Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
What many of you don't understand is all their legal posturing that we get suckered into, is all part of their strategy to use or laws and our "morality" against us, quite successfully in far too many areas...not just Gitmo.

So what are you saying, Skip? Is no one entitled to a fair trial? Is that "using the laws against us"? Seems to me that this is exactly the lynch mob mentality that I referred to. How do you know that all the people in Gitmo are guilty? Because your military says so, without any trial?

Quoting Berak:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Sorry, gang, you woill get NO SYMPATHY from me regarding the Gitmo prisoners. What many of you don't understand is all their legal posturing that we get suckered into, is all part of their strategy to use or laws and our "morality" against us, quite successfully in far too many areas...not just Gitmo.

While I live thius country will NEVER become part their new caliphate, Europe maybe they are certainly headed down the primrose path, but the US...NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hostile...you bet. Unfortunately I am too old to go fight, but if they try to bring it back here, they will deal with me and several million more...I am not ALONE. I saw first-hand what their cowardly attack wrought on the Pentagon. There are those in this country, like Europe, who want to appease and forget. I will NEVER forget, nor will I grant them ANY quarter of any kind.

Skip

Like General Norman Schwartzkopf so elegantly put it;

"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting."   

I will happily expedite the meeting.

Skip

GSyren,

Of course people are almost always entitled to a trial but there are exceptions. POWs are not entitled to trials to challenge their detentions. They are entitled to treatment in accordance with the the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants are not.

However when you claim (below) you are mistaken.

Quote:
But the US wants to invent a "no mans land" where they are neither military nor criminals and can be treated without any rights at all.

There has always been another catefory - unlawful combatants - we are not inventing anything. They are not uniformed soldiers but are waging war against a nation in complete disregard for the rules of war.

It should be noted that far from treating them without any rights at all -- the detained terrorists at Gitmo have been given MORE rights and prvileges that those required by Geneva with only very limited exceptions. The exception is basically that we are aggresively interrogating some of the detainees - the ones we have reason to believe know important things about Al Qaeda.

The detainees are given more "outdoor recreation" time than normal US covicts and get culturally appropriate meals, a Koran, and knowledge of the direction to Mecca. Is it possible some of the detainees are "innocent" whatever that means - yes - as a matter of fact over the last few years the US has gradually released hundreds of the originally detained group. Some of which have, as Skip pointed out, have gone back to the battlefield and killed people. It seems that we have gone out of our way to release those prisoners we felt were no longer a threat and it has cost "innocent" lives.

Are you morally outraged about those victims or do you reserve your sympathy for the detainees only? The fact is they in virtually every respect are being treated in accordance with the Geneva treaty. This is a difficult issue as a nation struggles to defend itself and its citizens but at same time hold itself to a higher standard than the often brutal and vicious murderers we are fighting.

Lest we forget the terrorist's entire "strategy" is to deliberately target civilians (including women and children) for death. Given that am I going to fret and wring my hands worrying about whether a few of the detainees maybe "innocent". The notion of rules of conflict has no place in their thinking - virtually everything they do violates the rules. The Geneva Conventions are a treay designed to set ground rules for war between signatories - it is not a suicide pact to disarm ourselves in a non-traditional conflict.

Do you seriously expect our troops in a war zone to take meticulous notes, bag evidence, maintain a proper "chain of custody" for the evidence, collect fingerprints off the weapons they seize, and then come back to testify in a criminal trial against a specific prisoner? Come on -- that's a ridiculous notion and you know it.

It really rankles me when the US is criticized for the treatment of these detainees when there is really no basis in fact for it.

Brian

you wonder, the even held inocent people there. And the US did not apologize.

Quote:
If Murat Kurnaz is released, he may not immediately return to Germany, because the German authorities believe that his four years long detention at Guantanamo without charge radicalized him, writes Der Spiegel, but his lawyer points out his valid residence permit for Germany. What an irony it would be if Murat Kurnaz were only to be considered a threat due to his experiences at Gitmo.

from Atlantic Review

Look this has gone on for 18 pages. We are now getting into more personal sniping, and neither side will convince the other. Isn't it time to end this thred and ask Ken & Geri to lock it.

This is supposed to be a DVD board, and yes I know the forum is General Discussion.

This seems to me to be something like the old Monty Python argument sketch.

Let's all agree to disagree, and go onto more important things, like does the new release of the 60's Batman movie really need a Special Edition?

Bobb

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
There has always been another catefory - unlawful combatants - we are not inventing anything. They are not uniformed soldiers but are waging war against a nation in complete disregard for the rules of war.

Can you cite any international definition that says that there is such a category?

Quote:
Are you morally outraged about those victims or do you reserve your sympathy for the detainees only?

Now, that's another lynch mob argument. When someone protests that the prisoner's right are being violated they'll say "What about the victims rights?". It's a non-argument.

Quote:
The Geneva Conventions are a treay designed to set ground rules for war between signatories - it is not a suicide pact to disarm ourselves in a non-traditional conflict.

The Geneva Conventions apply, as you rightly state, when there is a state of war. When a state of war no longer exists, POWs are to be released. But correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the United States is not officially at war. Therefore there is no "end", and thus saying that these people are treated according to the Geneva Convention (with very limited exceptions) is not true. The very fact that there is no limit to how long they can be detained is a very significant exception.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
What many of you don't understand is all their legal posturing that we get suckered into, is all part of their strategy to use or laws and our "morality" against us, quite successfully in far too many areas...not just Gitmo.

So what are you saying, Skip? Is no one entitled to a fair trial? Is that "using the laws against us"? Seems to me that this is exactly the lynch mob mentality that I referred to. How do you know that all the people in Gitmo are guilty? Because your military says so, without any trial?

If you point a weapon on the battlefield at a soldier you are a combatant.  Those in Gitmo did just that.  They are guilty.  But you know what you are right.  We'll just close Gitmo, I have zero problem with that.  We will give them to out Middle Eastern Allies who will torture the information out of them, have a 20 minute show trial and behead them.  That is much more civilized.

Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
You just can't be serious. 

I'm afraid he is, that's why I didn't even bother to reply. Whoever thinks that Gitmo is "right" is so far away from reason that he is a lost cause.

Funny though how the Supreme Court is right on the gun-issue but plain wrong on Gitmo. Seems a tiny little bit biased.

cya, Mithi

Being that the people in Gitmo are not US citizens why should they enjoy US protections.  In many countries of the world US citizens are not protected by the laws of the country that its citizens are.