Shameful: This is the world's view on Guantanamo Bay.

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

the assumption

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

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

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

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

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?

indefinite 'detainment' without clarification of their status or charge is totally unacceptable

which is exactly what i've been saying