Originally posted by docb77
Charges are for criminals, these people are that and more, but jurisdiction makes it difficult to process them.
If the detainees at Guantanamo have not been charged and/or judged how can you say they are criminals? Because you are TOLD they are?
Originally posted by docb77
We have very good reason for holding most of the detainees.
“We”?? Do you have ANY say in all of this? … I thought not. And what “good reasons” can you list?
Originally posted by docb77
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.
And this, docb77, is how fascism is born.
You call people, who have not been charged nor judged… terrorist. How do you KNOW they are? Because you were told so?
Originally posted by The Omega
If the detainees at Guantanamo have not been charged and/or judged how can you say they are criminals? Because you are TOLD they are?
WOMAN, do you know nothing? That is the basic principle of guilty until proven innocent or shot dead, deeply rooted in the Constitution of the United States of American Freedom ™...
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 circlesi 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 conventionor 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"??
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?
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?
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 anywaythe 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.
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 Ya Krunk'd Floo
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?
I believe the phrase is now "guilty until proven innocent", what with Guantanamo bay, shooting 15-year old car thieves in the head, and being allowed to listen to anyone's phone calls—yet another reminder of 1984.
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 The Omega
If the detainees at Guantanamo have not been charged and/or judged how can you say they are criminals? Because you are TOLD they are?“We”?? Do you have ANY say in all of this? … I thought not. And what “good reasons” can you list?
And this, docb77, is how fascism is born.
You call people, who have not been charged nor judged… terrorist. How do you KNOW they are? Because you were told so?
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 I have any say in this? sure I do, I voted for Bush, Some republican senators, and an independent representative who ended up losing. 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.
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.
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?