Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

"The US should try all 500 detainees at Guantanamo, who still include eight British residents, or free them without further delay. To hold someone for up to four years without charge clearly indicates a society that is heading towards George Orwell's Animal Farm." - Archbishop of York(!) - I think he meant to say '1984', though...

I just thought I'd start of with this ^ quote from a religious leader who actually seems to have his head screwed on.

How can the US government continue to hold more than 500 people for nearly 3 years without any sort of charge? How can the US government get away with the continuing torture of detainees? How can the US government proclaim the absolute power of freedom, while denying it to these people absolutely? It is despicable.

Some more quotes:

Desmond Tutu, Ex-Archbishop of Cape Town:

"It's a horrendous blot on the image of what was supposed to be the only superpower... They've held people for unconscionably long periods."

Peter Hain, Northern Ireland Secretary:

"I would prefer that it wasn't there and I would prefer it was closed... I think so. Yes."

Angela Merkel, German Chancellor

"An institution like Guantanamo cannot and should not exist in the longer term. Different ways and means must be found ..."

Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General

"There will be a need to close Guantanamo... It will be up to the government to decide, and hopefully... as soon as is possible."

What are your thoughts?

EDIT: The link for the full story:

The Full Story

The US has no right to hold these people without charge. If they cannot find the evidence they need to charge them, they should be released. The US should be ashamed of itself.

Obviously there is no evidence, otherwise they would have been charged by now.

My opinion..hmm...he certainly meant "1984".

Originally posted by Bardock42
My opinion..hmm...he certainly meant "1984".

I would agree with that...

Animal Farm works too. Its about almost the same thing. Orwell was big on fascism and politics

That's all very nice, but it's not really the point of the thread.

there never seems to be anyone with a middle ground opinion on this issue...according to one side or the other...every single person held in detention by America ,anywhere in the world, is either completely innocent of any wrong doing and that they should all be released (despite the fact that many of them were caught with weapons in their hands on the enemy lines during the war in afghanistan)

or

they are all vile murdering terrorist who with be slipping on their suicide bombing jackets within minutes of being released so they can go and blow up a shop full of cute fluffy bunnies and ADHD suffering kids

my guess is that somewhere in the middle of those is the truth of the matter

My opinion is that if they are terrorists then they should be charged as such. They shouldn't be held indefinitely regardless of 'perceived' intentions when not in captivity. Is 'innocent until proven guilty' another lost principal under the current US administration?

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Animal Farm works too. Its about almost the same thing. Orwell was big on fascism and politics

Animal Farm isn'T about Fascism though...it's quite different actually.Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
That's all very nice, but it's not really the point of the thread.

True, okay, my view of the Guantanamo Bay (Concentration) Camps is that it is quite a disgrace to every humane thinking person. Certainly some of the prisoners there might be guilty, but that doesn'T change that it goes against Human Rights which the US are so proud of usually.

Human Rights are a load of rubbish! Something for you to hide behind when being oppressed or ignore when your oppressing!

Originally posted by jaden101
(despite the fact that many of them were caught with weapons in their hands on the enemy lines during the war in afghanistan)

just caught with a weapon? or actually attacking troops?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Animal Farm isn'T about Fascism though...it's quite different actually.

True, okay, my view of the Guantanamo Bay (Concentration) Camps is that it is quite a disgrace to every humane thinking person. Certainly some of the prisoners there might be guilty, but that doesn'T change that it goes against Human Rights which the US are so proud of usually.

Agreed: Lets hope they learn from this! English Troops are trusted the World over.

Originally posted by jaden101
(despite the fact that many of them were caught with weapons in their hands on the enemy lines during the war in afghanistan)

Not really, alot of them are americans who have been charged with aiding terrorism or some vague charge like that.
And there are no real "Enemy lines" in either Afghanistan or Iraq, They are using milita hit and run tactics, with little to no central leadership. Almost totally different then anything we have ever fought.

Originally posted by PVS
just caught with a weapon? or actually attacking troops?

no doubt some were caught doing one, the other or both

And what would it matter?

The place goes against human laws, and it should be closed. Even if 99% there is guilty it should still be closed, they should either charge the people there and put them in prisons in the US itself, where they still have to listen to US laws or they should release them. What they are doing to those people now, guilty or not, is just wrong. And unless the US wants to become what its trying to fight it should stop its actions there immediately.

the biggest issue in terms of international relations is that we are mistakenly detaining several foreign nationals, including 5 men from china which can technically be construed as an act of war. So China kind of has the legal grounds to invade/santion/bomb us right now

Originally posted by jaden101
no doubt some were caught doing one, the other or both

ok, so some only possessed guns.

now answer this honestly. if you lived in that shithole, would you not want to own a gun? especially with a family?

The US is paranoid, they think everyone is a terrorist.

Originally posted by PVS
ok, so some only possessed guns.

now answer this honestly. if you lived in that shithole, would you not want to own a gun? especially with a family?

is that a question about the US or Afghanistan?...strange how it's applicable to both isn't it?

for what reason would you

a: need a gun in Afghanistan ruled by the taliban...when you support the taliban?

b: be on the front line of a warzone with a weapon?

Originally posted by jaden101
is that a question about the US or Afghanistan?...strange how it's applicable to both isn't it?

for what reason would you

a: need a gun in Afghanistan ruled by the taliban...when you support the taliban?

b: be on the front line of a warzone with a weapon?

a-the assumption that everyone across enemy lines supports the taliban makes this question a fallacy.

b-they didnt seek out the warzone. it landed on them. who's fault is irrelevant. people live there. where the hell are they supposed to go?


'
after 9-11 guns sales in america skyrocketed. were they all terrorists or just scared people buying piece of mind, although a dangerous one.

why is it that in america buying a gun is supposedly 'patriotic' and an inaliable right, yet over there you cant own one without being considered an "enemy combatant"? because they have the means to attack u.s. soldiers? gunowners in america have the ability to kill men in uniform. should we kidnap them all too?

invade america and ask some of the same questions PVS anything that creates difficulties for troops are suspect.

Originally posted by PVS
a-the assumption that everyone across enemy lines supports the taliban makes this question a fallacy.

b-they didnt seek out the warzone. it landed on them. who's fault is irrelevant. people live there. where the hell are they supposed to go?


'
after 9-11 guns sales in america skyrocketed. were they all terrorists or just scared people buying piece of mind, although a dangerous one.

why is it that in america buying a gun is supposedly 'patriotic' and an inaliable right, yet over there you cant own one without being considered an "enemy combatant"? because they have the means to attack u.s. soldiers? gunowners in america have the ability to kill men in uniform. should we kidnap them all too?

the warzone landed on them did it?...what about all the british nationals who travelled to Afghanistan after the beginning of the war...one of whom used the excuse that he was going to pakistan to learn computing and took a wrong turn somewhere...yet just happened to end up with an AK47 in his hand...a mistake was it?...i hardly think so

same with the aformentioned chinese citizens...and all the other non afghani citizens held at guantanamo...the war certainly didn't seek them out...quite the opposite




seems to me that you are one of the people who assumes that everyone in guantanamo has somehow been unfortunate enough to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time....i'm saying that you're wrong as are the people who think that everyone in guantanamo is west hating potential mass murderers

Originally posted by jaden101
the warzone landed on them did it?...what about all the british nationals who travelled to Afghanistan after the beginning of the war...one of whom used the excuse that he was going to pakistan to learn computing and took a wrong turn somewhere...yet just happened to end up with an AK47 in his hand...a mistake was it?...i hardly think so

same with the aformentioned chinese citizens...and all the other non afghani citizens held at guantanamo...the war certainly didn't seek them out...quite the opposite.

you are allowing your own passion and prejudice cloud your logic.
im referring to afghan citizens who own firearms. you seem to think
we should call them all terrosrists, kidnap them, and throw them in prison, as a terrorist. so why, oh why do i have the right to own a firearm, in good ol safe america, and they are not allowed to? why do you not see your own double standard? you NEVER asked my question of coarse.

if you lived there, had a family and no means to just pack up and walk 2000 miles with your wife and kids to another country, and the place you lived was a warzone, would you not want to own a gun> simple question--->simple answer.

Originally posted by Fishy
The place goes against human laws, and it should be closed. Even if 99% there is guilty it should still be closed, they should either charge the people there and put them in prisons in the US itself, where they still have to listen to US laws or they should release them. What they are doing to those people now, guilty or not, is just wrong. And unless the US wants to become what its trying to fight it should stop its actions there immediately.

Good point. By abusing international law, the US sets the example that others follow. Why should Iran respect an international agreement regarding nuclear enrichment programs, while the US shows utter contempt for the basic human rights of the prisoners there? The double-standard merely acts as a catalyst to greater acts of terrorism.

If I was a member of a terrorist network, or a state unsympathetic to the US, I would just show everyone this UN report, that includes the conclusion: "What happens at the US-run detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is torture, and the place should be shut down without further delay.". What better tool than this to incite further hatred for the infidels who continually disrespect Islamic law?

You cannot tell the world to do one thing, while you continually do the opposite. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by soleran30
invade america and ask some of the same questions PVS anything that creates difficulties for troops are suspect.

firearms create danger for our police and federal officers. they are murdered every day....so i fail to see the lack of relevance. unless a cop/agent's life is not worth nearly as much as a soldier's?

Originally posted by PVS
you are allowing your own passion and prejudice cloud your logic.
im referring to afghan citizens who own firearms. you seem to think
we should call them all terrosrists, kidnap them, and throw them in prison, as a terrorist. so why, oh why do i have the right to own a firearm, in good ol safe america, and they are not allowed to? why do you not see your own double standard? you NEVER asked my question of coarse.

if you lived there, had a family and no means to just pack up and walk 2000 miles with your wife and kids to another country, and the place you lived was a warzone, would you not want to own a gun> simple question--->simple answer.

i'm not assuming anything of the sort and you would know this is you had read my posts...you seem to have mistaken me saying that many people supported the taliban as saying that they are all terrorists...and thats just plain wrong...the roots of support for the taliban stretch back into the fights against communist Russia...they took control of Afghanistan from corrupt warlords and were seen as a devout religious leadership...their support was never based on hatred of the America

perhaps a more pertinent question would be..if you live in such a poverty ridden country as afghanistan...why would a gun and ammunition be one of your first priorities?

as for myself wanting to own a gun...i would like to think i didn't but i don't live in afghanistan so i don't know whether it's truly neccessary as you assume that it is

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Animal Farm works too. Its about almost the same thing. Orwell was big on fascism and politics

Animal Farm Parodies the rise of Communism in Russia. Even the Lenin/ Stalin relationship.

Originally posted by jaden101
perhaps a more pertinent question would be..if you live in such a poverty ridden country as afghanistan...why would a gun and ammunition be one of your first priorities?

to protect my family in a place where chaos rules, absolutely. whether it be afghanistan or new orleans right after katrina. it would be one of my top priorities as well as keeping them and myself fed and clothed.

Originally posted by jaden101
as for myself wanting to own a gun...i would like to think i didn't but i don't live in afghanistan so i don't know whether it's truly neccessary as you assume that it is

from a certain "do no evil" point of view, its never justified to own a gun, but from the same point of view, war is never justified.

all i know is that war is chaos, and that afghan citizens have far more to fear than our soldiers. i support our troops, but at the same time acknowledge that they inadvertently bring chaos wherever they do battle. thats just war. so does it not stand to reason that while allied troops fight the taliban, that in the background there is much murder/rape/looting? thats the basis of my thinking: a brown man with a gun is not necessarily out to kill an allied soldier. he may just be protecting what little he has and holds dear.

now dont get it twisted and think im suggesting that we should just write them all off the suspect list. in fact if suspicion warrants it i feel they should be charged and tried. DUE PROCESS. kidnapping and throwing them in some gulag for five years 'just in case' is quite an unamerican act if you ask me...which i know you didnt.

Originally posted by PVS
kidnapping and throwing them in some gulag for five years 'just in case' is quite an unamerican act

Based on recent history, it is actually a very American act...

Originally posted by PVS
to protect my family in a place where chaos rules, absolutely. whether it be afghanistan or new orleans right after katrina. it would be one of my top priorities as well as keeping them and myself fed and clothed.



from a certain "do no evil" point of view, its never justified to own a gun, but from the same point of view, war is never justified.

all i know is that war is chaos, and that afghan citizens have far more to fear than our soldiers. i support our troops, but at the same time acknowledge that they inadvertently bring chaos wherever they do battle. thats just war. so does it not stand to reason that while allied troops fight the taliban, that in the background there is much murder/rape/looting? thats the basis of my thinking: a brown man with a gun is not necessarily out to kill an allied soldier. he may just be protecting what little he has and holds dear.

now dont get it twisted and think im suggesting that we should just write them all off the suspect list. in fact if suspicion warrants it i feel they should be charged and tried. DUE PROCESS. kidnapping and throwing them in some gulag for five years 'just in case' is quite an unamerican act if you ask me...which i know you didnt.

yeah i see your point of view and it is valid...i guess it's all about how the people held in guantanamo are being defined

are they prisoners of war?...the geneva convention states that to be a prisoner of war you have to have been part of an armed force of the occupied country as article 4




many of the people held in guantanamo fall into that catagory and many do not yet their is also article 6 which may or may not cover non afghani's



prisoners of war historically have been held without trial until the end of the war...so then when is the war in afghanistan over and when is the war on terror over?

if they are regarded as terrorists then it should be covered by criminal law and they should have a trial...but by which law?...afghan law?...US law?...international law?

the Americans are no doubt extremely adept and moving within grey areas of the law to fulfill their own ends and as such is morally wrong when it comes to their actions regarding some of the prisoners in guantanamo...

but quite frankly i have no doubt that there are people held there that are far better to be there indefinitely than be outside where they can do the harm they intend

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Animal Farm Parodies the rise of Communism in Russia. Even the Lenin/ Stalin relationship.

My point exactly.

Originally posted by jaden101
but quite frankly i have no doubt that there are people held there that are far better to be there indefinitely than be outside where they can do the harm they intend

Do you think that the principal of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be disregarded? If so, then do you still feel the same way about the kidnappings of foreign nationals in Iraq and Afghanistan? One instance is government sanctioned kidnapping, the other is guerilla. How can one be acceptable, but the other reprehensible? In the eyes of the insurgents, the hostages are part of the US-led occupation, just as the people being held at Guantanamo are all terrorists.

I don't have alot of experience with this Krunk however I believe they can hold you in USA even if you are innocent until you go in front of a judge.

So even if you are innocent you cna have some jail time.

Originally posted by soleran30
I don't have alot of experience with this Krunk however I believe they can hold you in USA even if you are innocent until you go in front of a judge.

So even if you are innocent you cna have some jail time.

you have to be formaly charged with a crime

Originally posted by PVS
you have to be formaly charged with a crime



Ahh gotcha....as in a warrant or something along those lines then.


Four years is a long long time.

Also, Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba. Which in itself is ironic, considering the US' opinion of the human-rights violations there...

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Do you think that the principal of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be disregarded? If so, then do you still feel the same way about the kidnappings of foreign nationals in Iraq and Afghanistan? One instance is government sanctioned kidnapping, the other is guerilla. How can one be acceptable, but the other reprehensible? In the eyes of the insurgents, the hostages are part of the US-led occupation, just as the people being held at Guantanamo are all terrorists.

your post proves my point...the entire thing is a legal minefield...the concept of innocent until proven guilty is for a criminal/crime based system...prisoners of war are not tried before a court...they are held until the end of the conflict and released

terrorism is considered a crime rather than an act of war in the legal sense and so then they should be given the legal right to a trial

the other problem comes with evidence...during a criminal investigation, which the war in afghanistan clearly wasn't, every piece of evidence would be documented for future prosecutions...this just isn't feasible in a war situation...you cant fingerprint every AK47 and RPG you take from the enemy so you can match who fired what and when in the middle of a battle

presumably by "kidnapping" you mean the extraordinary rendition policy of the US that takes prisoners from one country to another for "interrogation" purposes...dubious to say the least...but chucking around allegations of kidnapping and torture are pointless also

When the torture is proven, and the kidnapping is self-evident, they are no longer merely allegations, but facts.

It should be clear to the people responsible that indefinite 'detainment' without clarification of their status or charge is totally unacceptable by a country whose leader constantly claims the moral high-ground.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
When the torture is proven, and the kidnapping is self-evident, they are no longer merely allegations, but facts.

It should be clear to the people responsible that indefinite 'detainment' without clarification of their status or charge is totally unacceptable by a country whose leader constantly claims the moral high-ground.

but the torture hasn't been proven at guantanamo...and even the pictures from abu ghraib are open to legal arguments about whether they are torture...as for the use of "self evident" as an argument...it isn't relevant really is it?

as for the kidnapping...do you consider the police arresting someone in the street to be kidnapping also?



which is exactly what i've been saying

Originally posted by jaden101
as for the kidnapping...do you consider the police arresting someone in the street to be kidnapping also?

if formally charged and allowed legal representation?
what kind of question is that?

Originally posted by PVS
if formally charged and allowed legal representation?
what kind of question is that?

being arrested and being charged aren't the same thing though are they?

so once again...is the police arresting someone in the street and taking them away against their will an act of kidnapping?

Originally posted by jaden101
being arrested and being charged aren't the same thing though are they?

so once again...is the police arresting someone in the street and taking them away against their will an act of kidnapping?

For no reason and without evidence...certainly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
For no reason and without evidence...certainly.

so your saying the people in guantanamo were all taken there for absolutely no reason whatsoever...in other words you assume they're all completely innocent of any wrong doing?

as for the police arresting people without evidence...they do it all the time...they arrest people for admitting to crimes and then go and find evidence that either supports or refutes their admission...depending on what is found they will either let them go or formally charge them

the question of direct evidence is always problematic also...take the apparent lack of evidence that shows Hitler was responsible for the order to kill the European jews during ww2

there is evidence for the order to kill Russian jews but not European...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Hilberg051275.html

as seen in the letters linked to above (which is also relevant to the David Irving thread)

Originally posted by jaden101
being arrested and being charged aren't the same thing though are they?

no, you can be charged but not arrested. lets say for not speeding. however you can not be arrested without being charged. "we are arresting you because...and your court date will be...and you have the right to an attorney...etc" not "GET IN THAT CAGE AND STAY THERE!!!"

Originally posted by jaden101
so once again...is the police arresting someone in the street and taking them away against their will an act of kidnapping?

and once again, i already answered you.

Originally posted by jaden101
so your saying the people in guantanamo were all taken there for absolutely no reason whatsoever...in other words you assume they're all completely innocent of any wrong doing?

as for the police arresting people without evidence...they do it all the time...they arrest people for admitting to crimes and then go and find evidence that either supports or refutes their admission...depending on what is found they will either let them go or formally charge them

the question of direct evidence is always problematic also...take the apparent lack of evidence that shows Hitler was responsible for the order to kill the European jews during ww2

there is evidence for the order to kill Russian jews but not European...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Hilberg051275.html

as seen in the letters linked to above (which is also relevant to the David Irving thread)

I am not saying that I believe they are all innocent, but I might assume you could or could not be guilty of a crime, to be on the safe side I'd rather imprison you, and of course torture you a bit because you might...or might not be guilty.

Oh and in my opinion (and I might be wrong) admiting to have commited a crime is pretty solid evidence.

Originally posted by PVS
no, you can be charged but not arrested. lets say for not speeding. however you can not be arrested without being charged. "we are arresting you because...and your court date will be...and you have the right to an attorney...etc" not "GET IN THAT CAGE AND STAY THERE!!!"



and once again, i already answered you.


sorry...you were saying

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732361.stm

and the answer "what kind of question is that?" isn't really an answer

Originally posted by jaden101
sorry...you were saying

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732361.stm

and the answer "what kind of question is that?" isn't really an answer

so you pick out a handful of names of people who were formally charged and now you win? is that it?

and where may i ask are they being held?

The thing is when you arrest somebody its either for a very limited time, and always with a good reason. You can't stay in jail for a long period of time without getting formally charged with something.

Seeing as the US government fails to do that, they are indeed taking hostages...

Originally posted by Fishy
The thing is when you arrest somebody its either for a very limited time, and always with a good reason. You can't stay in jail for a long period of time without getting formally charged with something.

Seeing as the US government fails to do that, they are indeed taking hostages...

not if they are considered prisoners of war...as i've already said...prisoners of war are held until the end of the war and then released...the question is when is the end of the war...and more pertinently...are they considered prisoners of war?

if they are then it falls under the geneva convention and the treatment of the detainees(notice the term "prisoners of war" is almost never used) comes into question

this is why i've been saying that the US has been extremely evasive and crafty in avoiding a classification of the people at guantanamo bay

you class then as POW's and you can hold them for a long time without charge...dont class them as POW's and you can get around certain aspects of the geneva convention that relate to torture and treatment of prisoners

oh...and hostages now is it?...so whats the demands of the US...thats usually why hostages are taken is it not?

Originally posted by PVS
so you pick out a handful of names of people who were formally charged and now you win? is that it?

and where may i ask are they being held?

no...i'm showing the law...all of the people mentioned were arrested...and some were charged and others released...because thats the way the law works...you get arrested and then you get charged or released...not the other way around as you suggested

as for where those people are being held...i think it's Belmarsh prison but i'm not entirely sure

Originally posted by jaden101
not if they are considered prisoners of war...as i've already said...prisoners of war are held until the end of the war and then released...the question is when is the end of the war...and more pertinently...are they considered prisoners of war?

if they are then it falls under the geneva convention and the treatment of the detainees(notice the term "prisoners of war" is almost never used) comes into question

this is why i've been saying that the US has been extremely evasive and crafty in avoiding a classification of the people at guantanamo bay

you class then as POW's and you can hold them for a long time without charge...dont class them as POW's and you can get around certain aspects of the geneva convention that relate to torture and treatment of prisoners

Well thats the problem the US is refusing to do any of that, it also refuses to make any statement on what is really going on. The entire thing is just wrong. If you call POW's, terrorist, criminals it doesn't matter one way or another the US is breaking laws and doing things wrong, and it should be stopped.

Originally posted by Fishy
Well thats the problem the US is refusing to do any of that, it also refuses to make any statement on what is really going on. The entire thing is just wrong. If you call POW's, terrorist, criminals it doesn't matter one way or another the US is breaking laws and doing things wrong, and it should be stopped.

thats what i've been saying...and i'm pointing out how they are doing it in reality rather than just throwing around accusations

i've asked what laws apply to the detainees...the geneva convention?...US criminal law?...international law?...thats the US is managing to get around the issues about the detainees...by blurring the lines and moving in grey areas that the laws to cover properly...

Originally posted by jaden101
no...i'm showing the law...all of the people mentioned were arrested...and some were charged and others released...because thats the way the law works...you get arrested and then you get charged or released...not the other way around as you suggested

you are 100% W-R-O-N-G

in america, you MUST BE CHARGED in order for an officer to arrest you. they cant put you in cuffs on a whim. if you are released, then the charges have been dropped, as they say.

and you have shown a handful of terror suspects who were properly charged and given a date for trial, and probably allowed legal representation. this however proves NOTHING. you picked a fresh apple from a rotten barrell, congratulations.
but what kind of absolute proof do you believe you have?

Originally posted by PVS
you are 100% W-R-O-N-G

in america, you MUST BE CHARGED in order for an officer to arrest you. they cant put you in cuffs on a whim. if you are released, then the charges have been dropped, as they say.

and you have shown a handful of terror suspects who were properly charged and given a date for trial, and probably allowed legal representation. this however proves NOTHING. you picked a fresh apple from a rotten barrell, congratulations.
but what kind of absolute proof do you believe you have?

100% wrong am i?...dont think so somehow

man arrested and subsequently charged

arrested and held without charge

both examples of US law that are not related to guantanamo...



i dont understand what you're asking for proof about...

i'm not the one throwing around allegations of kidnapping and torture that are so far confined to people being interviewed in the mainstream media...

Originally posted by jaden101
100% wrong am i?...dont think so somehow

man arrested and subsequently charged

arrested and held without charge

both examples of US law that are not related to guantanamo...

wtf is wrong with you?
its a decision by the supreme court which forsakes the constitutional right of a u.s. citizen, which goes against the law of the land. thus the motion and approval and thus the article you posted.
thank you for proving me right, although i could have simply quoted the constitution.

criminal procedure in the US

the 4th 5th and 6th ammendments

http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/ 89906#THEFOURTHAMENDMENTANDCRIMINALPROCEDURESGOVER
NINGPOLICEINVESTIGATIONS,ARRESTS,SEARCHES,ANDSEIZU
RES

Originally posted by jaden101
criminal procedure in the US

the 4th 5th and 6th ammendments

http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/ 89906#THEFOURTHAMENDMENTANDCRIMINALPROCEDURESGOVER
NINGPOLICEINVESTIGATIONS,ARRESTS,SEARCHES,ANDSEIZU
RES

basically it says arrest is covered by the 4th amendment...the issue of non warrent arrests etc

the 5th ammendment is the stage where a suspect is held and then formally charged which then triggers the 6th ammendment rights

oops....meant to edit rather than quote...my mistake




what are you starting to get ratty for?...i'm only showing examples of your own laws...

i also notice you completely ignored the first example

from your linked source of translation:

"...the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from detaining pedestrians and conducting any kind of search of their clothing without first possessing a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the pedestrians are engaged in criminal activity"

Originally posted by PVS
from your linked source of translation:

"...the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from detaining pedestrians and conducting any kind of search of their clothing without first possessing a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the pedestrians are engaged in criminal activity"

also from my link



and



more pertinent to guantanamo bay detainees/prisoners



after arrest



then comes the famous rights as mentioned







its only after the point of charging is made that this comes into effect



then comes arraignment



but this is all pretty irrelevant given that we dont know if the people in guantanamo are being held under US law anyway...and even if they did...the link i gave earlier shows the supreme court granting indefinite detention without charge anyway

the law doesn't remain constant and unchanging in any country, not even the US...

an officer still has to present the charges.
"you are under arrest for..."
then they read you your rights, among which is the right to legal representation etc...

Originally posted by PVS
an officer still has to present the charges.
"you are under arrest for..."
then they read you your rights, among which is the right to legal representation etc...

indeed...but thats the arrest proceedure...it's once in custody that the formal charging or release without charge occurs...

Originally posted by jaden101
indeed...but thats the arrest proceedure...it's once in custody that the formal charging or release without charge occurs...

no.

the arresting officer has to be able to present the charge UPON ARREST.
should i throw an egg at a cop and film the ensuing events to prove this?
or will you just buy the obvious?

Originally posted by PVS
you are 100% W-R-O-N-G

in america, you MUST BE CHARGED in order for an officer to arrest you. they cant put you in cuffs on a whim. if you are released, then the charges have been dropped, as they say.



I take it you haven't watched too many episdodes of COPS.

I have seen friends of mine be cuffed and held just after being pulled over.

What did they do? Nothing. Just pulled over on the street for being Mexican homeboys. Cuffed, and held. The cops check tattoo's, records, the car, everthing.

Trying to find any old warrants, if the car is stolen, any dope, ...whatever.

I'm not talking about the Guantanamo stuff, I just wanted to point this out.

Cops have pulled me over for walking the street and looking like a punk-ass whiteboy who was up to no good. (3 seperate times when I was in high school ), and cuffed me and thrown me in the back of a car.

If you argue or yell about your civil rights, ... hey, you just broke a law.

Obstruction of Justice(delaying an officer in the process of doing his job), and you will go to jail.

It's set up for them. They can always find some law to screw you with.

It works that way so that they can check what you're up to without reason.

Being a few years older now, I actually support it.

Just shut your mouth and let them check on you. If you aren't doing anything wrong,... then what the f*ck is your problem?


Oh, Guantanamo..... I voted "let them rot".

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I take it you haven't watched too many episdodes of COPS.

I have seen friends of mine be cuffed and held just after being pulled over.

What did they do? Nothing. Just pulled over on the street for being Mexican homeboys. Cuffed, and held. The cops check tattoo's, records, the car, everthing.

Trying to find any old warrants, if the car is stolen, any dope, ...whatever.

not that i condone their actions, but the cop did not arrest them did he? from what you just told me...nope.

Originally posted by PVS
not that i condone their actions, but the cop did not arrest them did he? from what you just told me...nope.

Touche!

Originally posted by PVS
no.

the arresting officer has to be able to present the charge UPON ARREST.
should i throw an egg at a cop and film the ensuing events to prove this?
or will you just buy the obvious?

...please do

another example of arrest without charge in the US



from

http://www.granma.cu/miami5/ingles/043.htm

this site with free legal advice doesn't give a single mention of formal charging during the arrest proceedure

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/arrests_and_searches/

there is also the legally defined "voided arrests" in the US in which is defined as the release of an arrested person without the filing of formal charges

fact is that US and UK are very similar...i've been arrested several times...and charged once...

during arrest i had my rights told to me(very similar to US rights)...but only once i was in custody was i formally charged...the other times i was released without charge

i've posted the links to the US law...they're quite clear...i guess there isn't much point in discussing it further

They still give a reason for arresting you though, and they still either present charges not much later or let you go.

Originally posted by jaden101
but the torture hasn't been proven at guantanamo...and even the pictures from abu ghraib are open to legal arguments about whether they are torture...as for the use of "self evident" as an argument...it isn't relevant really is it?

Actually, the UN has condemed the torture that takes place there. The term 'self-evident' is used when something is so obvious it doesn't need to be explained further. Taking people by stealth from other countries without any sort of extradition order = kidnapping.

Originally posted by jaden101
as for the kidnapping...do you consider the police arresting someone in the street to be kidnapping also?

Oh, dear. Arresting someone on suspicion, then either charging them or releasing them is a little different from incarceration for 3 years+.

i haven't read all the replies, so i appologize if this has been brought up...

technically the prissoners of guantanamo are p.o.w.s which means they can be heald for the duration of the "war". its legal in every sense of the matter.

as far as human rights violations go, so long as they are fed and sheltered there aren't any violations

Your first sentence is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. Why join a discussion if you're not willing to acknowledge it first?

The rest of your post is equally useless. The US government has never stated that the detainees are POWs, so they cannot be treated as such. Finally, your definition of what constitutes a human-rights violation is lacking in so many ways. Basically, you've just stated that you can torture a human as much as you want as long as you continue to feed them and give them shelter! Pff, you're a joke.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Oh, Guantanamo..... I voted "let them rot".

Me too!

Fukk 'em!

'naw mean?

Not really, seeing as knowing what you mean would relegate me to the level of an idiot.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Not really, seeing as knowing what you mean would relegate me to the level of an idiot.

Why? I was very pointed---no beating around the bush.

Maybe ignorant belligerence is considered a quality in Bush's America, but the rest of the world still see it for what it is; ignorant belligerence. You also display another recent characteristic of Bush's doctrine: a disregard for internationally recognised human-rights. Good work for that.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You also display another recent characteristic of Bush's doctrine: a disregard for internationally recognised human-rights. Good work for that.

Anytime!


GO DUBYA!!!!!!!!

apart from torture, which is horrible, let me explain the really frightening issue. we are holding 5 chinese nationals at gitmo without charge. They are innocent of everything except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
that's an act of war
China, with it's massive army and nuclear weapons now has the legal grounds to legitimately attack and/or invade the united states. peachy, isn't it?
here's my solution-process everyone at guantanamo bay, release those that are innocent with severance, put those that are suspect in regular jails with regularly scheduled trials. relocate camp x-ray to siberia. toss bush and anyone associated with PNAC in there.

thats what i've been getting at

but its all legal definition

it turns out the citizens and soldiers of nations that haven't signed the geneva convention aren't legally protected by it

it also only binds nations that have signed it...which while the latest verions, the 4th geneva convention...the US did sign in 1949...there were 2 amendments in 1977 that covered civilian treatment that the US did not sign or ratify through the senate

which is here

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

however to be a POW you must be as follows



note that the US hasn't just made up the term "unlawful combatant" in order to get around the geneva convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant



murky waters indeed

Yeah, the invention of that term - and its application - is totally '1984'. Orwell is no doubt muttering "I told you so" in his grave.

The situation with the Chinese detainees is unlikely to result in that outcome. Neither countries want to engage the other in a war that would ruin their prosperous economies.

sorry, but they are considered pows by the us government.

there are no consistent deffinition of what a "human right" is. not in the geneva convention nor in any rules of engagement. nothing. i didn't say torture or other specific misstreatments are right or wrong but specific things are detailed in different international treaties which are often ignored or forgotten by everyone. the problem arguing about them is that no one can really agree on what a "human right" is so just throwing the term around gets confusing. heance, food and shelter, what more can you hope for as a pow?


excuse me for not reading 4 pages of usless drivel....

Originally posted by octapushunter
sorry, but they are considered pows by the us government.

there are no consistent deffinition of what a "human right" is. not in the geneva convention nor in any rules of engagement. nothing. i didn't say torture or other specific misstreatments are right or wrong but specific things are detailed in different international treaties which are often ignored or forgotten by everyone. the problem arguing about them is that no one can really agree on what a "human right" is so just throwing the term around gets confusing. heance, food and shelter, what more can you hope for as a pow?


excuse me for not reading 4 pages of usless drivel....

^absolutely


GO DUBYA!!!!!

Originally posted by octapushunter
sorry, but they are considered pows by the us government.

there are no consistent deffinition of what a "human right" is. not in the geneva convention nor in any rules of engagement. nothing. i didn't say torture or other specific misstreatments are right or wrong but specific things are detailed in different international treaties which are often ignored or forgotten by everyone. the problem arguing about them is that no one can really agree on what a "human right" is so just throwing the term around gets confusing. heance, food and shelter, what more can you hope for as a pow?


excuse me for not reading 4 pages of usless drivel....

There were laws made to stop mass murder ethenic cleansing torture all that stuff... These people aren't held on US soil because of those things, they are held in Cuba so that the US can do whatever they want without breaking any of there own laws. They are acting completely outside of the law and doing it in ways that is just wrong. If anybody else would have done this the international world would have been screaming for there arrest and they would be in the Hague right about now.

please show where this has been stated...i say you cant because the US goverment never uses the term prisoners of war...and in fact i remember dick cheney actually saying before the iraq was that they most likely would NOT be given prisoner of war status

and regardless...it's not really even up to the US to decide whether they are prisoners of war or not....the parameters of who and who isn't a POW are all laid out in the geneva convention



except of course...that there is

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html




useless drivel?...yet you haven't read it so you wouldn't know would you?....no...well shut it then

Jamal al-Harith, born Ronald Fiddler, to second-generation Jamaican parents was taken to Guantanamo Bay. He's a web designer who was a tourist in Pakistan. Through a series of unfortuante events, he found himself in Afghanistan. As he waited in Kandahar for the British Embassy to take him home, he was 'picked-up' by US forces and told he was to be sent to Cuba for administrative processing. Then, he was shackled, his arms chained to his legs, chained to a hook on the floor, his face covered in earmuffs and goggles and a surgical mask, bound for Guantanamo Bay.

He was eventually released - without charge - 2 years later.

Asked if the Americans were dipping their toes into the waters of exotic interrogation techniques, he replied: "They were doing a lot more than dipping".

Sources:

http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/APFeaturesManager/defaultArtSiteView.asp?ArtId=120

http://www.blink.org.uk/print.asp?key=5438

http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/493/493_05_Guantanamo.shtml

http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=267 - sourced from The Guardian newspaper

Let's talk about impeaching the president and vice-president of the united states. let's talk about arresting donald rumsfeld and the joint chiefs and putting them on trial in the Hauge. It's ok, they can share Milosevic's cell and Eichmann's cubicle. They aren't using them anymore.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, to bad it will never happen.

The example given above is just another reason to hate the place and a damned good reason why it should be closed... Two ****ing years of his life wasted

Could also add the number who have actually been charged with an actual offense, a figure which is also abysmally low. Truly a mockery of justice.

Seems hardly surprising there have been those suicide attempts, or the attack. To imagine existing in such a limbo for up to (or even over) 4 years.

Yeah, that makes the resolve of the 'Tripton Three' - featured in Michael Winterbottom's 'The Road To Guantanamo' - all the more incredible.

Whoever resurrected this thread scared the hell out of me. Post #2 was from Makedde, and I breathed a sigh of relief as I saw it from a few months ago. It was scary thinking for a moment that she wasn't actually dead, but worse...posting on KMC again!

The Geneva convention ONLY applies to solders. These guys don't wear uniforms and don't follow the "rules of war".

Even though bush calls it a war, it legally isn't, its a 'conflict'. The President is forbidden to declare war, only Congress can, and they didn't. But the president can invole the country in conflicts.

It's semantics, I know, but thats how he can get away with his crap.

funny isn't it how most of the posts are pro-terrorists, yet the poll says let them rot?

-edit-

I still haven't seen any credible proof of widespread inhumane treatment. People keep saying that it's happening, but no one is showing it. Recently the US govt. invited some human rights organization to inspect guantanamo and the group refused and then put out a bad report. Seems like everything is based on hearsay to me.

So, to all y'all who want to shut 'er down - what do we do with all those suspected terrorists? Military tribunals? Criminal courts - even though any crimes happened outside of their jurisdiction? just set 'em free?

I'm all for Military tribunals followed by execution of the ones that can be shown to have actively participated in slaughter of civilians.

Originally posted by docb77
funny isn't it how most of the posts are pro-terrorists, yet the poll says let them rot?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

actually unlawful combatants have never been given rights so blaming that on the US is irrelevant

not to mention the fact that even if they were POW's then the geneva convention is only applicable to A) countries who signed up for the original convention which afghanistan did not and B) countries who ratified the 2 subsequent ammendments of the convention which the US did not

infact after a little bit of research, the only thing binding the US with regards to how it treats the people in guantanamo is the body of principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp36.htm

you also are misled in thinking that if something is defined as a war then the people in it who are captured are therfor prisoners of war

when infact it is the actions of the people who have been captured that determine whether they are defined as prisoners of war

there are 4 defining attributes for one to qualify as a POW

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

neither al qaeda nor the taliban nor the insurrgency in iraq follows these definitions and so POW status wouldnt apply even if the US had ratified the geneva convention ammendments

Originally posted by docb77
funny isn't it how most of the posts are pro-terrorists, yet the poll says let them rot?

I was projecting the reaction I expected to see from some of pro-Bush crowd. I guess you missed that.

Originally posted by docb77
I still haven't seen any credible proof of widespread inhumane treatment. People keep saying that it's happening, but no one is showing it. Recently the US govt. invited some human rights organization to inspect guantanamo and the group refused and then put out a bad report. Seems like everything is based on hearsay to me.

Click on the link to the Amnesty International website for details.

Aside from that, do you not classify people who have been kidnapped from their homeland, hooded and bound, transported thousands of miles to a foreign country, and incarcerated for years without charge inhumane? If you don't, then I guess the reason you're not seeing the credible proof is because you're not human. That's cool, but being human is kind of a necessity when considering the nature of of the word.

The rest of your post is garbage, so I've dumped it in the trash can.

Edit: I now see that the poll comment was in reference to the most popular choice.

I guess it can be seen to represent how the majority of the people who are in acceptance of what goes on at Guantanamo realise that they have nothing to defend their view with, other than their own simple ignorance.

Originally posted by Aziz!
If these people had there way they would either destroy or convert you.
I don't lose sleep knowing there rotting in that shit hole.

as i wouldnt lose a wink of sleep if your sorry ignorant facist ass was rotting in a shit hole.
isnt apathy just so liberating?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I was projecting the reaction I expected to see from some of pro-Bush crowd. I guess you missed that.



Click on the link to the Amnesty International website for details.

Aside from that, do you not classify people who have been kidnapped from their homeland, hooded and bound, transported thousands of miles to a foreign country, and incarcerated for years without charge inhumane? If you don't, then I guess the reason you're not seeing the credible proof is because you're not human. That's cool, but being human is kind of a necessity when considering the nature of of the word.

The rest of your post is garbage, so I've dumped it in the trash can.

first off you stated in one of your previous posts that the US is in breach of the 4th geneva convention...then you go on to cite treatment of POW's

given that the 4th geneva convention is regards the status of civilians in war....and infact it is the third geneva convention that regards the treatment of POW's

secondly i presume by your post that if they call the military action the "war on terror" and that the combatants taken in it are to be considered POW's then they do have the protection of the 3rd geneva convention but they dont have rights to trial...they are merely held until the end of the war...

and thats where the problem lies

the US was partly held up to clarify the situation in the november 2004 trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan which paved the way for the Combatant Status Review Tribunals

from those trials there were 38 people who were deemed never to have been combatants but only 4 of those have been released

not to mention all the scandals about translators making mistakes during those hearings

its all over the place but people in this forum on both sides are over simplifying things either due to ignorance or misunderstanding of the facts....the former of which is pathetic and the later of which applies to almost everybody on the planet due to the complexity of the situation

Originally posted by PVS
as i wouldnt lose a wink of sleep if your sorry ignorant facist ass was rotting in a shit hole.
isnt apathy just so liberating?

Why arn't you charming.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Even though bush calls it a war, it legally isn't, its a 'conflict'. The President is forbidden to declare war, only Congress can, and they didn't. But the president can invole the country in conflicts.

It's semantics, I know, but thats how he can get away with his crap.
I read that in several past conflicts, Congress has relinquished this authority to the president, and that it has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo


Aside from that, do you not classify people who have been kidnapped from their homeland, hooded and bound, transported thousands of miles to a foreign country, and incarcerated for years without charge inhumane? If you don't, then I guess the reason you're not seeing the credible proof is because you're not human. That's cool, but being human is kind of a necessity when considering the nature of of the word.


Charges are for criminals, these people are that and more, but jurisdiction makes it difficult to process them.

So, Do I have a problem with the scenario you describe? No. Is it inhumane? No.

Without reason is one thing, without charge - that's something else entirely.

We have very good reason for holding most of the detainees. And while ideally I agree that we should have more of this mess sorted out by now, I really think the priority is getting rid of the terrorists who are still out there. Letting more of them out isn't the solution.

Originally posted by docb77
Charges are for criminals, these people are that and more, but jurisdiction makes it difficult to process them.

So, Do I have a problem with the scenario you describe? No. Is it inhumane? No.

Without reason is one thing, without charge - that's something else entirely.

We have very good reason for holding most of the detainees. And while ideally I agree that we should have more of this mess sorted out by now, I really think the priority is getting rid of the terrorists who are still out there. Letting more of them out isn't the solution.

So you don't mind at all that innocent people might be held there? Innocent. Like you. Innocent.

Yeah, it bugs me. But there are innocent people caught in any war. There are innocent people in any prison system in the world. It sucks and we should look for ways to make it happen less often, but not at the expense of releasing an exponentially greater number of persons who are not innocent.

personally, if my incarceration meant that 500 people who wanted to kill my family were locked up too - I'd take it.

Originally posted by jaden101
first off you stated in one of your previous posts that the US is in breach of the 4th geneva convention...then you go on to cite treatment of POW's

given that the 4th geneva convention is regards the status of civilians in war....and infact it is the third geneva convention that regards the treatment of POW's

secondly i presume by your post that if they call the military action the "war on terror" and that the combatants taken in it are to be considered POW's then they do have the protection of the 3rd geneva convention but they dont have rights to trial...they are merely held until the end of the war...

and thats where the problem lies

Maybe I should have made it clearer, but the stuff in bold type was quoted. However, I highlighted the disregard for both the 3rd and the 4th convention as they both apply, depending on which way the detainees are deemed to be classified. I appreciate your demand for clarity, though.

Originally posted by jaden101
its all over the place but people in this forum on both sides are over simplifying things either due to ignorance or misunderstanding of the facts....the former of which is pathetic and the later of which applies to almost everybody on the planet due to the complexity of the situation

As you say, the misunderstanding of the facts is unavoidable due to the distortions created by the administration.

Originally posted by docb77
Charges are for criminals, these people are that and more, but jurisdiction makes it difficult to process them.

That's a totally ignorant comment. You should do some research before presenting such a supposition.

Originally posted by docb77
So, Do I have a problem with the scenario you describe? No. Is it inhumane? No.

Without reason is one thing, without charge - that's something else entirely.

We have very good reason for holding most of the detainees. And while ideally I agree that we should have more of this mess sorted out by now, I really think the priority is getting rid of the terrorists who are still out there. Letting more of them out isn't the solution.

Again, a load of unfounded crapola.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
That's a totally ignorant comment. You should do some research before presenting such a supposition.



Again, a load of unfounded crapola.

prove it.

What human rights organizations have visited these prisons? What abuses are taking place? Who's still imprisoned that we "know" is innocent? What jurisdiction do these "unlawful combatants" fall under?

Have any of those answers?

I'm not the one denying reality here. Amnesty international... pfeh. you expect me to believe them? They're as bad on the left as the leftists claim foxnews is on the right.

Originally posted by docb77
prove it.

What human rights organizations have visited these prisons? What abuses are taking place? Who's still imprisoned that we "know" is innocent? What jurisdiction do these "unlawful combatants" fall under?

Have any of those answers?

I have no interest in feeding you like a baby, but you could start by reading any number of the released detainee's accounts of their stay there. Hint: Google can help you there.

Also, you could check out Michael Winterbottom's 'The Road To Guantanamo'...

Originally posted by docb77
I'm not the one denying reality here. Amnesty international... pfeh. you expect me to believe them?

You're right. Amnesty International are all about infringing individual liberty and taking your money. Don't trust them. They're bad.

Pff, silly boy.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I have no interest in feeding you like a baby, but you could start by reading any number of the released detainee's accounts of their stay there. Hint: Google can help you there.

Also, you could check out Michael Winterbottom's 'The Road To Guantanamo'...



Ok, I googled it. Yep, you're right there are some awful stories out there. You know what else I googled - "released detainees credibility". You know what I found? Nothing about the detainees.

Then you point me to a dramatization of the stories of 3 suspected terrorists. Yeah, real credible. I don't trust the govt. all that much, but I'll take their word over possible terrorists with an axe to grind.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You're right. Amnesty International are all about infringing individual liberty and taking your money. Don't trust them. They're bad.

Pff, silly boy.

I never said they didn't have noble goals. I just said that they were liars.

-edit-

This is kind of old, but I think these guys are just as reputable as the ones you're parading:

from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31759

"Since nothing the White House could say would convince her that the Guantanamo detainees are being treating humanely, maybe the testimony of freed detainees themselves will. It won't make a difference to hardened America-haters, of course, but let the truth be known:

Last weekend, 18 Afghans were released from detention in Cuba after 16 months of questioning in U.S. custody. They flew home and were held briefly in a Kabul jail. The Boston Globe reports that "nearly all of the former detainees enthusiastically praised the conditions at Guantanamo and expressed little bitterness about losing a year of their lives in captivity, saying they were treated better there than in three days in squalid cells in Kabul. None complained of torture during questioning or coerced confessions."

Sirajuddin, 24, a Kandahar taxi driver, said: ''The conditions were even better than our homes. We were given three meals a day – eggs in the morning and meat twice a day; facilities to wash, and if we didn't wash, they'd wash us; and there was even entertainment with video games.''

"There is no need to lie," Sayed Abasin, 21, told the Chicago Tribune. "I'm telling you the facts. They treated us very well." His record from Cuba shows he was seen 37 times by the Gitmo medical staff, for everything from knee pain to sinusitis.

The freed detainees said they were allowed to pray five times daily, exercise and were given books written in Pashtu. Upon their release, as parting gifts, the Afghan men received new shirts, jeans, tennis shoes and gym bags (to carry their Korans). "

Originally posted by docb77
Ok, I googled it. Yep, you're right there are some awful stories out there. You know what else I googled - "released detainees credibility". You know what I found? Nothing about the detainees.

Then you point me to a dramatization of the stories of 3 suspected terrorists. Yeah, real credible. I don't trust the govt. all that much, but I'll take their word over possible terrorists with an axe to grind.

Apart from being in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region, what credible proof is there that the Tription Three were terrorists? Absolutely none.

Originally posted by docb77
I never said they didn't have noble goals. I just said that they were liars.

Sure, you said that. Sadly, it's an assumption not based in reality.

Originally posted by docb77
This is kind of old, but I think these guys are just as reputable as the ones you're parading:

from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31759

World Net Daily, credible? Ahahahaha...

What makes them uncredible?

Just take a look at their homepage.

What? She became a white house heckler 35 years later? Crusty? Is that why she is always in the first row? Check out the clipsof her hounding the press secretary 30 years ago.



Ari Fleischer? As in soooooo not this presidency? As in press secretary so four years ago? As in, no longer relevant? Doing commentator spots on CNN and FOX news should be enough not to legitimacicse ARI FLEISCHER!

And that's fine, we can discuss Clinton v. Bush administrations all you want. But, one did not extend a middle finger to the other democratic nations, while "spreading democracy", did it? This war is uncalled for, AND pointless. There's a difference! If the democrats were in charge, at least there whould be a media savy reason for it. And the President would have the chutzpah to follow the script! Bush doesn't even know what that means!

Originally posted by docb77
Who's still imprisoned that we "know" is innocent?

Hey man, for all I know you are a terrorist...do I want you in a concentration camp for that....hell yes....but would I really support it? No....because there are human rights....and believe me or not...they apply to Muslims as well.

Ego, selfishness, hypocracy, etc...

if the law was concrete there would be no misinterpretation of their status...i hardly think its the fault of the US that the UN cant make a decent law to save their collective ass...let alone the fact that they never do anything to enforce their will because if they did then we can be pretty sure that we would never have been in this situation in the first place





why...because they dont have an axe to grind and are completely unbiased?...mmm

amnesty international william schultz said that despite the publicised charges of torture that he didnt actually know whether it was going on.

the red cross who is the only independant organisation to be given access to guantanamo found the following

"humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions."

we cant exactly take the UN humam rights commission report seriously when it says that keeping alive the prisoners who are on hunger strike by force feeding them is a form of torture cause you can only imagine what they would say if the US just let them starve themselves to death

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Just take a look at their homepage. Yup, uncredible.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Just take a look at their homepage.

straw man fallacy, try reading the debate post. besides I was talking about the releasees not the people doing the story.

ok this is going round in circles

i ask the critics of guantanamo this

would you prefer the prisoners there be given POW status despite the fact that POW's are not tried...they merely get released at the end of the war(which realistically, given that its part of the war on terror, could be 50 years away) yet they get the protection of the 3rd geneva convention

or would you rather they keep their civilian status and be tried yet have no protection under the geneva convention?

Originally posted by jaden101
ok this is going round in circles

i ask the critics of guantanamo this

would you prefer the prisoners there be given POW status despite the fact that POW's are not tried...they merely get released at the end of the war(which realistically, given that its part of the war on terror, could be 50 years away) yet they get the protection of the 3rd geneva convention

or would you rather they keep their civilian status and be tried yet have no protection under the geneva convention?

If i recall right civilians have rights as well. Don't they? A just and quick trial? Such stuff? Well, I suppose that would be better. Since, The "War" on Terrorism, isn't really a war at all, now is it?

Originally posted by jaden101
would you prefer the prisoners there be given POW status despite the fact that POW's are not tried...they merely get released at the end of the war(which realistically, given that its part of the war on terror, could be 50 years away) yet they get the protection of the 3rd geneva convention

or would you rather they keep their civilian status and be tried yet have no protection under the geneva convention?

I want the detainees to be formally charged and tried at a court of law. How can Bush speak of "bringing democracy" to other countries, and so blatantly violate civil rights in his own "back-yard"??

well im glad neither of you want them classed as pow's because they cant be by the geneva convention anyway

the 4th geneva convention covers non combatant civillians but not combatants

and no...the term "unlawful combatant" wasn't just made up to suit the US needs...

and if its not a war then what is it...i always assumed people shooting each other with guns and blowing each other up with tanks and bombs and stuff pretty much sumed up a war...perhaps its all those "stoopeeeed amerrreeeeekaan" war films rotting my brain

Originally posted by jaden101
well im glad neither of you want them classed as pow's because they cant be by the geneva convention anyway

the 4th geneva convention covers non combatant civillians but not combatants

and no...the term "unlawful combatant" wasn't just made up to suit the US needs...

and if its not a war then what is it...i always assumed people shooting each other with guns and blowing each other up with tanks and bombs and stuff pretty much sumed up a war...perhaps its all those "stoopeeeed amerrreeeeekaan" war films rotting my brain

Well, I don't doubt that the war against Afghanistan and the War against Iraq, but the War on terror is just some weird catch phrase without real meaning and it certainly doesn't give anyone the right to abduct German citizens and hold them as prisoners.

i have no idea why but that just made me burst out laughing

Originally posted by jaden101
i have no idea why but that just made me burst out laughing

Hmm that could have two reasons...you read something I didn't intend...or I was intentionally funny....which I doubt....cause no one seems to get my intentional humour....must be a German thing....or the lack of it.

Originally posted by jaden101
i have no idea why but that just made me burst out laughing

well think hard...i'd really like to know why...

Originally posted by jaden101
i have no idea why but that just made me burst out laughing

Me too!

Originally posted by docb77
straw man fallacy, try reading the debate post. besides I was talking about the releasees not the people doing the story.

'Straw Man fallacy'? Not at all. Of course validity - or lack thereof - is a factor when the story itself is from a ridiculous web site with little credibility. Try again.

Originally posted by jaden101
would you rather they keep their civilian status and be tried yet have no protection under the geneva convention?

Yeah, that's the one I want. 'Due-process', and all...Hahahahaha.

Originally posted by docb77
straw man fallacy, try reading the debate post. besides I was talking about the releasees not the people doing the story.

strawman is debating at the man a.k.a. your opponents.
they were questioning the validity of the source which was quoted and
have every right to do so given that you seem to accept it as scripture.

oh and study up on fallacy definitions

:edit: oh great i just noticed that i me-too'd

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Me too!

*phew* that should take the spotlight off of me

Originally posted by docb77
Course, this year my vote will be more based on the border thing than the terrorism thing, but then again they're linked in my mind.

i just cant even fathom the depths of stupidity of that quote.

Originally posted by docb77

Do we have the same definition of facism here?
that exalts nation

...and to do that: scapegoating and 'cleansing'

Originally posted by docb77
I call them criminals because they fit the definition. If I were looking at whether or not they had been charged or whatnot, I'd call them convicts, or something.

Do we have the same definition of facism here?
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Failing to see how being methodical about non-citizen suspected terrorists is pushing us toward a dictatorship or a more centralized govt. than we already have.

Ehm, a criminal is someone who commited a crime, last time I checked, not someone who was locked up because they're suspected of having done so.

Isn't it incredibly obvious that throwing people into jail for years at a time without telling them why they are there or giving them any trial implies a police state, or something headed in that direction? How could you NOT see that?

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Isn't it incredibly obvious that throwing people into jail for years at a time without telling them why they are there or giving them any trial implies a police state, or something headed in that direction? How could you NOT see that?

I think because of this:

Originally posted by docb77
I voted for Bush

and that he seems to think this supports his point of view:

Originally posted by docb77
Do we have the same definition of facism here?
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

It's funny how some people can be so misguided, even when the evidence has shown the fallacy - there's that word again - of their own position. Actually, maybe 'misguided' is the wrong word...

Oh, it now seems that kids were/are being held at Guantanamo, too:

UPI Source

Group says children held at Guantanamo

LONDON, May 28 (UPI) -- A British legal rights group says more than 60 of the detainees of the U.S. detention camp in Guantanamo Bay were under 18 at the time of their capture.

The findings by the group Reprieve directly contradicted the Bush administration's assurances to the British government that no children were being held, The London Independent reported on Sunday.

The group alleges that 10 detainees still being held were 14 or 15 when they were seized. Some were child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured, the newspaper said.

Lawyers for Reprieve say the latest figures were developed after the U.S. Defense Department released the first ever list of Guantanamo detainees earlier this month. The attorneys say they were able to confirm that 17 detainees on the list were under 18 when taken to the camp and another seven were probably juveniles. The group says they have credible evidence that another 37 inmates were under 18 when they were seized.

A senior Pentagon spokesman insisted that no one now being held at Guantanamo was a juvenile, the newspaper said.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Oh, it now seems that kids were/are being held at Guantanamo, too:

UPI Source

Group says children held at Guantanamo

LONDON, May 28 (UPI) -- A British legal rights group says more than 60 of the detainees of the U.S. detention camp in Guantanamo Bay were under 18 at the time of their capture.

The findings by the group Reprieve directly contradicted the Bush administration's assurances to the British government that no children were being held, The London Independent reported on Sunday.

The group alleges that 10 detainees still being held were 14 or 15 when they were seized. Some were child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured, the newspaper said.

Lawyers for Reprieve say the latest figures were developed after the U.S. Defense Department released the first ever list of Guantanamo detainees earlier this month. The attorneys say they were able to confirm that 17 detainees on the list were under 18 when taken to the camp and another seven were probably juveniles. The group says they have credible evidence that another 37 inmates were under 18 when they were seized.

A senior Pentagon spokesman insisted that no one now being held at Guantanamo was a juvenile, the newspaper said.

indeed there is...not to mention the cases of them being taught how to read and write while there and being able to support their families after their release because of it

and i personally thought that the old guantanamo where it was used as a camp for keeping people with aids and HIV from Haiti who were fleeing persecution, from entering the US was more of a scandal than its current use

Originally posted by jaden101
indeed there is...not to mention the cases of them being taught how to read and write while there and being able to support their families after their release because of it

Oh, I guess I misunderstood the nature of a detention camp! It's actually kind of like summer school, right? Wow, how nice...

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Oh, I guess I misunderstood the nature of a detention camp! It's actually kind of like summer school, right? Wow, how nice...

whats that all about?...i cant point out some good things that have actually came about because of people being held in guantanamo without you getting all worked up?

Children forcibly displaced from their home country. Hooded and bound. Put in a detention camp indefinitely. Subjected to torture...BUT, they learn to read and write...Oh, that's OK then.

You're right. When good things like that are balanced with the bad, it makes everything OK.

once again all i need to do is refer to the red cross report...given that they are the only organization to have visited guantanamo then only their findings are valid...the UN report is not

they stated



they gave no mention of it being conducted on children although if it were the case im sure they would have highlighted it to the extreme

you also neglect to mention that while 60 were under 18 only 3 of those were under 16 and were all released a long time ago (not to mention that they were held in an entirely different facility seperate from the adults called camp iguana and which now is no longer open anyway)

not to mention the fact that the boy who was featured on a panorama documentary was actually thankful for the time he spent in guantanamo and the education he recieved

i know how you like to listen to the testimonies of the people who were held in guantanamo bay...so why ignore this particular case?


you also neglect to mention the fact that there were over 8000 child soldiers fighting for the taliban and since then many of them have managed to be disarmed and reintegrated into normal life because of the fall of the taliban

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I think because of this:



and that he seems to think this supports his point of view:



It's funny how some people can be so misguided, even when the evidence has shown the fallacy - there's that word again - of their own position. Actually, maybe 'misguided' is the wrong word...

You some kind of idiot? I don't always agree with Bush, I voted for him because he was a better choice than his opponent. I haven't seen a politician yet that I would comfortably campaign for.

As far as that post, did you even bother to read it? I was asking in what way the US resembled that definition.

You're pretty good at bashing people with an argument different from yours, not so good at actually arguing with logic.

Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention the fact that the boy who was featured on a panorama documentary was actually thankful for the time he spent in guantanamo and the education he recieved

That point would be valid except for that he is likely only grateful because being in prison was better than being a child soldier in a poor country where he had no opportunities to become literate. It doesn't make imprisoning children forced to work as child soldiers acceptable, it just means their home countries totally suck. We could maybe try to fix things over there, rather than kidnapping kids and teaching them to read in prison..?