Innocents in Gitmo

[PLC1]

As pointed out in another thread you two are arguing about Protocol I to the conventions which the United States refused to ratify and is not a party to, and therefore has no legal bearing in this regard.

And, as I pointed out on the other thread, does that make it OK to beat and torture prisoners and keep them incarcerated indefinitely without charges?

Your argument seems to be that we can do whatever the hell we want to with the Iraqis and Afgans, since they aren't Americans and aren't POW.

That kind of arrogant thinking will lose the war on terror, and make more people around the world hate the US.

 

[BigRob]

And, as I pointed out on the other thread, does that make it OK to beat and torture prisoners and keep them incarcerated indefinitely without charges?

Your argument seems to be that we can do whatever the hell we want to with the Iraqis and Afgans, since they aren't Americans and aren't POW.

That kind of arrogant thinking will lose the war on terror, and make more people around the world hate the US.

Answered in other thread, wont do it again here for the sake of preventing two threads of the same issue.

 

[Federal Farmer]

As pointed out in another thread you two are arguing about Protocol I to the conventions which the United States refused to ratify and is not a party to, and therefore has no legal bearing in this regard.

I'm aware of that BigRob, but like many other Treaties and International Agreements that we're not legal signatories of, we do at least give "lip service" to it. Also, I'm attempting to show the abjectly ignorant handwringer that even if we had signed it, that we'd still be well within our rights to do anything we wanted to in regard to 'unlawful enemy combatants', and the very fact that we do not is testimony to our resolve in regards to the human rights question.

 

[Libsmasher]

Captured combatants? How do we know they are combatants?

Garsh - maybe cuz they were caught on battlefields holding guns?

If they are, in fact, POW, then they are subject to the Geneva Conventions.

According to the Geneva Conventions, they could have been shot on the battlefield for being out of uniform.

Here is another "enemy combatant"

This is Nazar Chaman Gul. His story is found here:



His story is repeated many times over here.[/URL





Not just the prisoners, not just Al Qaeda repeating what they've been trained to say, but the guards.

OK, carry on.

Undocumented claims for which there is no credible evidence - basically fairy tales.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Just a random thought here, but it might actually be a good thing that SCOTUS decided to extend Habeas Corpus to the detainees at Gitmo. I just remembered that the Feds use the Death Penalty FAR more than the military does, especially when dealing with prisoner, even "unlawful enemy combatants", so I say, give 'em their day in court, find them guilty, and then haul their sorry butts outside and SHOOT THEM!

 

[Libsmasher]

Just a random thought here, but it might actually be a good thing that SCOTUS decided to extend Habeas Corpus to the detainees at Gitmo. I just remembered that the Feds use the Death Penalty FAR more than the military does,

Where do you get that? Last fed execution 2003. Before that, two in 2001, including Timothy McVeigh. Before McVeigh, you have to go back almsot 40 years, to 1963. Before that, 1957. Etc. Federal executions are extremely rare.

 

[GenSeneca]

Lets talk Numbers:

Population of Iraq in 2007 -------- 27,499,638

Number of Prisoners at Gitmo ------------800

Number of Prisoners in Iraq -----------14,000

Number of Prisoners in Abu Ghraib -----21,000

Total # of Prisoners held by the US ---35,800

Some of you have probably read something like the following:

Areport conducted last year based on an analysis of defense department data found that 55 percent of Guantanamo detainees were not found to have participated in hostilities against the US and only 8 percent were found to be al Qaeda members.

So this logically suggests the US is holding roughly 16,000 innocent civilians. Knowing that prisoners are held indefinitely without trial, I can see why one would be angry about this and thankful for the SCOTUS decision to bring these cases to public trial.

I would like to point something out:

"not found to have participated in hostilities"

That means 45% were caught with a smoking gun? How many of the remaining 55% (16,000) are in prison for: bomb making? Operating black market ties with Iran to fund the insurgency and keep it armed? Inciting others to fire on American troops? (Countless other GOOD reasons to keep someone locked up)

Still 16,000 innocent? Why not..., after all - they never get a trial right? Or do they...

Army Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone: “Today we are releasing, on average, about 50 detainees each day, compared to an average daily intake of only 30 detainees,” he said, adding that “miniscule re-internment” rates show the right people are being released.

“Since our engagement programs began in earnest last September, we have … released [nearly] 10,000 detainees, but just 33 have returned to our custody.” -DefenseLink-June 2, 2008

With 16,000 innocents being released at the rate of 50 a day - it will take just 320 days to release all the innocent prisoners. Less than one year!

HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE THEM TO GO THROUGH OUR CIVILIAN COURT?

SCOTUS wants ONE judge doing all the cases - To finish in ONE YEAR that judge would have to have 98 hearings a day - 365 days a year.

And some of you think this ruling was a victory. It was a loss for our soldiers and a loss for the prisoners. I hope my words are not lost on you.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Where do you get that? Last fed execution 2003. Before that, two in 2001, including Timothy McVeigh. Before McVeigh, you have to go back almsot 40 years, to 1963. Before that, 1957. Etc. Federal executions are extremely rare.

And the last execution by the US military was in 1961!

 

[Libsmasher]

And the last execution by the US military was in 1961!

Both are extremely rare.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Both are extremely rare.

True, but at least they DO them. Another thing about the Federal system is that if any of our "guests" are found guilty of acts of terrorism, they'll be our "guests" for the rest of their lives, and unless I miss my guess, if they ever reach "the population" instead of being in perpetual solitary, that won't be a very long life.

 

[Libsmasher]

True, but at least they DO them. Another thing about the Federal system is that if any of our "guests" are found guilty of acts of terrorism, they'll be our "guests" for the rest of their lives, and unless I miss my guess, if they ever reach "the population" instead of being in perpetual solitary, that won't be a very long life.

You need to read the whole thread. If they have HB hearings, the government will be asked to produce evidence. When it refuses because that would be revealing secrets, actually it would be against the law, then the IFs will be let go, and go back to the middle east to blow up women and children and kill american soldiers - just as previously released Gitmo IFs did.

 

[BigRob]

You need to read the whole thread. If they have HB hearings, the government will be asked to produce evidence. When it refuses because that would be revealing secrets, actually it would be against the law, then the IFs will be let go, and go back to the middle east to blow up women and children and kill american soldiers - just as previously released Gitmo IFs did.

Do realize that the ruling only allows for them to ask that they can have a hearing on their captivity.

 

[Libsmasher]

Do realize that the ruling only allows for them to ask that they can have a hearing on their captivity.

Yes - and it will play out exactly as I said.

 

[BigRob]

Yes - and it will play out exactly as I said.

I dont see it going anywhere with a federal judiciary packed full of Reagan appointees. Odds are this is a symbolic ruling and any real action will get bogged down in bureaucratic battles.

 

[Libsmasher]

I dont see it going anywhere with a federal judiciary packed full of Reagan appointees. Odds are this is a symbolic ruling and any real action will get bogged down in bureaucratic battles.

The federal judicary isn't packed with Reagan appointees, and one Reagan appointee, Anthony Kennedy, just voted on the USSC for habeas corpus for the islamofascists.