"In perpetuity"

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 16, 2005, 3:49 pm

Uh... I know a lot of Muslims that would both disagree and take offense to that.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 16, 2005, 4:57 pm

Have them post here Marbus, oh speaker for the Islamic moderates.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 16, 2005, 5:38 pm

Seebs wrote:Have them post here Marbus, oh speaker for the Islamic moderates.

So you don't think they would take offense to that? Cause that is what you are implying.

cid · Post by **cid** » June 16, 2005, 5:47 pm

Fucking funny how you all lump Americans together, but if it is done to Muslims it is racist!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 16, 2005, 7:35 pm

I realize that certain things have to change in the U.S. in these times. In all honesty, a LOT of things need to change in the U.S. At this time, I prefer to have more measures in place that might infringe on what I want to do in return for being a bit safer.

What right have you had infringed on anyway?

I'm curious: What direct danger have you experienced due to Islamic terrorism?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 16, 2005, 7:43 pm

cid wrote:Fucking funny how you all lump Americans together, but if it is done to Muslims it is racist!

I don't see anybody except a couple of antagonists lumping all Americans together.

And I agreed with Atokal on something.. I need a shower now

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 16, 2005, 8:43 pm

Sueven wrote:
I realize that certain things have to change in the U.S. in these times. In all honesty, a LOT of things need to change in the U.S. At this time, I prefer to have more measures in place that might infringe on what I want to do in return for being a bit safer.

What right have you had infringed on anyway?
I'm curious: What direct danger have you experienced due to Islamic terrorism?

How do you know a 9/11 type incident won't ever happen again?

Do you know for certain that someone you know wouldn't be involved in such an incident if it ever happened again?

I don't like quite a few laws that exist that are for 'my protection', but I can live with them.

I can also live with a few additional laws that may exist in order to help prevent such an incident from ever happening.

I don't have anything to hide... /shrug.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 16, 2005, 9:00 pm

Aruman wrote:
Sueven wrote:
I realize that certain things have to change in the U.S. in these times. In all honesty, a LOT of things need to change in the U.S. At this time, I prefer to have more measures in place that might infringe on what I want to do in return for being a bit safer.

What right have you had infringed on anyway?
I'm curious: What direct danger have you experienced due to Islamic terrorism?
How do you know a 9/11 type incident won't ever happen again?

Do you know for certain that someone you know wouldn't be involved in such an incident if it ever happened again?

I don't like quite a few laws that exist that are for 'my protection', but I can live with them.

I can also live with a few additional laws that may exist in order to help prevent such an incident from ever happening.

I don't have anything to hide... /shrug.

I assume that such attacks probably will happen again. I think freedom is worth dying for.

Odds are against anyone I know or myself being involved in future attacks. Though I did lose someone I cared very much for in the first attack.

I have nothing to hide.

I think the freedoms enumerated by the founding fathers are absolutely critical. So did they.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 16, 2005, 9:21 pm

I don't think anyone is sacrificing their freedom with the laws stemming from the 9/11 attack.

I'd be interested in any freedom that has been sacrificed. Examples please.

Privacy sure, but only if there is cause to invade that privacy.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 16, 2005, 9:40 pm

Problem is? They don't need a cause anymore, and don't need to prove a cause.

In fact, you are playing right into the hands of the terrorists. They wanted you to change your lifestyle and you did. They won.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 16, 2005, 10:40 pm

Aruman wrote:...

Due process.

The transparency of a democracy is the only thing that keeps it being one. Secret searches, secret evidence, secret trials, secret cabinet meetings should all be of grave concern to anyone in this country. All of them sway the balance that our Govt was formed with.

Impact to me of terrorism? Higher taxes, higher costs of goods and services, lowered stock prices, longer times at the airport, more intrusive checks, can't carry some of my tools anymore, could go on.

Not even going to start on the patriot act.

I can also live with a few additional laws that may exist in order to help prevent such an incident from ever happening.

It will happen again, most of the legislation that's passed only makes people feel better. It does very little to address the problem(s).

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 17, 2005, 12:13 am

Ok, what the fuck happened to Seebs?

It's common knowledge that Guantanamo has tortured innocent men who have since been let free.

It's common knowledge they are operating outside the Geneva convention. Which is what all the vaguely intelligent countries agreed to.

It's common knowledge avoiding the rules of the Geneva convention through technicalities is a fucking joke, made especially hypocritical when done in the pursuit of "freedom".

It's common knowledge a lot of the Guantanamo "suspects" (I.E no proof of guilt apart from hearsay) were sold by warlords to US troops for money.

It's common knowledge Kilmoll is a racist.

I am not squaring all Americans into one bracket, I am not attacking America, this is all just accepted global fact.

What don't you understand?

Given the above, do none of you feel this will antagonise people in the Middle East and extremist groups to defend the innocents or exact revenge for this travesty of "freedom"?

Surely that is not the goal of the war on terror, I thought it was (in the very kindest of theories) to create a peaceful world....no?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 17, 2005, 2:53 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:If we were Muslims we would just behead them.

cleaner than dropping a 600 lb laser guided bomb on them.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 17, 2005, 3:48 am

kyoukan wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:If we were Muslims we would just behead them.
cleaner than dropping a 600 lb laser guided bomb on them.

Or sicking a pack of sled dogs on them.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 17, 2005, 10:58 am

Nick, what you refer to as "common knowlegde" above, has little, if any connnection to reality. Except perhaps in your pub\coffehouse\whatever.

The people turned over by the warlords? I'll grant you some of them may be innocent, nearly everyone else there was apprehended as armed combatents not representing a government. They essentially have no rights whatsoever under international law. Trial by military tribunal and summary execution has been the international norm for this type pf criminal for hundreds of years.

Before you spew forth about the Geneva convention perhaps you should go read it.

Admittedly ffter pressure from various groups, most of the non-combatents that'd been detained have been freed. Yes it sucks, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 17, 2005, 11:30 am

Sorry, do you read? Ever?

Firstly, if you invade a country with little to no government then don't be surprised if the defending forces are spun into a system of corrupt political and legal jargon whereby they do not represent a government and as such fall into the group of "darkie savages". (OMG THEY ARE NOW SUBHUMAN LETS TREAT THEM AS SUCH)

The points raised are common knowledge if you have made any effort to keep abreast of this situation.

Also, if you are fighting for freedom, don't all prisoners deserve rights? You may not like it, but then again you have little proof they are guilty of what you keep them locked up for so surely just in case, they should be given some "legal" rights, just IN CASE the US has MASSIVELY fucked up.

Guilty until proven innocent is not the way any justice system is meant to work.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 17, 2005, 11:38 am

Aabidano wrote: The people turned over by the warlords? I'll grant you some of them may be innocent, nearly everyone else there was apprehended as armed combatents not representing a government. They essentially have no rights whatsoever under international law.

Admittedly ffter pressure from various groups, most of the non-combatents that'd been detained have been freed. Yes it sucks, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How do you know that "nearly everyone else there" were "armed combatants not representing a government" what percentage is "nearly everyone else"?

The criterion of "in uniform" is archaic and clearly discriminatory against impoverished nations that rely on un-uniformed civil militias, clearly a large number of those combatants were representing he Taliban of course we didn't recognize the government so it's easy to say they weren't representing one.

How do you know most of the non-combatants were freed? What is "most"? Why were non-combatants ever taken?

The whole thing reeks, and not of sex...

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 17, 2005, 12:21 pm

I don;t like it either.

Can we just send these guys to Australia?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 17, 2005, 1:08 pm

Arborealus wrote:The criterion of "in uniform" is archaic and clearly discriminatory against impoverished nations that rely on un-uniformed civil militias.

Even the Viet Cong's black jammies qualified as a uniform... The most impoverished nation in the world at least requires somewhat of a standard of it's military. Random, frequently foreign civilians taking up arms for Imam_X or Warlord_Y do not consitute state military forces. We may not have liked them, but the Taliban was the Afgahn state.

Arborealus wrote:How do you know most of the non-combatants were freed? What is "most"? Why were non-combatants ever taken?

From the reports I've seen from the Red Cross and Amnesty International, neither of which are fond of the administration. Why were non-combatants ever taken? Mistakes, people in a bad place at the wrong time. Don't like it either, but it happened.

Arborealus wrote:The whole thing reeks

Yes, but not nearly to the extent many would try to make it seem. Contrary to many peoples opinion, they aren't going to just round up random people and imprison them for no reason. It's a massisve pain in the ass and very expensive. Armed Arabs and others from non-adjoining countries in Afgahnistan? Can you give any good reason for them to be there except to fight or be in terrorist training? Unlike Iraq, it was definately happening there.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 17, 2005, 1:20 pm

If everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist how come 4 Brits can be released after 3 years incarceration - no charges, no jail when they get home, just freed.

Keep the terrorists locked up. They deserve nothing.
My problem is with the way the terrorists are identified. The Brits were freed because of pressure from our goverment brought due to incessant campaigning by the mens' families. How many more innocents are in there that don't have people to fight for them?

Thing is, I realise most of you righties don't give a fuck 'cos they're brown and hey, if it keeps the terreriztas locked up, wtf does it matter about a "few" backwoods, sand-nigger innocents? Right?

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 17, 2005, 1:24 pm

If everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist how come 4 Brits can be released after 3 years incarceration - no charges, no jail when they get home, just freed.

The US was obligated to perform dental exams on these guys according to the Human Rights groups. The British were kept for three years in an effort to scrape all that fucking tartar and black shit off of their jagged shards of enamel you guys call teeth.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 17, 2005, 1:30 pm

Har fucking har. Now mock fish and chips and the queen and I'll _know_ the Seebs account has been passed to Cartalas.

My point is that operating from the assumption that "if they're in there they're definitely a terrorist" is not necessarily a safe one.
Care to address it?

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 17, 2005, 1:39 pm

I can't address it, there is no rhyme or reason to it other than the US has no clue what to do with these guys.

Not my policy bub.

But I will go out on a limb and say that most of these lads are dangerous to US and British citizens.

I have no answers, you guys have no answers and it does reek.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 17, 2005, 1:43 pm

If you read past the headline:

The British detainees include Feroz Abbasi, 24, a South London resident who a U.S. military panel last fall ruled was an al Qaeda member who had volunteered for a suicide mission. Abbasi, who was captured in Afghanistan

Yep, innocents. He was just there as a tourist.. really.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 17, 2005, 1:53 pm

Afghanistan is very scenic if you want to learn how poppies begin their journey to becoming heroin.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 17, 2005, 1:56 pm

maybe he just likes to smoke fresh organic opium.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 17, 2005, 2:15 pm

The thing is Aabidino, if your last was in any way true (which it isn't) you can be damn sure Abbasi would still be in Guantanamo.

He isn't.

Seebs, your "going out on a limb" is just unfounded opinion. You also ignore the double standard where the US/Guantanamo is a danger to innocent brown men who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Not that all the men in Guantanamo are innocent, but guilty of what exactly? Opposing the USA, which is not necessarily a crime except in US eyes.

I am not defending terrorists, murder of innocent people is wrong, I am not that fucking blind. The Guantanamo bay situation is a bit deeper than that however.

So their "guilt" is relative in any case.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 17, 2005, 4:02 pm

The opinion may be unfounded Teeny, but its shared by many. Your angry opinion is a protest to be sure, but it offers no alternative solution.

Your claim that these guys are innocent rings hollow. Yes, I know presumed innocent, but when you wield a gun in a combat situaton, yuo are presumed dead or captured.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 17, 2005, 4:18 pm

Yes, I know presumed innocent, but when you wield a gun in a combat situaton, yuo are presumed dead or captured.

Captured in combat = POW

Turned in for a reward after being abducted from your home by a random Afghani warlord = GITMO prisoner.

Dude, your stories are pretty fucking funny, but when it comes to 'current events', you give cartalas a run for his money for stupidity.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 17, 2005, 4:44 pm

miir wrote:abducted from your home by a random Afghani warlord = GITMO prisoner.

Yes, those evil Afghani warlords abduct perfectly innocent people from Mosques in England and Australia, take them to other countries and sell them to the CIA.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 17, 2005, 4:57 pm

So 'innocent until proven guilty' only applies when it supports your argument?

cid · Post by **cid** » June 17, 2005, 5:00 pm

miir wrote:
Yes, I know presumed innocent, but when you wield a gun in a combat situaton, yuo are presumed dead or captured.
Captured in combat = POW

Turned in for a reward after being abducted from your home by a random Afghani warlord = GITMO prisoner.

Hard to do that when they behead all of their POW's.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 17, 2005, 5:15 pm

Hard to do that when they behead all of their POW's.

Huh?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 17, 2005, 5:16 pm

there is not a sliding scale in the law allowing us to only stay "this far" above our adversaries in terms of barbarity.

it is completely irrelevant how a society that is essentially in anarchy would treat POWs when discussing the legalities of due process of persons held in US jurisdiction.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 17, 2005, 5:26 pm

Voronwë wrote:there is not a sliding scale in the law allowing us to only stay "this far" above our adversaries in terms of barbarity.

it is completely irrelevant how a society that is essentially in anarchy would treat POWs when discussing the legalities of due process of persons held in US jurisdiction.

It has always struck me as odd that our government is intent on spreading democracy and western laws to more 'barbaric' states, and that the first act taken in pursuit of that ambition is to dismiss those laws as not being applicable to the people of those 'barbaric' states.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 17, 2005, 5:28 pm

i think what also bears repeating is that nobody should be lumping all of ther persons at GITMO into the same barrel. i dont think anybody is arguing for a complete release of all of the detainees.

people are simple arguing for the proper exercision of the law.

Republican politicians used to beat the drum of "The Rule of Law", and "we are a Nation of Laws". I think some of their voters have forgotton those messages of not so long ago.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 17, 2005, 5:51 pm

Wrong Voronwe, folks like Miir are clamoring for a release of all these guys or lawyering them up.

They do not have the same rights as you or I Miir. Thjis is what you don;t get. Women in these countries are lower than pig shit on the respect meter. You know this since you are the keeper of the guide of who is smart and who is not.

This is the biggest collection of smug know-it-alls I've ever come across, yet I'm fairly certain its all hot air and none of you have done shit to support your positions. And no, bumper stickers don't apply.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 17, 2005, 6:34 pm

I agree with Voronwe 100% No one is saying that everyone is innocent, what we are saying is that our Gov. should fuckin' obey it's own laws. As I said before I don't give a rats ass but charge them with something or let them go but don't leave them sitting there illegally while we drown in our own idiocy...

Marb

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 17, 2005, 6:57 pm

Voronwë wrote:i think what also bears repeating is that nobody should be lumping all of ther persons at GITMO into the same barrel. i dont think anybody is arguing for a complete release of all of the detainees.

people are simple arguing for the proper exercision of the law.

Republican politicians used to beat the drum of "The Rule of Law", and "we are a Nation of Laws". I think some of their voters have forgotton those messages of not so long ago.

Actually, some of you are lumping them together and wanting them released en masse. Do you really think they can sort through that many people and be 100% confident that they have not released someone who is going to blow up a building with a car bomb next week? It is not like we are putting them to death. If they were innocent they will be freed.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 17, 2005, 7:38 pm

Actually, they've already released people to their home countries who were later killed in firefights in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can understand the hesitancy to release them, as I've said in every thread on this subject, try them (and execute them if guilty) or turn them loose (and shoot them later in many cases).

This isn't Bob and Harold from down the street. With few exceptions, which people try to treat as the rule, these people were picked up in combat zones thousands of miles from where they live.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 17, 2005, 8:30 pm

Curious, since you all use the "no uniforms" argument so strongly I take it non-uniformed US Soldiers can be treated however the capturers want it then without you whining?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 17, 2005, 8:50 pm

Kelshara wrote:Curious, since you all use the "no uniforms" argument so strongly I take it non-uniformed US Soldiers can be treated however the capturers want it then without you whining?

You mean spies? Spies are always treated differently.

Middle East "combatants" aren't spies. They just don't wear uniforms.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 17, 2005, 9:17 pm

Seebs wrote:Wrong Voronwe, folks like Miir are clamoring for a release of all these guys or lawyering them up.

WTF is Lawyering them up?

Seebs wrote:They do not have the same rights as you or I Miir. Thjis is what you don;t get. Women in these countries are lower than pig shit on the respect meter. You know this since you are the keeper of the guide of who is smart and who is not.

Survey says: XXX

The Supreme Court of the US overwhelmingly disagrees with you conservatives included. They are imprisoned in the US. They have access to the same court system as you or I.

Seebs wrote:This is the biggest collection of smug know-it-alls I've ever come across, yet I'm fairly certain its all hot air and none of you have done shit to support your positions. And no, bumper stickers don't apply.

Shall I CC you each time I email my congressman, senators, the president, AI and the ACLU?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 17, 2005, 9:33 pm

Winnow wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Curious, since you all use the "no uniforms" argument so strongly I take it non-uniformed US Soldiers can be treated however the capturers want it then without you whining?
You mean spies? Spies are always treated differently.

Middle East "combatants" aren't spies. They just don't wear uniforms.

Not necesarily. I am sure there are special forces units not wearing uniforms as well at times.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 17, 2005, 9:41 pm

Arborealus wrote: The Supreme Court of the US overwhelmingly disagrees with you conservatives included. They are imprisoned in the US. They have access to the same court system as you or I.

Imprisoned isn't really the correct term, I'd think a term like detained or restrained is more appropriate.

Also, in reference to court systems, PoWs are subject to the UCMJ, which is the military court system.

In effect you are saying that the Supreme Court threw out the UCMJ and the military court system? I don't think so. Military court systems are quite different from the civilian legal system in many aspects.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 17, 2005, 9:42 pm

Kelshara wrote:I am sure there are special forces units not wearing uniforms as well at times.

Yes, and they can be in very deep shit when\if they get caught. That's drilled into all military recruits, and refreshed everytime you deploy. As is the Geneva convention, especially for NCOs and higher.

Even wet suits and dive shorts are military issue uniform items.

There's a little more to it than that usually, but in civilian attire there's a real chance of problems. If caught in uniform in the former Soviet block countries for instance they'd be jailed and eventually turned over to the US. In civilian clothes they'd be shot, no questions asked.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 18, 2005, 12:34 am

folks like Miir are clamoring for a release of all these guys or lawyering them up

What is wrong with that?
Release them or charge them with something.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 18, 2005, 6:55 am

Aruman wrote:
Arborealus wrote: The Supreme Court of the US overwhelmingly disagrees with you conservatives included. They are imprisoned in the US. They have access to the same court system as you or I.
Imprisoned isn't really the correct term, I'd think a term like detained or restrained is more appropriate.

Also, in reference to court systems, PoWs are subject to the UCMJ, which is the military court system.

In effect you are saying that the Supreme Court threw out the UCMJ and the military court system? I don't think so. Military court systems are quite different from the civilian legal system in many aspects.

Ok one more time....They are not PoWs per the Bush Administration...

I'm sure you'd like to use some more pleasant term but they are imprisoned however you sugar coat it...shall we call PoWs Restrainees of War now? Maybe we should call them all Mildly Inconvienienced Well Fed Guests of War henceforth?

I gather you didn't bother to read the SCOTUS rasul et al v bush decision I linked earlier....the DC district court ruled in Oban they had no recourse within the US court system SCOTUS reversed that ruling last June...

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » June 18, 2005, 9:50 am

I have no doubt that a lot, maybe most, maybe all of these prisoners are enemies of the US and/or terrorists. By saying the following, I am in no way supporting the release of these people.

Following our own laws would tremendously support our claim to having the best form of government. By not following our own laws and ideology, we discredit the very ideals that we are willing to go to war for.

We are the standard, and we can choose to be civil or barbaric, but when we choose to be barbaric, how are we better than them, and more importantly, what exactly are we fighting for?

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » June 18, 2005, 4:51 pm

Aruman wrote: Imprisoned isn't really the correct term, I'd think a term like detained or restrained is more appropriate.

I'm sorry, but that's just semantics to the power of ridiculous. Are they able to leave freely? Do they have access to the outside world?

dictionary.com wrote: im·pris·on
tr.v. im·pris·oned, im·pris·on·ing, im·pris·ons

To put in or as if in prison; confine.

The one thing that seperates these 'detainees' from regular prisoners in a US jail is that the Gitmo folks haven't been sentenced and probably never will be.

Of all the things that piss me off about the War On Terror, this is one of the biggest. If we - and by we, I mean the entire western world - are to win this thing, then we have to be BETTER THAN THE TERRORISTS. We have to prove that our way works. That it makes sense. That it is humane, loving, caring, sensible. That it provides a better life for people.

This isn't done by creating a gulag and leaving random people with dark skin there to rot without due (or indeed any) process.