SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Powell Urges Gitmo Closure (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116567)

06-11-07 06:52 PM
I would not begin to argue that GTMO is a luxury resort. But it is certainly not worse than where some of the detainees come from, nor better than the conditions under which Paris Hilton is being detained.

Perspective fellas.

GakunGak 06-11-07 06:52 PM
http://infowars.net/pictures/march06...6detainees.jpg
So, this is better than Germany/Soviet Russia?:hmm:

GakunGak 06-11-07 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
I would not begin to argue that GTMO is a luxury resort. But it is certainly not worse than where some of the detainees come from, nor better than the conditions under which Paris Hilton is being detained.

Perspective fellas.
We agree to disagree....:lol:
Just kidding....:yep:

robbo180265 06-11-07 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbo180265
But surely you can see that innocent people could get detained by mistake,and if that happens America can hardly stand for "Truth and Justice" can it?


"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission."

That's exactly right.

Ok America isn't sawing the heads off it's captives,but it's not exactly treating them as a civilised society should either IMO.
That we discuss the issue says we are treating those in GTMO in a civilized manner. If the US had rejected the ideal of "Truth and Justice" the GTMO detainees would be dead. No one would have know they even existed. End of the discussion.

By contrast look at Germany, the Soviet Union, Argentina. Not 'til after the fact is any discussion existant.
Could you do me a favour and read the first line of my reply again,the bit about possible INNOCENT detainies?
Just because you think they're being detained in a civilized mannor (and for all we know they may be - although the press and former detainees seem to think different) Does not make being detained without access to a lawyer or a trial right - does it?

A prison like this I'd expect to find in Communist Russia under Joe Stalin,not under American control in Cuba.

06-11-07 07:05 PM
Lawyers are reserved for criminals charged with a crime under US law, those at GTMO haven't been charged b/c they are not criminals but enemy combatants. Most will not be charged and like any other war, POWs are held until the end of hostilities...............

Letum 06-11-07 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Lawyers are reserved for criminals charged with a crime under US law, those at GTMO haven't been charged b/c they are not criminals but enemy combatants. Most will not be charged and like any other war, POWs are held until the end of hostilities...............

These are not POWs.
I have no heard from any source that they will be released at the end of the American occupation of their country. Do you have a source for that?

06-11-07 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letum
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Lawyers are reserved for criminals charged with a crime under US law, those at GTMO haven't been charged b/c they are not criminals but enemy combatants. Most will not be charged and like any other war, POWs are held until the end of hostilities...............

These are not POWs.
I have no heard from any source that they will be released at the end of the American occupation of their country. Do you have a source for that?
I said the end of hostilities.

Not POWs? Detainees then. I'll call them whatever you wish. Either way they will not be released until the end of hostilities.

P_Funk 06-11-07 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
This isn't a legal issue. Its a war issue. We treated attacks on the US as a legal issue under the previous administration and for our efforts the attacks on the WTC occured. A change in policy is both needed and appropriate.
You make a few assumptions here to justify your point. You insist that it was the softy Clinton's fault for 9/11. But bymany accounts the Clinton Administration was tracking the 9/11 attacks and tried to get the Bush Administration to follow it up but weren't taken serioiusly.

Secondly what war? Who declared war and who is it against? You can't create a state of war where there is no concrete enemy, no country to attack, or conditon of victory. In the name of a war that is so vague and indefinite you could justify anything. But if it is indeed justifiable, why do they need to hide all of this in some country thats not a democratic haven? If its so legitimate then it should be justifiable on native soil. But since it is not then it obvioiusly conflicts with everything that the USA stands for. If the US were actually at war (which technically hasn't been true since Korea, though someone told me recently apparently that even then the US didn't declare) then those measures wouldbe justifiable AT HOME. In Canada we call this "War Measures". And even then alleged torture is still forbidden by ratified international law. The US signed them and is bound by them. So it is a dual logic. No state of war in actuality but a phantom one that is meant to frighten all dissent away.

06-11-07 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P_Funk
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
This isn't a legal issue. Its a war issue. We treated attacks on the US as a legal issue under the previous administration and for our efforts the attacks on the WTC occured. A change in policy is both needed and appropriate.
You make a few assumptions here to justify your point. You insist that it was the softy Clinton's fault for 9/11. But bymany accounts the Clinton Administration was tracking the 9/11 attacks and tried to get the Bush Administration to follow it up but weren't taken serioiusly.

Secondly what war? Who declared war and who is it against? You can't create a state of war where there is no concrete enemy, no country to attack, or conditon of victory. In the name of a war that is so vague and indefinite you could justify anything. But if it is indeed justifiable, why do they need to hide all of this in some country thats not a democratic haven? If its so legitimate then it should be justifiable on native soil. But since it is not then it obvioiusly conflicts with everything that the USA stands for. If the US were actually at war (which technically hasn't been true since Korea, though someone told me recently apparently that even then the US didn't declare) then those measures wouldbe justifiable AT HOME. In Canada we call this "War Measures". And even then alleged torture is still forbidden by ratified international law. The US signed them and is bound by them. So it is a dual logic. No state of war in actuality but a phantom one that is meant to frighten all dissent away.

All very good words P-Funk, unfortunately, they do not recognize the new reality. When they dump a bomb on your world you will see. Towing the DU line doesn't make you correct, only niave.

robbo180265 06-11-07 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Lawyers are reserved for criminals charged with a crime under US law, those at GTMO haven't been charged b/c they are not criminals but enemy combatants. Most will not be charged and like any other war, POWs are held until the end of hostilities...............
What part of INNOCENT do you not understand???

Without access to a trial there might well be INNOCENT people in there - I'm interested in your thoughts on that?

06-11-07 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbo180265
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Lawyers are reserved for criminals charged with a crime under US law, those at GTMO haven't been charged b/c they are not criminals but enemy combatants. Most will not be charged and like any other war, POWs are held until the end of hostilities...............
What part of INNOCENT do you not understand???

Without access to a trial there might well be INNOCENT people in there - I'm interested in your thoughts on that?
How many thousands of enemy combatants were innocent in past wars? Those people were held in custody until the end of hostilities with no lawyers. Were they not?

Heibges 06-11-07 07:35 PM
Actually, they are enemy non-uniformed combatants which in the past means they would have been summarily executed.

The Germans shot thousands of Russian Partisans.
Allies shot the Werewolves in Germany.
Japanese shot Philliphino partisans.
Americans shot the saboteurs that were landed by uboat on the East Coast during WWII.
The English attempted to exterminate the Boers.

Bush made a huge mistake calling this a war in the first place. It should have been handled in a low-key manner by the CIA, like the Mossad handled the Munich situation.

robbo180265 06-11-07 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbo180265
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Lawyers are reserved for criminals charged with a crime under US law, those at GTMO haven't been charged b/c they are not criminals but enemy combatants. Most will not be charged and like any other war, POWs are held until the end of hostilities...............
What part of INNOCENT do you not understand???

Without access to a trial there might well be INNOCENT people in there - I'm interested in your thoughts on that?
How many thousands of enemy combatants were innocent in past wars?
A,WTF?
B,Answer my question

P_Funk 06-11-07 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
All very good words P-Funk, unfortunately, they do not recognize the new reality. When they dump a bomb on your world you will see. Towing the DU line doesn't make you correct, only niave.
More of the same. Some new world order that just appeared overnight that undoes 200+ years of republic building, right?:p

Heibges 06-11-07 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbo180265
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Lawyers are reserved for criminals charged with a crime under US law, those at GTMO haven't been charged b/c they are not criminals but enemy combatants. Most will not be charged and like any other war, POWs are held until the end of hostilities...............
What part of INNOCENT do you not understand???

Without access to a trial there might well be INNOCENT people in there - I'm interested in your thoughts on that?
How many thousands of enemy combatants were innocent in past wars? Those people were held in custody until the end of hostilities with no lawyers. Were they not?
No. England held thousands of Germans in illegal captivity until the early 1950's.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 PM.
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.