that. You ignored it. If it doesn't condemn America, it's irrelevant.

[Sailor Steve]

Really? Waterboarding is just a new water sport?

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
This I agree with, and there are problems that need fixing. My objection to this thread is Tribesman's greater agenda, which is to find any excuse he can to attack the US, and then dismiss anyone who argues against him.

[AVGWarhawk]

This I agree with, and there are problems that need fixing. My objection to this thread is Tribesman's greater agenda, which is to find any excuse he can to attack the US, and then dismiss anyone who argues against him.

This is why post #2 has: Ignore.

:03:

[MH]

This I agree with, and there are problems that need fixing. My objection to this thread is Tribesman's greater agenda, which is to find any excuse he can to attack the US, and then dismiss anyone who argues against him.


Actually a growing trend worth of investigating.

[Tribesman]

@Tater
There has to be a facility someplace.
And?

they should not see trial until hostilities are over
Is there any special reason why criminals cannot be put on trial?

Complaining about the existence of a camp to hold detainees is, well, absurd.
You still won't see it.
There are dozens of prison camps, what is so very much different in this case?

Again, the alternative is to never detain anyone
Complete bull.
You still are refusing to go anywhere near the subject at hand.

The principal complaint seems to be that the facility belongs to the USA, and that makes it hateful
More bull.
The complaint is specific to this facility and the stated claims made for its creation and use.

Anyone else who agrees has not thought it through, or they'd come to my conclusion
That is rich since you havn't even gone near the subject.

Saying we've defended to some historically low level when we imprison only 778 people (500 already released) is frankly bizarre.
Yet again a mile wide of the mark.
Well done tater , you have managed to show again in detail how you have no point.

@Steve
Which you state with no justification. Anyone disagrees with you? You just say they have no point. As I said, it's an easy game to play.


The justification has already been stated.

Yes, really. His relevant point was that mistakes made there have actually been looked into and corrected.
Is that the mistake? No.

The majority of prisoners there have indeed been released or moved. You call that irrelevant?


Yes irrelevant.
What is the facility at Gitmo and what was it created for?
As I said the fact that most of the prisoners have been released destroys the very reasons given for its creation and the justifications of it existing.

The difficulty of identifying of guilty and innocent has very much to do with the complications of running the facility. You dismiss that as "irrelevant" because it suits you to ignore it.


It is dismissed as irrelevant as it has nothing to do with this situation.

I addressed that. You ignored it. If it doesn't condemn America, it's irrelevant.
Wrong as it didn't even touch the subject, wrong because I didn't ignore it in the slightest and wrong because that is pure bull.

Since your original point was your usual trashing of America, period, I guess not much. Your obvious hatred wears thin after awhile.


I had expected better of you, you are not normally as blind.

Try again steve, what was ther reason for the facility at Gitmo and what is the rationale behind it?
Until you answer them truthfully you are stuck in a loop of irrelevance which doesn't even approach the topic.

I think Taters right. We should have just executed those AQ killers upon capture, preferably in a nice gory and painful way.


Wow August chimes in, ain't it funny.
If these people were AQ killers what on earth are they being released for? Surely they are dangerous criminals, they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Surely since they were in Cuba they are not only mere AQ killers they were the worst of the worst of the AQ killers, after all they were the baddest of the bad of the many many thousands of prisoners arrested:yep:

[mookiemookie]

Anyone else who agrees has not thought it through, or they'd come to my conclusion

He actually said that? How arrogant and closed minded can you get? :nope: I see my ignore list decision has been vindicated.

[Tribesman]

He actually said that?
Mookie, the sad thing is that the points he raises to try and approach the issue tend to destroy his own argement when applied to the actual issue raised.

[MH]

Mookie, the sad thing is that the points he raises to try and approach the issue tend to destroy his own argement when applied to the actual issue raised.


That depends from what theological angle you look at from and how you are willing to apply the ideological but disfunctioning data to current perception of reality vs actual state of things in real world.:yawn:

[Sailor Steve]

I had expected better of you, you are not normally as blind.
USAUSAUSA:rock:
Obvious troll is obvious.

[Tribesman]

So you support the crowd that follow the blind my country right or wrong line Steve. That is sad.
You seem to also support taters attempts at spinning nonsense rather than facing reality which is very sad.
But thats OK you are free to support the obvious lies you were sold, you are free to defend the pointless exercise that your government chose to run, after all it is you that pays

Obvious troll is obvious.
Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtTt_M17xqo

Join the chant steve?

[Armistead]

As SkyBird already pointed out, the facility was deliberately placed outside the US so that normal POW laws don't apply or could be more easily worked around.
And to say that they are not mistreated... well, let's just say there are a hell of a lot of organisations and people out there that would contest that. (The Red Cross, Amnesty International and the UN among others)



And when would that be exactly? As the US aren't officially at war with anybody, 'until hostilities are over' is quite arbitrary.
There are Pakistani prisoners there too, and as far as I know, there's no war with Pakistan. Wouldn't that mean that they deserve an immediate trial?



That's a dangerous numbers game you're playing there. Just because this fraction of innocents (of which we have no idea, since they are denied trial) is too small for you, the existence of Guantanamo and what they do there is just fine?
And this doesn't make you lesser as a people, that would just be generalizing. It is an indication however that the US government have made an incredible mess of things.
First invading two countries for all the wrong reasons, then randomly arresting people for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, bringing them to a detention camp, not allowing them any form of trial and completely disregarding human rights, and now they have no idea what to do with them. I think some criticism would not be entirely out of place..

There's a certain number of people among them that are guilty, but keeping everybody there without giving them any legal status, thereby denying them any form of trial 'until the hostilities are over'.... well I just can't see how you can defend that.

I think tater is of the mindset "the victors make all the rules." That being said, if someone ever came to his home that happened to be in a battlefield and detained him, his wife or kids prisioned for life just for being there, he obviously would have no problem with it, after all they're just minor numbers.

What's worse, it would probably be our government do it, not an invader.

[August]

I think tater is of the mindset "the victors make all the rules." That being said, if someone ever came to his home that happened to be in a battlefield and detained him, his wife or kids for life just for being there, he obviously would have no problem with it, after all they're just minor numbers.

Actually I think it's pretty clear that Taters point was that it's better to be detained than to be killed. Maybe you disagree.

[Armistead]

That makes a lot of sense, we've captured you in your front yard or why you were driving to work through a battlefield we created, but instead of killing you breaking Geneva laws, we'll just detain you. Doesn't matter if you're guilty or not, never be a trial to find out who you were. Basically what we did to all the indians when we invaded their homes and land. They fought back, so first we call them heathens, then kill them off or place them on reservations with no legal rights...

Enjoy your time at Gitmo...

[MH]

Driving to work with an RPG hidden in your car...is a bit more realistic example.

If dont belive that US army detains peaple because they drive to work.
Im sure stuped things happen as in every army but lets not make them normative policy.
Bad example.

[mookiemookie]

Driving to work with an RPG hidden in your car...is a bit more realistic example.

If dont belive that US army detains peaple because they drive to work.
Im sure stuped things happen as in every army but lets not make them normative policy.
Bad example.

You obviously didn't bother to read the OP. The whole point of this thread is that the Army has willfully detained innocent people despite knowing that they're innocent/low level/not dangerous. So no, RPG's in trunks is not a realistic example.

You can go ahead and catch up here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13184845

Again, the whole "if someone is arrested they're automatically guilty because only guilty people get arrested" fallacy.

[August]

Ain't Monday morning quarterbacking just great? :roll:

[Bakkels]

For anybody that's interested, here's a link to the UN report concerning Guantanamo Bay:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_02_06_un_guantanamo.pdf

It's a long read, but there are definitely some things in there that are quite worrying.

[Tribesman]

Actually I think it's pretty clear that Taters point was that it's better to be detained than to be killed.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the facility in Cuba, which is why it was irrelevant:yep:

The whole point of this thread is that the Army has willfully detained innocent people despite knowing that they're innocent/low level/not dangerous. So no, RPG's in trunks is not a realistic example.


It is more than that mookie, detention by mistake is a common error, it is part of life.
This facility was different though wasn't it, the government was saying it was only for taking the transfer of the very worst of the worst of the people that were already in detention.
Common everyday criminals and lowly footsoldiers can have been held in any one of a dozen facilities just like the tens of thousands held during this conflict have been. The fact that they knowingly sent complete nobodies and minor criminals to this facitilty is what destroys its own excuses and the arguements of its apologists.
The fact that so few dangerous criminals went there shows that it was a massive screw up from the very start.
It happens to also be very expensive massive screw up and a propoganda disaster for good measure.

Yet some people still try and defend it because they seem to think that doing any different is somehow anti american:doh:

Ain't Monday morning quarterbacking just great?
Same arguement August makes about many issues when the "monday morning quarterbacking" is based on points that were made before the game kicked off but which he didn't like then and still doesn't like now the results are in.

[MH]

Again, the whole "if someone is arrested they're automatically guilty because only guilty people get arrested" fallacy.

No i never claimed that-spare me from this nonsense.
I just see it the opposite way.
As a policy US government is looking for guilty people while innocent get caught in the process.
Thats all.
This is something that need to be investigated and put under some supervision/criticism.
Guantánamo Bay should be run better.
Turning the whole thing into some Gestapo/SS torture 100 innocents to find one guilty low life terrorist nonsense it much over the top radicalism.
Radicalism just for sake of argument because i don't believe that there are only "reptiles in Washington".
I still believe that there are people there who care for the best interest of their country(interest that some may not like so much)-some of them smarter than others.
Some of them opportunists who will smear **** when needed.

So far all i can see in this thread is radical ranting while even the BBC article has it both ways if you care to look.

[Sailor Steve]

So you support the crowd that follow the blind my country right or wrong line Steve. That is sad.
Not at all. In fact I question everything. What I'm addressing is your lame so-called "style" of arguing, which consists of always taking the same side and never honestly debating the issue, but accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having nothing to say.

You seem to also support taters attempts at spinning nonsense rather than facing reality which is very sad.
And you keep dismissing anyone elses arguments as nonsense and never actually addressing what they say, which is pathetic. And you did indeed sarcastically bash America just because you thought it was funny, and then tried to deny it, which is arrogant and childish at the same time.

But thats OK you are free to support the obvious lies you were sold, you are free to defend the pointless exercise that your government chose to run, after all it is you that pays
I don't support everything I'm "sold", and I question it more than you're willing to admit. But all I was talking about was not what you say, but the trolling way you say it.

[Tribesman]

And you keep dismissing anyone elses arguments as nonsense and never actually addressing what they say, which is pathetic.
The problems of making arrests and difficulties in combat situations have nothing to do with the facility so were irrelevant.
The nonsense wasn't everyone elses arguement, it was several specific arguements put forward by a few people.
So in taters case it was over total muslim population, a dodgy poll result and camparisson with numbers sent to a facility were totally irrelevant.
If the argueents put forward have nothing to do with the issue then they can simply be dismissed as nonsense as they need no addresing beyond stating that they have nothing to do with the topic.
It was self evident that those "points" he raised had nothing at all to do with the facility in question and its creation or operation.

And you did indeed sarcastically bash America just because you thought it was funny, and then tried to deny it, which is arrogant and childish at the same time.


No, I bashed those Americans who follow a certain type of blindness, those people are not America.
And it is funny, they can in this situation be viewed as homer still chanting when it is patently obvious his wobbly pile has inevitably collapsed.

I don't support everything I'm "sold", and I question it more than you're willing to admit
Yet here you appear to be defending those who still support the lies long after they are exposed and they are indeed spinning nonsense in an effort to defend those lies.

But all I was talking about was not what you say, but the trolling way you say it.
You need to differentiate between America and the USAUSAUSA:rock: crowd just like for comparrison MH needs to remember that calling extremist settlers nuts isn't anti-Israeli or anti-semitism.

[MH]

Haaretz WikiLeaks exclusive / A number of Palestinians with terrorist links held in Guantanamo

West Bank, Gaza Palestinians being held in the U.S. military detention camp in Cuba on suspicion of belonging to radical Islamist organizations.

By Yossi Melman (http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/yossi-melman-1.667)Tags: Israel news (http://www.haaretz.com/meta/Tag/Israel%20news)Palestinians (http://www.haaretz.com/meta/Tag/Palestinians)WikiLeaks (http://www.haaretz.com/meta/Tag/WikiLeaks)





Several Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, according to WikiLeaks documents obtained by Haaretz. The documents are published here exclusively.
The documents consist of personal dossiers of Palestinian prisoners held in Guantanamo on suspicion of belonging to al-Qaida or to radical Islamic organizations identified with al-Qaida. Some of them are diagnosed as suffering from depression and camp officials recommend supervising them closely for fear they would try to commit suicide.
http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.358103.1303776731!/image/957202256.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_295/957202256.jpgDetainees sitting in a holding area at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, April 25, 2011.
Photo by: Reuters
The documents indicate the prisoners moved from Gaza or the West Bank to Jordan, on their way to Saudi Arabia. Some of them moved on from Saudi Arabia to Yemen and then to Pakistan and Afghanistan in search of work. At some point they came into contact with al-Qaida operatives who recruited them and persuaded them to come to Afghanistan, where they underwent military training.
Some of the prisoners told their American interrogators that they were afraid of being extradited to Israel and handed over to its security services. But after they were assured that this would not happen, they agreed to give details about themselves and even, in some cases, cooperated.
In keeping with its policy since it began publishing WikiLeaks files, Haaretz has decided not to release the names of the prisoners who cooperated with their wardens, both for the prisoners' safety and to avoid breaching U.S. national security and, indirectly, also Israel's security.
For example, the dossier of a prisoner who was born in 1980 in a village in the southern Gaza Strip says he is being held in the "high risk" division for "health reasons." The dossier describes him as suffering from personality disorders with "a long history of manipulative behavior and suicide threats."
The prisoner said in the dossier that he had traveled from Gaza - where he lived - to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, where he was persuaded to join the Jihad and agreed to go to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
He confessed his belief in radical Islamic ideology and said he was ready to sacrifice his life for the Jihad. He told his interrogators that he had undergone military training in an al-Qaida base and then moved in with other combatants, to a place in Afghanistan called "the Arab House".
Another prisoner said he had received a sum of money from his employer in Gaza to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. He traveled from the Gaza Strip to Egypt and from there to Saudi Arabia and then to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Another dossier tells the story of a detainee who was born in Gaza in 1965 and was seen as a senior al-Qaida activist. "The prisoner has probably been in Osama bin Laden's company more than once," the dossier says.
The documents indicate this prisoner was in charge of managing al-Qaida's accounts for providing logistics for the organization's combatants in Tora Bora, the mountainous region in Afghanistan where bin Laden and his men holed up in the last days of the Afghanistan war





They all are at right time in a right place for good reason.

[Tribesman]

They all are at right time in a right place for good reason.
Oh dear, can a statement be more wrong.
On the information released only one of them fits the bill and the rest are relative nobodies, certainly not the baddest of the bad which were the only prisoners supposed to be transfered out of other prisons to this special camp.
Well done MH you attempted a local angle and you prove the point again, can you at least attempt to prove the point you want to make instead of proving mine for me.:03:
They all apart from one were put at the wrong time in the wrong place for the wrong reasons which makes them a bad example to use when trying to justify the creation of this facility
Hey I fixed your comment:up:

[MH]

Oh dear, can a statement be more wrong.
On the information released only one of them fits the bill and the rest are relative nobodies, certainly not the baddest of the bad which were the only prisoners supposed to be transfered out of other prisons to this special camp.
Well done MH you attempted a local angle and you prove the point again, can you at least attempt to prove the point you want to make instead of proving mine for me.:03:

Hey I fixed your comment:up:

Welcome.
Those scums are walking indoctrinated ticking bombs.
Let them free and you probably will find them spraying bullets with Kalashnikov or strapped to suicidal vest.

In normal life they could be drugged and locked in nut house for life but as Muslims they went to wage holly war and got locked in the process.
I really don't give **** about them.

[Tribesman]

Well done MH, you once again are completely unable to address the issue.

[Skybird]

They all are at right time in a right place for good reason.
Prove it, case by case. If you skip that step, you are just like any other policestate dictator in the world.

Guilt must be proven.

Want some German links on stories about Wikileaks showing how many people in Guantanamo were innocent, were held over rumours only, without any hints, links and evidence? How hilarious some claims have been over which they were arrested or continued to be held as prisoners?

Some of the innocents being released, have lost 5, 7 years of their lives.

Come back to your senses, MH. It is arbitrary justice and policestate measures you are promoting. Your logic on why they are in prison, and that they must be guilty becasue else they would not be there, is circular.

And on the issue of torture, I never have hidden that under very special, clearly defined conditions and according situations I can imagine to accept it - but never as a general rule by which to live, and not as a routine tool or for fighting just ordinary every-day crime. Part of that understanbding of mine is that when in pain or agony, people will most liekly confess just everything, just to escape the pain. If torture should be of any use, then it must be in a setting where the stakes are high AND the guilt of the subject is evident and clear and the information needed is essential and can be validated or falsified immediately after the subject gave it away, so that the subject knows that the escape will be just for temporary time, and no real escape has been won if it lied. Trying to produce "evidence" that can be used at court by the use of torture in order to acchieve a sentencing of the subject, is a no-go for me.

Guilt must be proven. ALWAYS. And not over a major part of lifetime of a suspect being held as a prisoner, but within a reasonable timeframe. To disagree with this means to totally and fully dismantle one of the most basic and inevitable pillars of Western legal systems and traditions.

And I also imagine this. If I would travel into the US and at the airport would be detained for some suspicion, for example some postings in this forum over the past ten years where my critical opinion on some things may be interpreted as a general hostility towards the US, and maybe I also wear a clock model associated with being a favourite for terrorist bomb constructors, and I would be held in captivity for 6 years and would be withheld all legal rights and access to a lawyer and being stripped of any possibility to show my innocence, would be mocked, mistreated, tortured, abused - and then released without anything more than just the release - America then would have one person more truly hating it and being totally hostile to it. And who knows what those 6 years wopuld have done with me and my psyche - maybe I would even not only applaud if a bomb kills Americans, but would even start to construct bombs myself. Dogs do strange things if you push them into a corner and whip them. Sometimes people are surprised that they even may start to bite.

[Skybird]

Welcome.
Those scums are walking indoctrinated ticking bombs.
Prove it and by the evidence then sentence them.

Let them free and you probably will find them spraying bullets with Kalashnikov or strapped to suicidal vest.
Could you please explain the implication of the term "probably" here.

In normal life they could be drugged and locked in nut house for life but as Muslims they went to wage holly war and got locked in the process.
I really don't give **** about them.
It is even better, you even do not give **** for law and order, it seems. What you promote is pure anarchy, tyranny, arbitrary use of force and arbitrary justice.

To make this clear: I ASSUME that a majority of the inmates at Guantanamo were caught for some valid reason, and that a share of these are danergous men indeed. But that is an assumption only that I need to prove within a reasonable timeframe. To delay the evidence until the end of time and by doing so claiming that the lack of evidence proving their innocence serves as evidence for their guilt - that is just cheating, an illegal shortcut, an abuse - the easy path towards the dark side of the force. ;)

GUILT MUST BE PROVEN.

P.S. Most likely, the needed laws to lock terrorists are already there, it is just that our courts in Europe and probably also America are quite shy to use these to their full meaning, and that there are too many escape holes in laws by which suspects can legally escape or delay proceedings, and pledge for reduced penalties. These holes must be shut, no matter how liud the human rights bridgade is yelling over that. We have a perverted culture of seeing the perpetrator's interests not only as equal to the interests of the victims, but often even rate his interests higher, and spend more media publicity for him then for the victims. As perverse as I see this, I think the solution cannot be to throw all law and order over board and just act arbitraily ion behalf of rumours and hear-say. That would be AT LEAST as bad as the situation we have right now.

Maybe Europeans know this better by bad experience, than Americans. IKn America you some lame MacCarthism, and that was it regarding your experiences with police states and dictatorships. European people since centuries have been plagued by these things so very much more than you.

Even less understanmdable it then is how carelessly we trade our freedoms and rights away then, and welcome back totalitarianism and tolerate the intolerant. So when obviously we have not learned anything from our longer and darker histories over here, maybe then you Americans have not missed any needed lessons at all when having skipped them. So - scratch what I just wrote. :)

[MH]

Prove it, case by case. If you skip that step, you are just like any other policestate dictator in the world.
.

Prove it your self otherwise.
Do you have access to all investigation files?

People get locked away with trials as well.
If one of those terrorists turned out to be innocent or not after a trial everybody would be wining that US government frames inocent peaple.
Just like dictators do.
Especially when lot of data about methods of investigations and way of obtaining intelligence could not be released to public.
There is always something to rant about.

Guantanamo probably will be moved away to more "constitutional" partner country at the end.
Those things always been done and will be done but kept away from all too sensitive public.
That is until next time something happened and everyone will be wining about how come that this or that person wasn't locked away as a
known jihadist.

[Tribesman]

Once again MH fails to even grasp the issue, this isn't about locking up terrorists or alledged terrorists, the issue is purely one of a specific facility which was contraversialy created for a claimed specific purpose and for specific reasons.
It is being shown to not be achieving that purpose and is delivering results which are counter to the reason for its existance. And to make matters worse it turns out that in the main it has not ever really being used for the purpose it was created for.
All the justifications for this facility are crumbled which is why people like you and Tater are trying to justify it with irrelevant nonsense which has nothing to do with the actual issue at all.
You still attempt to justify it purely because you blindly think that you must.

[MH]

.
It is being shown to not be achieving that purpose and is delivering results which are counter to the reason for its existance. And to make matters worse it turns out that in the main it has not ever really being used for the purpose it was created for.


Which might be....?

[Armistead]

Prove it your self otherwise.
Do you have access to all investigation files?

People get locked away with trials as well.
If one of those terrorists turned out to be innocent or not after a trial everybody would be wining that US government frames inocent peaple.
Just like dictators do.
Especially when lot of data about methods of investigations and way of obtaining intelligence could not be released to public.
There is always something to rant about.

Guantanamo probably will be moved away to more "constitutional" partner country at the end.
Those things always been done and will be done but kept away from all too sensitive public.
That is until next time something happened and everyone will be wining about how come that this or that person wasn't locked away as a
known jihadist.

Nonsense, we've alreadly let many go that were deemed innocent. Our entire system is based on innocent until proven guilty. It's common for people to get swept up on a battlefield. I understand our soldiers often can't determine who is fighting and who is not. Many men there carry and own guns...just like we do... That's why we have trials, to prove guilt or innocense.

Dictators just lock people up and throw away the key with due justice. It's hard to preach freedom and rule of law to those you invaded, then lock people up with no chance of due process.

[MH]

Nonsense, we've alreadly let many go that were deemed innocent.
.
Good


Dictators just lock people up and throw away the key with due justice. It's hard to preach freedom and rule of law to those you invaded, then lock people up with no chance of due process.

If US stays in Afghanistan simply to teach them western perception freedom then well...its waste of time lives and money.
Freedom teaching is a myth.
Your freedom is mostly blasphemy for average village Afgan.

[Tribesman]

Which might be....?
So you are attempting to defend something without knowing what it is.
I did wonder how you could keep putting forward arguements that were so irrelevant.
Does that make your blind cheerleading for the facility really blind blind cheerleading?

[MH]

So you are attempting to defend something without knowing what it is.
I did wonder how you could keep putting forward arguements that were so irrelevant.
Does that make your blind cheerleading for the facility really blind blind cheerleading?

lol


I like the "blind" world you use a lot.
You really must have seen the light.:up:

[Skybird]

Prove it your self otherwise.
Do you have access to all investigation files?
You have just abandoned the basic fundament of your country's legislation and legal codes of all Wetsdern civilisation: presumption of innocence. And that is what makes YOU the outlaw now.

And the files - well, do you have them all? Or have you just chosen to blindly believe in what you want to be true? Blind trust is a dangerous thing.

People get locked away with trials as well.
If one of those terrorists turned out to be innocent or not after a trial everybody would be wining that US government frames inocent peaple.
Just like dictators do.
Especially when lot of data about methods of investigations and way of obtaining intelligence could not be released to public.
There is always something to rant about.


That is no excuse. Wikileaks claims that one quarter of the arrested people have been innocent, and one half have been guilty, but on a low level of guilt, by far not justifying to put them aside from the law. They were what in German is called "Mitläufer", I still have not learned a satisfying English equivalent for the term. Only one quarter of the arrested men were indeed that highly dangerous terrorists that was claimed ALL inmates were. Wikileaks also has publoished documents showing by what hilarious constructions the US tried and still tries to hide the innocence of people and keep the claim of their guilt alive, so that the overall system would not need to be put in doubt. If this material has been supressed in American media, check the German press. :smug:

Guantanamo probably will be moved away to more "constitutional" partner country at the end.

Ah - otheres shall clean the mess you are responsible for? No deal, man. When inmates are harmless, take them yourself,l you then have nor argument not to do so. And when they are dangerpous, have the decency and moral grace to deal with them yourself. You threw the party and had all the drinks, now clean your kitchen - yourself.


Those things always been done and will be done
That is no excuse to willingly accept them happening, and not to correct them where being revealed they go wrong.

but kept away from all too sensitive public.
Ah, now it is not about legal rules, and rule of law, and law and order - now it is abvout people not liking the abandoning of law and order just being too sensitive. What's next? Calling them slightly mentally deranged? Being near a nervous breakdown? Mimosas that cannot stand the good ol' cowboy way of having a nice lynching party?

That is until next time something happened and everyone will be wining about how come that this or that person wasn't locked away as a
known jihadist.
I agree that our laws are being abused, and allow too many escape holes, and allow too many exceptions from the rules. That is becasue there is too many laws already, and too many lobbied special laws - and the whole thing being so chaotic already that nobody can overwatch it anymore.

Repair the laws then. What you advocate is: policestate's arbitrary justice, and anarchy, becasue it seems to be the easier way to chose. But that is just as bad.