The baddest of the bad Gitmo style

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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
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

Here we agree.

[Brons]

Originally Posted by MH

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]

Originally Posted by tater

The POWs there are not mistreated, and they should not see trial until hostilities are over.

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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)

Originally Posted by tater

..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?

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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