The baddest of the bad Gitmo style

[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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Brons

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.

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

@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

[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? I see my ignore list decision has been vindicated.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

USAUSAUSA

Obvious troll is obvious.

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?


Join the chant steve?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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.