The baddest of the bad Gitmo style

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Growler

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.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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)- is an example. HERE (26 years) is another. HERE (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.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

"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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Growler

Pretty sure I never said that - again, obfuscation and distraction. Fact: We KNOW innocents have been held in prison for years - HERE (30 years)- is an example. HERE (26 years) is another. HERE (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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.