This just in GITMO is still illegal

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 3, 2006, 10:20 pm

It also describes the bare minimum standards anyone should be allowed, just because your government (the only one in the civilized world) believes they fall outside this group (you know, of .... everyone) doesn't mean it's the case.

Try switching off Fox.

Claiming that Gitmo detainees are treated "humanely" and that the millions upon millions of people are making "mountains out of molehills" is the "hysterical interpretation" bit.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » July 4, 2006, 12:15 am

Nick wrote:It also describes the bare minimum standards anyone should be allowed, just because your government (the only one in the civilized world) believes they fall outside this group (you know, of .... everyone) doesn't mean it's the case.

Try switching off Fox.

Claiming that Gitmo detainees are treated "humanely" and that the millions upon millions of people are making "mountains out of molehills" is the "hysterical interpretation" bit.

I don't even get Fox. I have Basic Cable.

I read newspapers and visit various sites like http://news.bbc.co.uk for information. I don't glom onto one news station or web site for information. Just like any other person, I have misconceptions about other countries based on information I read. Some things I believe are probably wrong in some way but I try not to get involved in commenting on the politics of another country(not the US), except the occasional off-hand remark. Sometimes you people suck me into saying something which I intentionally want to get a reaction out of.

I personally hate politics because in the term of each president, there are so many good ideas and very few get accomplished.

Politicians do what THEY want to do (both main parties are guilty) and not what the people want. Does it mean the system is all bad... no, but it does irritate at times.

Putting off Social Security is one of my peeves, because the current system will be screwed in time, and politicians piss me off because instead of doing something NOW to fix it, they just keep putting it off.

Yes, I realize Iraq isn't a bed of roses, but in-fighting among politicians and tit-for-tat bullcrap does nothing to better the situation.

I'm not a Republican or Democrat. I look at both sides in the best un-biased view I can muster, and as much as the Democrats try to profess how much better their party is, I honestly don't see them doing anything but trying to stir the crap in the partisan kettle. Yeah, the Republicans do also, but nowhere near as much as the Democrats.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 4, 2006, 1:14 am

The political spectrum doesn't begin and end with Republican and Democrat. A Republican does not always blindly follow his parties direction and the same goes for a Democrat.

What you said in your last post is all fair enough, it's not wholly unreasonable, it's just pretty irrelevant to the situation in Gitmo and the larger "war on terror" (a bullshit war if ever there was one that's hurting your country more than helping it).

It's pretty straightforward man, Gitmo is a hellish place that should never have existed. It's horrible beyond belief, there are actually HUNDREDS of innocent men (Yeah,totally innocent men - not what your government wants you to believe) suffering there completely unnecessarily.
Words literally cannot describe how frightfully evil your government has been in regards to the human rights they have not afforded towards men who are their equals, albeit from a different country and with different coloured skin.

There are probably a few fighters for the Taliban in there too of course, and the Taliban are no angels and should be punished for their oppression of the Afghan people.

The thing is, they did it with our governments support, so how are we any less culpable for the actions they produced is just bullshit. Your high horse is fictional and absurd. It only became important to punish these guys after a group of vaguely related men crashed planes into the twin towers.

The discussion of "bringing justice" and "protecting Afghan and American citizens" is one that is intrinsically important to this debate, although VV has never been one for actually following a discussion through to cathartic completion.

However, given any semblance of legitimate debate is out of the question, I'll go on.

The fact is Guantanamo bay, by all accounts is a disgusting legal anomaly, created by a superpower that fears no one, which allows you to get away with imprisoning men (kidnapped depending on your preference of semantics) who have done you or your government no harm - for as long as you feel like it.

That's not right. Can't you see it? And no it's not acceptable, under any circumstances. If it was being done to Americans you would have nuked the offender by now. That is a fact. Realise that for once.

These are not the actions of a civilised nation that has learnt the lessons of the past and specifically world war 2. The reality is that the world sees Guantanamo bay as one of the main reasons your country is in more danger than ever before.

You are actually giving terrorists a legitimate reason to attack you in so far as you are acting like terrorists - how are you better and more noble than terrorists when you do this? (not to mention the thousands of dead Iraqi's who had absolutely no link to terrorism that you allowed your leader to murder because you as a nation - all of you - were too fucking apathetic and moronic to realise their unbelievably transparant lies).

Go check some of our old Iraq related posts just as Powell was preparing his statement to the UN to see quite how many of you (even vaguely intelligent board members) were sucked into the blatant lies your administration fed you.

There were millions of us telling you, did you listen? Did you fuck.

Terrorism is never justifiable, not over 9'11, Madrid, London by Al Quaida or Al Quaida sympathisers or by the "Coalition of the willing" (unfairly named the "allies"), who literally do not give a shit about the hundred thousand or so Iraqi's (MINIMUM) they have killed and the human rights abuses of Gitmo and rendition of further suspects.

The fact of the matter is, if you want to win the war on terror (a label given to the attack on 9'11 and exploited for US international hegemony I may add), you need to do 2 things.

1. Capture the terrorists who have actually harmed YOUR country (I.e Bin Laden - not ambigiously guilty farmer from Bumblefuck Afghanistan).

2. Stop giving terrorists reasons to blow you up.

If it was my innocent brother in Gitmo, I would probably want to fucking murder you all too. Have a bit of fucking perspective.

You may hate politicians, but you and others like you perpetuate this situation by voting for people like the Republican party, a draconian war mongering party the likes of which Al Quaida pale into insignificance in terms of actual murder bodycount.

It's not fucking rocket science.

In conclusion, it's probably hard for anyone with a small brain to make the distinction between my loathing of immoral murder, oppression and corruption and "OMG HATING AMERICA". The thing is, your country is making your closest allies hate you for the things you are doing and blindly supporting, like the fucking lemmings you keep proving yourselves to be.

The fact you think you are "realistic" and "making progress" is the saddest thing of all. It just means things are going to get worse before they get better. Mainly because you did nothing but perpetuate the negative direction of progress.

At the end of the day, this is all just waxing lyrical, and neither you or I (you as a person have even less say in world affairs than the government of Canada, or Ireland - how embarrasingly ironic) can change this. Giving up the fight on a physical level is one thing, giving up the fight on a mental level is something you should be utterly fucking ashamed of.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 4, 2006, 1:23 am

Aruman wrote:As far as President Bush being a war criminal, not really, since these people outside of probably a few who may have been overly harrassed or 'tortured' as they put it (bolded so no one misses this), have been treated humanely. The people responsible for the 'torture' are or will be dealt with.

As usual, certain organizations, news agencies, and people that frequent this forum are making mountains out of molehills.

Umm Aruman, you are completely fucking insane, those people being held, however polite we are in doing so, and however much they are pieces of shit in human flesh, ARE NOT LEGALLY HELD. Basically the 444 days our hostages were held in Iran? Yep we are doing the SAME THING.

End of Story.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 4, 2006, 1:26 am

What evidence do you have that all of them are pieces of shit in human flesh man?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 4, 2006, 1:43 am

I don't ever want to meet the sub-human worthy enough of someone like kylere to call a human piece of shit. I thought he was their king.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » July 4, 2006, 2:44 am

Nick wrote: The fact of the matter is, if you want to win the war on terror (a label given to the attack on 9'11 and exploited for US international hegemony I may add), you need to do 2 things.

1. Capture the terrorists who have actually harmed YOUR country (I.e Bin Laden - not ambigiously guilty farmer from Bumblefuck Afghanistan).

2. Stop giving terrorists reasons to blow you up.

1. Would be nice if we could get permission to go into where the bastards are and just take them out. The problem is that some of them are located in countries where terrorism is supported, and some countries will not give this permission. In both cases, some of the terrorists hide among civilians. That sort of behavior is undeniably against the Geneva Convention. This is another reason why they do not deserve any designation as a PoWs.

2. The very act of taking the terrorists out creates their 'reason' for wanting to 'blow us up'. However, (bear with me) the 'insurgents' in Iraq main focus doesn't seem to be 'blowing up (attacking)' Coalition forces. Their main targets seem to be Iraqi citizens and Iraqui Law Enforcement/Military. They kill more civilians than Law Enforcement or Military by a large margin.

When or if the Coalition forces leave, nothing will change unless the threat is reduced quite a bit. The threat isn't entirely from Iraqi's either. Which makes it even messier. There are citizens from other countries adding to the mayhem in Iraq right now. This is where I have issues with the Geneva Convention arguments in this forum.

As I said, I am sure there are people in GITMO that need to be released, but as far as these people in Iraq being captured (actual personnel fighting), they are not qualified as PoWs by any means according to the Geneva Convention. This doesn't preclude them from humane treatment, but they are not entitled to the same benefits as a legitimate PoW.

If they were turned over to the Iraqi's I do not believe they would receive anything near as humane a treatment as they would receive in GITMO.

It's pretty much a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 4, 2006, 3:42 am

Nick wrote:What evidence do you have that all of them are pieces of shit in human flesh man?

I never said they ALL were. But thanks jump in with small penis to try. Back up, regroup, try again.

Tangurena · Post by **Tangurena** » July 4, 2006, 11:14 am

Their main targets seem to be Iraqi citizens and Iraqui Law Enforcement/Military. They kill more civilians than Law Enforcement or Military by a large margin.

When or if the Coalition forces leave, nothing will change unless the threat is reduced quite a bit. The threat isn't entirely from Iraqi's either. Which makes it even messier. There are citizens from other countries adding to the mayhem in Iraq right now. This is where I have issues with the Geneva Convention arguments in this forum.

The US is funding deathsquads in Iraq causing a significant amount of the death and destruction. That is what Rumsfeld called the El Salvador Option. Our new and improved death squads are called Volcano Brigades. Of the people that died in the El Salvador civil war, their own government estimates that ~90% of them died at the hands of US trained, equipped and funded death squads. The people who operated those programs have been rehired by this administration.

Since the deathsquads operate under color of law enforcement, we're busy training the Iraqis to treat all law enforcement as collaborators in the occupation. Expect all of them to be killed when we cut and run. They do:

15. More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate.

Source

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 4, 2006, 12:09 pm

Kylere wrote:
Nick wrote:What evidence do you have that all of them are pieces of shit in human flesh man?

I never said they ALL were. But thanks jump in with small penis to try. Back up, regroup, try again.

English next time k? WHat the fuck are you even trying to say? Is it your time of the month?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 4, 2006, 12:49 pm

What the fuck are you trying to say, we are holding nothing but angels?

Moron.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 4, 2006, 12:52 pm

She dreams in digital, you dream in black and fucking white.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » July 4, 2006, 3:22 pm

Tangurena wrote:
Their main targets seem to be Iraqi citizens and Iraqui Law Enforcement/Military. They kill more civilians than Law Enforcement or Military by a large margin.

When or if the Coalition forces leave, nothing will change unless the threat is reduced quite a bit. The threat isn't entirely from Iraqi's either. Which makes it even messier. There are citizens from other countries adding to the mayhem in Iraq right now. This is where I have issues with the Geneva Convention arguments in this forum.
The US is funding deathsquads in Iraq causing a significant amount of the death and destruction. That is what Rumsfeld called the El Salvador Option. Our new and improved death squads are called Volcano Brigades. Of the people that died in the El Salvador civil war, their own government estimates that ~90% of them died at the hands of US trained, equipped and funded death squads. The people who operated those programs have been rehired by this administration.

Since the deathsquads operate under color of law enforcement, we're busy training the Iraqis to treat all law enforcement as collaborators in the occupation. Expect all of them to be killed when we cut and run. They do:
15. More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate.
Source

So what you are saying is: It is illegal to train Iraqi forces.

I see that that the IRAQI forces were being trained to quell INSURGENCIES.

You know, the insurgents, those people bombing Mosques and driving car bombs into crowds of civilians? Heaven forbid the Iraqi government would want to stop that.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 4, 2006, 3:25 pm

Do people actually think the insurgents/terrorists have killed more innocent people than the US army since the war on Iraq began?

Talk about mind boggling.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 4, 2006, 3:53 pm

Nick wrote:Do people actually think the insurgents/terrorists have killed more innocent people than the US army since the war on Iraq began?

Talk about mind boggling.

I will have to do some searching later for an article I read in Time Magazine (think that was the one) which addressed the number of bodies being cleaned up by a mortician there. He was saying that he averages about 300 a week from Iraqi on Iraqi violence.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 4, 2006, 3:57 pm

Nick wrote:Do people actually think the insurgents/terrorists have killed more innocent people than the US army since the war on Iraq began?

Talk about mind boggling.

But Nick, when they bomb a house to get an insurgent the innocent civilians that die are considered collateral damage. You see, that's ok because their intent was to just kill the one guy.

When a suicide bomber explodes before he can reach his target or when shrapnel from a tank hit by a roadside bomb that's considered terrorism.

There could be... oh i dunno.... let's say 300 successful insurgent attacks that specifically target military, police or other key targets... but those never make the headlines. When they happen to kill some civilians in an attack, it grabs the headlines and gives tards like Aruman proof that they are intentionally and exclusively attacking civilians... therefore they are evil terrorists who must be destroyed!!@!!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 4, 2006, 4:34 pm

miir wrote:
Nick wrote:Do people actually think the insurgents/terrorists have killed more innocent people than the US army since the war on Iraq began?

Talk about mind boggling.
But Nick, when they bomb a house to get an insurgent the innocent civilians that die are considered collateral damage. You see, that's ok because their intent was to just kill the one guy.

When a suicide bomber explodes before he can reach his target or when shrapnel from a tank hit by a roadside bomb that's considered terrorism.

There could be... oh i dunno.... let's say 300 successful insurgent attacks that specifically target military, police or other key targets... but those never make the headlines. When they happen to kill some civilians in an attack, it grabs the headlines and gives tards like Aruman proof that they are intentionally and exclusively attacking civilians... therefore they are evil terrorists who must be destroyed!!@!!

The same logic says the Trade Towers are a military target... the US sure as shit bombed the hell out of things like power stations going into Iraq. Utilities, finance, it's all the same.

The only difference between aircraft and cruise missiles is plane tickets and box cutters are a lot cheaper.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 5, 2006, 9:34 pm

Kylere wrote:
Nick wrote:What evidence do you have that all of them are pieces of shit in human flesh man?

I never said they ALL were. But thanks jump in with small penis to try. Back up, regroup, try again.

What evidence does anyone have about who is there and why they are there? Our founding fathers created a system of justice which is intentionally transparent to prevent arbitrary abuse by anyone. These individuals since they are detained by the US and in US territories fall under the protection of the Constitution.

The President is sworn to support and defend the Constitution. He has clearly, repeatedly, and intentionally tried to circumvent the Constitution (both the letter of the law and the spirit.)

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » July 6, 2006, 1:20 am

Arborealus wrote: The President is sworn to support and defend the Constitution. He has clearly, repeatedly, and intentionally tried to circumvent the Constitution (both the letter of the law and the spirit.)

The President is sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foriegn and domestic, not just 'defend the Constitution'.

Too tired to get into it right now, but defending isn't simply going to war, it is much more complicated than that.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » July 6, 2006, 1:28 am

Defending the Constitution can never be an excuse for ignoring it.

If Bush wants to defend it, he must be bound by it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 6, 2006, 4:29 am

Aruman wrote:
Arborealus wrote: The President is sworn to support and defend the Constitution. He has clearly, repeatedly, and intentionally tried to circumvent the Constitution (both the letter of the law and the spirit.)
The President is sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foriegn and domestic, not just 'defend the Constitution'.

Too tired to get into it right now, but defending isn't simply going to war, it is much more complicated than that.

Another compelling argument rife with substance and thought provoking points.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 6, 2006, 9:06 am

LOL I dream in black and white? You are one of those with no middle ground. I am just a realist in that holding that many people, I am sure they are not all good. But unlike Aruman I do not think we should hold them, and unlike you I do not think all Americans are evil for it.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 6, 2006, 9:17 am

Nick wrote: It's horrible beyond belief, there are actually HUNDREDS of innocent men

There are probably a few fighters for the Taliban in there too of course, and the Taliban are no angels and should be punished for their oppression of the Afghan people.

Kylere wrote:they are pieces of shit in human flesh, ARE NOT LEGALLY HELD.

Who's got no middle ground?

We're both unable to tell whether any of them or guilty or innocent, so maybe I'm being optimist and concentrating on US human rights abuses (which I think we agree on).

I guess I do hold Americans responsible for it, who else should I hold responsible? The chinese?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 6, 2006, 5:56 pm

Nick wrote:I guess I do hold Americans responsible for it, who else should I hold responsible? The chinese?

North Korea PRS THX!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » July 6, 2006, 9:06 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Arborealus wrote: The President is sworn to support and defend the Constitution. He has clearly, repeatedly, and intentionally tried to circumvent the Constitution (both the letter of the law and the spirit.)
The President is sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foriegn and domestic, not just 'defend the Constitution'.

Too tired to get into it right now, but defending isn't simply going to war, it is much more complicated than that.

Another compelling argument rife with substance and thought provoking points.

Ditto on your 10 word, awe inspiring, put the fear of President Bush into mankind speech.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 7, 2006, 1:07 am

what the fucking jesus are you even babbling about? I'm not even in this thread other than to insult stupid people like yourself. you're the shitheap that is making these moronic claims and then trying to substantiate your argument with "I don't have the time for this right now.."

Do you have time now, retard? Or are you busy again cut waxing sean hannity's asshole with your tongue?