Gitmo, gitclosed

[samsara15]

It's not just damaging. Wilfully and craftily circumventing the Constitution is treasonous; and worse, it endangers the lives and well-being of our own uniformed personelle that might be captured as "detainees" themselves abroad.

The "distinction" between detainees and POWs...Jesus H. Christ...

Absolutely correct. The existence of Gitmo has endangered the lives of our troops. by placing any of them who might be captured in the future in greater danger than they would have been had Gitmo never existed.

 

[BigRob]

Absolutely correct. The existence of Gitmo has endangered the lives of our troops. by placing any of them who might be captured in the future in greater danger than they would have been had Gitmo never existed.

Absolutely false. What enemy that we are fighting has ever given even lip service to the Geneva Conventions? Except when they are protesting their own situations?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Absolutely false. What enemy that we are fighting has ever given even lip service to the Geneva Conventions? Except when they are protesting their own situations?

so I take it you are fine if they violate them against us right?

 

[Sihouette]

BigRob realizes nothing. From his regurgitated responses I'm beginning to detect a paycheck behind his value system and ability to reason..

Of course he knows about setting precidents that others will follow. Of course he knows this means trouble for our brave and honorable uniformed military captured abroad. Of course he knows there is no distinction between "detainees" and POWs...of course he knows that.

One thing he also knows is that Congress, the new Congress, can visit the language of the Constitution and deliberate how best to be stewards of the military's best interests...as they are charged with doing. Congress may find itself mandated to act in the best interests of our uniformed soldiers and abide by the Geneva Conventions in order to gain the most assurance they can have that our captured POWs will receive humane treatment.

I'm sure BigRob can see the connections.. He simply isn't programmed to admit them, that's all..

That's the funny thing with spinbots..

 

[Andy]

so I take it you are fine if they violate them against us right?

They do.

 

[BigRob]

so I take it you are fine if they violate them against us right?

They do not now, nor have they ever recognized the Geneva Conventions. The idea that how we treat them will cause them to treat us better is ridiculous.

Further, the Geneva Conventions spell out requirements that each side must meet to get the POW status. We abide by this... they do not.

 

[BigRob]

BigRob realizes nothing. From his regurgitated responses I'm beginning to detect a paycheck behind his value system and ability to reason..

Must be on the rolls of BigOil right?

Of course he knows about setting precidents that others will follow. Of course he knows this means trouble for our brave and honorable uniformed military captured abroad. Of course he knows there is no distinction between "detainees" and POWs...of course he knows that.

I know legally that there is a distinction. You want to follow the law, we are following it. It further does not mean that our service members abroad will be treated differently. If we were in a war with Germany (as an example) then they would abide by the guidelines spelled out the Geneva Conventions to get POW status, as would we, and as we have always done.

One thing he also knows is that Congress, the new Congress, can visit the language of the Constitution and deliberate how best to be stewards of the military's best interests...as they are charged with doing.

It takes more than Congress "visiting the language" to change the Constitution. Also, the "Commander in Chief" ability given to the President in Article II is equally as compelling as any power of Congress in Article I.

Congress may find itself mandated to act in the best interests of our uniformed soldiers and abide by the Geneva Conventions in order to gain the most assurance they can have that our captured POWs will receive humane treatment.

The people we are currently fighting have no intention of abiding by the Geneva Conventions, regardless of how we treat anyone. Your premise is ridiculous.

I'm sure BigRob can see the connections.. He simply isn't programmed to admit them, that's all..

That's the funny thing with spinbots..

Of course, I make a legal argument, and your response is I am a "paid spinbot." I have no doubt that those reading this thread see the point, and that is all that matters.

 

[Andy]

They do not now, nor have they ever recognized the Geneva Conventions. The idea that how we treat them will cause them to treat us better is ridiculous.

Further, the Geneva Conventions spell out requirements that each side must meet to get the POW status. We abide by this... they do not.

I remember a documentary about the middle east during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. There was some reporter / lawyer dude that ran around with a copy of the Geneva rules. Whenever they'd capture a Russian, he'd flip out this book and start preaching. They never listened.

He was eventually told that, we might follow those rules there, but that's not how they did things in the middle east. They never have, nor ever will, treat us the same way we treat them, no matter what rules we impose on ourselves.