Gimpo Options

[THECHICKEN]

I was interested to see how many people think that Gitmo should be closed? In World War II we had over 450,000 germans, italians, and japanese (not so much) held indefinitely, which is easily legal under law of war. There were no trials or releases during the middle of the war. Yet people are working to have these people put to trial or released at gitmo.

Considering over 60 released prisoners have returned to fight against our soldiersSource , do you think its a wise decision to send more back to fight?

[Mommy]

Keep it open. If they want to try them, cool. I'm sure there are only a handful of innocents in that prison.

[woody]

if they close it all they do is transfer the prisoners around

not like they're just releasing them to the wild.

[cmac]

hasn't president barack the rock already said he's closing it?

[chook]

of 520 released 61 returned to fight according to your source. I am pretty sure more like 30-40% were fighting against the US and many haven't returned to the fight. Problem is in our country you should be innocent until proven guilty, its part that makes us great.

Close that place and give real trials.

[Mommy]

Woody, Switzerland said they would take some. Australia said they would but then keeps backing off when they propose a prisoner to send there.

CMAC, yeah, he said he going to do it by executive order.

[Mommy]

i say close the place and have real trials

i'm 100% sure though that after obama "reviews" the "process" that he'll reinstate gitmo and then all the obamabots who were anti-gitmo will suddenly turn pro-gitmo because their messiah can do no wrong

agreed

[THECHICKEN]

Ok so trials...

here is my question then. Should we have tried the 450,000 men we held as enemy combatants in WWII? If you try someone you are saying they are a criminal. We are currently holding these men as enemys from a WAR. You are condemning soldiers fighting thier enemy into criminals. The reprecocity of this could lead to U.S. soldiers being held as CRIMINALS in islamic countries and tried under those rules of law. And by your reasonings, that would be "fair"...

I think its insane to think these people NEED trials. They are Enemy Combatants in a war that are being detained until war is over. How is this wrong? Under rule of law its completely legal and makes sense.

Secondly, since these men are enemy combatants most of the evidence used to detain them is hearsay and classified. In a criminal TRIAL the government will be forced to give up all its sources (something you don't do while at war) to the prisoner in order to get convictions, as well as have A LOT of evidence thrown out because of hearsay and other due process issues. ... Effectively meaning these men GO FREE. Free to join war again, or walk our streets.

Which takes me to the next problem. 250 men have already been labeled as releasable and THIER OWN COUNTRIES WON'T TAKE THEM BACK. This means that even if we wish to release them back to thier own countries, they won't take them. Hell Germans who were all up in arms against gitmo would NOT take back a man BORN IN BERLIN when we tried to release him. So if we aren't able to even release them to their own countries what do we do with them? Its not legal to hold a civilian without charge (if not going by law of war... which allows for indefinite detention of enemy combatants) so we are required to release these men into the UNITED STATES. These are men that have actually said they still plan to kill americans (but we just don't want to hold them anymore).

So the question is that if you think these men need trials, then what do we do with them when we CAN'T convict them and can't send them back to their own countries?


Oh and to Woody saying we'll just move the enemy combatants to other places: thats not true if the HOUSE bill is accepted instead of the Senate bill on the matter. The house bill gives no allowance for holding enemy combatants under laws of armed conflict from gitmo.

[chook]

The WW 2 camps were a human rights violation.

[THECHICKEN]

The WW 2 camps were a human rights violation.

I am not talking about the internment camps for the civilian japs. Im talking about the Soldiers we held.

[chook]

I am not talking about the internment camps for the civilian japs. Im talking about the Soldiers we held.

The guys in Gitmo did not fight under the nation of a flag. If they did, then they would be returned already. They need criminal or military trials that are fair. What if Obama came and put you in a camp for just being a Texan, and no fair trial?

[THECHICKEN]

The guys in Gitmo did not fight under the nation of a flag. If they did, then they would be returned already. They need criminal or military trials that are fair. What if Obama came and put you in a camp for just being a Texan, and no fair trial?

Are you saying the war against "Al'Queda, taliban, and supporting groups" is over? Because thats the war. Im not sure where you are getting they would be returned already if they fought under a flag (considering many are taliban we captured, which IS a flag). There doesn't need to be military trials if they are mere soldiers, but if they are soldiers for "taliban, al'queda, or support groups'' they should be DETAINED until war against those factions are over. Its basic law of war that if you capture enemy combatants you hold them until war is over and as long as you don't abuse the detainees it is completely legal.

Oh... and if Texas was at war with the united states i would say it is COMPLETELY fair, to hold be until war over instead of convicting me of being a CRIMINAL...

[Psykopath]

if they close it all they do is transfer the prisoners around

not like they're just releasing them to the wild.

this.

Closing that legal black hole doesn't mean we just hand all of those prisoners a "get out of jail free" card.

[THECHICKEN]

this.

Closing that legal black hole doesn't mean we just hand all of those prisoners a "get out of jail free" card.

So why are we closing down a multi-million dollar facility already designed to hold these enemy combatants? Purely political? Should that be done?

[chook]

Are you saying the war against "Al'Queda, taliban, and supporting groups" is over? Because thats the war. Im not sure where you are getting they would be returned already if they fought under a flag (considering many are taliban we captured, which IS a flag). There doesn't need to be military trials if they are mere soldiers, but if they are soldiers for "taliban, al'queda, or support groups'' they should be DETAINED until war against those factions are over. Its basic law of war that if you capture enemy combatants you hold them until war is over and as long as you don't abuse the detainees it is completely legal.

Oh... and if Texas was at war with the united states i would say it is COMPLETELY fair, to hold be until war over instead of convicting me of being a CRIMINAL...

Problem is that they are not given the rights of POWs as we do with other people we combat. You are not allowed to torture POWs, and waterboarding is torture. Problem is that they are not fighting for a country but an ideal. Are militant black panthers POWs? Are the Branch Dividians POWs? We toppled their country already, so the war agaisnt that country should be over.

You can go over semantics and rhetoric until you justfy your position to yourself (which is what lawyers do), but you are violating the natural laws of man.

[Mommy]

this.

Closing that legal black hole doesn't mean we just hand all of those prisoners a "get out of jail free" card.

Where do we hold them in the meantime?

[woody]

a prison on domestic US Soil

This post has been edited by woody: Jan 23 2009, 05:55 PM

[Mommy]

that sounds like an excellent idea...


actually, no, no it doesn't

[THECHICKEN]

Problem is that they are not given the rights of POWs as we do with other people we combat. You are not allowed to torture POWs, and waterboarding is torture. Problem is that they are not fighting for a country but an ideal. Are militant black panthers POWs? Are the Branch Dividians POWs? We toppled their country already, so the war agaisnt that country should be over.

You can go over semantics and rhetoric until you justfy your position to yourself (which is what lawyers do), but you are violating the natural laws of man.

These men are given the rights of enemy combatants... which is what a POW is, except a POW is fighting under the flag of the nation. All pow's are enemy combatants, not all enemy combatants are pows.

And your analogies don't work for the reason of WE HAVE DECLARED WAR against al'queda and taliban, not against branch dividians or black panthers. Those were handled domestically, WAR on terror is a military operation. It has been recognized as so BY ALL BRANCHES, so you saying its over is irrelevant. All the powers that be DISAGREE with you. So until we are under the nation of chook, or until the war is ended by the powers that be, we are at a state of war, like it or not.

Oh, and if you think the war against taliban and al'queda is over because we have a green zone in kabul you are sadly mistaken. Anyone will be the first to admit this isn't like any war we've had in the past, but it IS a war against a nationless group/s. You don't agree with the notion we are at war, then yes, what we have been doing is VERY illegal. You can't hold someone 48 hours without charging them when its a domestic criminal law matter, but when its WAR its a different story.

Oh and waterboarding isn't torturing. And for the recored its not allowed to TORTURE anyone, including Enemy Combatants. I know the difference between POW and Enemy Combatant is kind of confusing, but the fact of the matter is that you DO NOT have to be a POW (fighting under a countries flag), in order to be held under law of war principles. A POW is merely a Enemy Combatant with the vienna convention giving them specially defined rights.

[THECHICKEN]

a prison on domestic US Soil

Yeah, thats the current plan right now.

[Mommy]

I don't understand why we have to close Gitmo. Why can't we just send people in there to monitor the treatment of the detainees, give them fair trials, and release the ones we find innocent. Why close the place? Why bring those people to domestic soil?

[THECHICKEN]

I don't understand why we have to close Gitmo. Why can't we just send people in there to monitor the treatment of the detainees, give them fair trials, and release the ones we find innocent. Why close the place? Why bring those people to domestic soil?

The red cross visits regularly, the treatment is monitored very closely. The detainees try to provoke the gaurds to hit them, so when red cross comes they can say they've been beaten and tortured. Also, the detainees throw urine and fecees on the soldiers DAILY. They make the gaurds wear plastic face shields and have cleaning stations to clean the stuff off.

[FORSAKENR320]

The red cross visits regularly, the treatment is monitored very closely. The detainees try to provoke the gaurds to hit them, so when red cross comes they can say they've been beaten and tortured. Also, the detainees throw urine and fecees on the soldiers DAILY. They make the gaurds wear plastic face shields and have cleaning stations to clean the stuff off.

welcome to every prison in america. happens in county, happens in state, happens in federal. my friend candice is a prison guard, for 6 years now. she even has to wear a form hiding vest (mushes boobs and ass so they are unflattering) because the inmates will try to jerk off to her and throw it on her.

if thats the only reason you want them closed then you better close them all

[THECHICKEN]

welcome to every prison in america. happens in county, happens in state, happens in federal. my friend candice is a prison guard, for 6 years now. she even has to wear a form hiding vest (mushes boobs and ass so they are unflattering) because the inmates will try to jerk off to her and throw it on her.

if thats the only reason you want them closed then you better close them all

I don't want them closed...

[Mommy]

welcome to every prison in america. happens in county, happens in state, happens in federal. my friend candice is a prison guard, for 6 years now. she even has to wear a form hiding vest (mushes boobs and ass so they are unflattering) because the inmates will try to jerk off to her and throw it on her.

if thats the only reason you want them closed then you better close them all

I thought women weren't usually hired to work in male prisons.

[FORSAKENR320]

I thought women weren't usually hired to work in male prisons.

most the prisons in texas are co-ed. and they can't really stop a woman from working in a male prison. this isn't the 40's

[Dogmeat]

the only reason they have female prison workers is because they fuck the convicts and live out their whack ass female fantasies that way and this in turn keeps the population of the prisons more subdued.

thats pretty much the only reason females were allowed to do anything like that ... be cops, millitary, whatever, is because they fuck dudes and shit....

[chook]

These men are given the rights of enemy combatants... which is what a POW is, except a POW is fighting under the flag of the nation. All pow's are enemy combatants, not all enemy combatants are pows.

And your analogies don't work for the reason of WE HAVE DECLARED WAR against al'queda and taliban, not against branch dividians or black panthers. Those were handled domestically, WAR on terror is a military operation. It has been recognized as so BY ALL BRANCHES, so you saying its over is irrelevant. All the powers that be DISAGREE with you. So until we are under the nation of chook, or until the war is ended by the powers that be, we are at a state of war, like it or not.

Oh, and if you think the war against taliban and al'queda is over because we have a green zone in kabul you are sadly mistaken. Anyone will be the first to admit this isn't like any war we've had in the past, but it IS a war against a nationless group/s. You don't agree with the notion we are at war, then yes, what we have been doing is VERY illegal. You can't hold someone 48 hours without charging them when its a domestic criminal law matter, but when its WAR its a different story.

Oh and waterboarding isn't torturing. And for the recored its not allowed to TORTURE anyone, including Enemy Combatants. I know the difference between POW and Enemy Combatant is kind of confusing, but the fact of the matter is that you DO NOT have to be a POW (fighting under a countries flag), in order to be held under law of war principles. A POW is merely a Enemy Combatant with the vienna convention giving them specially defined rights.

Yawn....redefine torture....Yawn.

[chook]

welcome to every prison in america. happens in county, happens in state, happens in federal. my friend candice is a prison guard, for 6 years now. she even has to wear a form hiding vest (mushes boobs and ass so they are unflattering) because the inmates will try to jerk off to her and throw it on her.

if thats the only reason you want them closed then you better close them all

In 9th grade, we went to a low security prison. Some guy was jerking off and blowing kisses to one of the small guys in our class.


I never want to be put in prison.

[THECHICKEN]

Yawn....redefine torture....Yawn.

Not sure what this is but ... ok

[Dogmeat]

if you don't die or suffer irreversable physical harm, it isn't fucking torture.

oh wah, the terrorist subjects feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel bad. they feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel like they're drowning. awwwwwwwwwwww poooooooooe poeeeeeeeeeeee tewwowist subjects, wet owr owebamma save woo so that woo feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell good

[Dogmeat]

but then again i also think that a public stupid enough to elect obama deserves whatever end it will bring to this country.

if you think bush was a fascist wait until this asshole gets rolling

[chook]

I actually like Bush. I think people around him abused his trust.

I did vote McCain.

If we tote that America is free and fair and bring that ideal to another country its a good thing. Taking people from that country and holding them without the ideals we are showing that country is shitty. About 60 of the 500 that have been released have returned to fight. In America our parole system has a much higher repeat rate than that.

Seth use you interpretation of American Law to justify it.

On the other hand. I do think we should have all the bullets we use against Al Qaeda dipped in pigs blood so they don't get to enjoy their 40 virgins.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp

[THECHICKEN]

I actually like Bush. I think people around him abused his trust.

I did vote McCain.

If we tote that America is free and fair and bring that ideal to another country its a good thing. Taking people from that country and holding them without the ideals we are showing that country is shitty. About 60 of the 500 that have been released have returned to fight. In America our parole system has a much higher repeat rate than that.

Seth use you interpretation of American Law to justify it.

On the other hand. I do think we should have all the bullets we use against Al Qaeda dipped in pigs blood so they don't get to enjoy their 40 virgins.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp

Chuck i've been explaining how american law DOES justify this.. its called law of war. Its internationally and historically normal and fair. Explain to me how you think soldiers fighting should be held criminals instead of enemy combatants that go home once the war is over?

[Dogmeat]

they should have just killed them until they died

[chook]

Chuck i've been explaining how american law DOES justify this.. its called law of war. Its internationally and historically normal and fair. Explain to me how you think soldiers fighting should be held criminals instead of enemy combatants that go home once the war is over?

Because we are at war with an ideal and not with a nation. That is where the laws used for fighting a nation get reinvented.

[THECHICKEN]

Because we are at war with an ideal and not with a nation. That is where the laws used for fighting a nation get reinvented.

we are not at war with an ideal, we are at war with two orginizations (taliban and al'queda). You think that because kabul was proclaimed free of taliban that means they are toppled and war over. All branches of government disagree.

Being at war with an "ideal" would mean we are at war with ALL terrorists... and we aren't. Hezbulah etc. are NOT among the groups we declared war on and they are as militant islam/ terrorists you can get.

[Mommy]

I always get Hezbulah and Hamas mixed up.

I agree with Seth.

[woody]

we're at war with terrorism

we just chose to focus on taliban & al'queda

some others we are at war with:
Fatah al-Islam
Mujahideen
Al-Shabaab

And yes, we are at war with Hezbulah and Hamas, they just don't get as much attn.

I think the jist of things is this.
The Geneva Conv. was written for war against nations. Hence the rules & regs of wearing a uniform (distinguishing between armed soldiers & civilians), open arms, show of nation, etc. Since terrorist groups do not adhere to this, that creates the grey line.

[THECHICKEN]

we're at war with terrorism

we just chose to focus on taliban & al'queda

some others we are at war with:
Fatah al-Islam
Mujahideen
Al-Shabaab

And yes, we are at war with Hezbulah and Hamas, they just don't get as much attn.

I think the jist of things is this.
The Geneva Conv. was written for war against nations. Hence the rules & regs of wearing a uniform (distinguishing between armed soldiers & civilians), open arms, show of nation, etc. Since terrorist groups do not adhere to this, that creates the grey line.

Actually NO, the use of armed forces by Congress and President were against "Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces" as identified by the 2006 Military Commissions Act. So though we use the term "war on terror" its just more catchy than saying war against "Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces".

[woody]

Actually NO, the use of armed forces by Congress and President were against "Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces" as identified by the 2006 Military Commissions Act. So though we use the term "war on terror" its just more catchy than saying war against "Taliban, al-Qaida or associated forces".

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

1i.: Says anyone who is not a lawful enemy combatant including...taliban, a'q, or associated forces, doesn't say exclusively.
1ii.: the tribunal can say if you're an unlawful enemy combatant or not

so it doens't matter what terrorist group your in...it's damn near at their discretion if you're caught...hence, war on terrorism

source

This post has been edited by woody: Jan 26 2009, 06:50 PM

[THECHICKEN]

Yes, but no other terrorist force has been recognized by congress or any other branch as engaging in hostilities against america. So yes, if hezbullah, hamas, etc. engaged in attacks such as the ones carried out by al'queda, they would become targets allowed under the act. But since no such attack or recognition of other forces exist right now, the "war on terror" is against al'queda, taliban, and associated forces.

Its not a blank check as you can obviously read from the wording of the statute.

[woody]

Yes, but no other terrorist force has been recognized by congress or any other branch as engaging in hostilities against america. So yes, if hezbullah, hamas, etc. engaged in attacks such as the ones carried out by al'queda, they would become targets allowed under the act. But since no such attack or recognition of other forces exist right now, the "war on terror" is against al'queda, taliban, and associated forces.

Its not a blank check as you can obviously read from the wording of the statute.

Fatah al-Islam

8/2007
Lebanon Group Given Terrorist Label by U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7081100599.html

[THECHICKEN]

Being labeled a terrorist does not mean you fall under that statute. If you read it, there is no "terrorist" requirement under unlawful enemy combatant. The statute applies to those who have committed hostilities (effectively "attacked" the U.S.). So while thats interesting that we've blacklisted another orginization, that doesn't mean they fall under the 2006 military commission act.

[woody]

Being labeled a terrorist does not mean you fall under that statute. If you read it, there is no "terrorist" requirement under unlawful enemy combatant. The statute applies to those who have committed hostilities (effectively "attacked" the U.S.). So while thats interesting that we've blacklisted another orginization, that doesn't mean they fall under the 2006 military commission act.

it goes further than that if you read it:

a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);

Co-Belligerent:
CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

So effectively, it's not just attacking the US.

It's those who attack the US, those who support attacking the US, or those who support attacking anyone who is helping the US against a common unlawful enemy combatant.

[THECHICKEN]

"purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States"

CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

How you read over the words that stress the level of "supporting" is a wonder to me. Directly supporting a.k.a. giving support which DIRECTLY helps to engage in hostilities (attack) the U.S. ... the taliban qualifies under this as a state government which let Al'queda work unhindered and even used them as a tool within thier country.

There is a difference between "supporting" attacks and "directly supporting hostilities"

[FORSAKENR320]

aaaaaaaaannnnnnddd.....


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.niggers

[chook]

When something happens, you pass an act to justify it. Thanks for using real sources for arguments Woody. I always liked Seth, but hate the Lawyer inside him.

[THECHICKEN]

When something happens, you pass an act to justify it. Thanks for using real sources for arguments Woody. I always liked Seth, but hate the Lawyer inside him.

Because im speaking logically and asking questions about whether something should or shouldn't be done... lol. I'll get you a tissue if you want, it'll cost you $100 an hour though.

[woody]

"purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States"

CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

How you read over the words that stress the level of "supporting" is a wonder to me. Directly supporting a.k.a. giving support which DIRECTLY helps to engage in hostilities (attack) the U.S. ... the taliban qualifies under this as a state government which let Al'queda work unhindered and even used them as a tool within thier country.

There is a difference between "supporting" attacks and "directly supporting hostilities"

The whole reason the MCA was controversial was because of the ambiguity.

You could have given money to an organization or charity in Afghanistan.
If that organization had ties to the Taliban...you're an unlawful combatant because you 'supported' the taliban.

[THECHICKEN]

The whole reason the MCA was controversial was because of the ambiguity.

You could have given money to an organization or charity in Afghanistan.
If that organization had ties to the Taliban...you're an unlawful combatant because you 'supported' the taliban.

Yes, but it has to be determined how substantial your support of hostilities were. They have the commisions to determine how involved a person may have been and thats why we send some back, and for those we are unsure of, we hold them as enemy combatants and thus we don't risk sending an enemy back to the battlefield of a war (which we have also done). It is not a blanket statement war against all terrorism (as you have read in it). Maybe a little vague, but not so much as to think we are at war with all islamic terrorist groups... because we simply are NOT. We are at war with those who have comitted hostilities, or substantially helped those commit hostilities against the U.S.

Im not arguing that the "War on Terror" is perfect (kind of fitting a square peg through the round hole), but it is a war against particular people (namely taliban, and al'qeda... though there have been some others). President declared it, Congress approved (via the statute), and supreme court has recognized it as a war.

[chook]

Because im speaking logically and asking questions about whether something should or shouldn't be done... lol. I'll get you a tissue if you want, it'll cost you $100 an hour though.

Maybe lawful, but not logical.

[THECHICKEN]

Maybe lawful, but not logical.

To you

not sure im concerned about not fitting with your view of things

[chook]

To you

not sure im concerned about not fitting with your view of things

nor am I with you. Which is why we dabate the issues.

[THECHICKEN]

yep

[Billy]

Don't be a pussy, Seth.

[THECHICKEN]

Don't be a pussy, Seth.

nah, i generally leave that to you

[Billy]

nah, i generally leave that to you

4/10.

I think you should have gone with "Sicks and stones may break my bones..."

[THECHICKEN]

nah, you make me so hard you could never break my bone

[chook]

nah, you make me so hard you could never break my bone

9/10

I guess your nipples can cut diamonds?

[THECHICKEN]

9/10

I guess your nipples can cut diamonds?

Only if im thinking of you

[nickluto]

a prison on domestic US Soil

Hah. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahah. This is awesome.


Take people who's prime objective is the killing of American civilians and destruction of our way of life, who would LOVE to harm the United States domestically, but only lack the financial and logistical capability to do so, and....bring...them...over here?

If it's between these primitive "humans" so called "basic human rights" (which I'm not sure they really even have, since the constitution only endows these inalienable rights to U.S. citizens) and the possible danger this might bring to our own citizens on our own soil, I'd pick to fuck the Hadji's over every single time.

This is a war people, we can't just throw the safety of our own people under the bus purely to satisfy other peoples views of what is "fair" to enemy combatants.

[nickluto]

If we tote that America is free and fair and bring that ideal to another country its a good thing. Taking people from that country and holding them without the ideals we are showing that country is shitty. About 60 of the 500 that have been released have returned to fight. In America our parole system has a much higher repeat rate than that.

I think it's more about removing them from the theater of battle so that they cannot be reabsorbed into the guerrilla factions that we are still fighting today. Remember when insurgents attacked a prison and freed about 350 prisoners a couple of months ago? I think this is the reason we cannot incarcerate them locally. It would make all prisons prime targets for insurgents looking to reinforce their numbers. I would much rather "deny rights" to these people than endanger the lives of our military many times more than they already are.

The war would be much more drawn out if we kept arresting and imprisoning the same population of people six or 7 times.

[chook]

I think it's more about removing them from the theater of battle so that they cannot be reabsorbed into the guerrilla factions that we are still fighting today. Remember when insurgents attacked a prison and freed about 350 prisoners a couple of months ago? I think this is the reason we cannot incarcerate them locally. It would make all prisons prime targets for insurgents looking to reinforce their numbers. I would much rather "deny rights" to these people than endanger the lives of our military many times more than they already are.

The war would be much more drawn out if we kept arresting and imprisoning the same population of people six or 7 times.

Logically, you have given the best reason for keeping them in prison. I think that the ones we can prove through a system of court that they were battling the troops should be kept in Gitmo. Everyone else who cannot be proven be released, but have them marked through tattoes or chipping them. Then lock them up if they are found out to be fighting later.

I just can't stand the idea of someone being taken away from their country and be innocent. I mean, ones that are obviously shooting at Americans or have evidence against them, sure lock them up. Just show the world that we are fair and justice is still here.

Seth come over, I need you to cut polish some rocks

[THECHICKEN]

have them marked through tattoes or chipping them.

Because thats american... chipping them like dogs lol

[chook]

Because thats american... chipping them like dogs lol

What is better? Having a chip and being in your own country or being in Gitmo?

[THECHICKEN]

What is better? Having a chip and being in your own country or being in Gitmo?

So we chip them (which is illegal in its self) then send them back for them to de-chip, and rejoin fight...

or hold them as enemy combatants which we do in every war we have fought...

[nickluto]

I'm having a hard time believing that some of you honestly want trials for Guantanamo inmates. I don't believe that anyone can be that naive to think that this is possible in a wartime environment...Think about it...How do you logistically think that would work?

They don't exactly have all of the time in a war zone to collect evidence, eyewitness testimony, build a case against the accused, etc that is required to have a "fair trial". This would also cost billions of unnecessary dollars. I like the "you fire gun at me, you're guilty" approach much better. Cost effective, efficient, and accurate. It's not like these people are being held for loitering in front of a convenience store or smoking pot...

The trials will come at the same time they come in any other American conflict...when the fighting stops and such luxuries can be afforded.

[FORSAKENR320]

i'd rather send them home.


all of them







by catapult

[chook]

I'm having a hard time believing that some of you honestly want trials for Guantanamo inmates. I don't believe that anyone can be that naive to think that this is possible in a wartime environment...Think about it...How do you logistically think that would work?

They don't exactly have all of the time in a war zone to collect evidence, eyewitness testimony, build a case against the accused, etc that is required to have a "fair trial". This would also cost billions of unnecessary dollars. I like the "you fire gun at me, you're guilty" approach much better. Cost effective, efficient, and accurate. It's not like these people are being held for loitering in front of a convenience store or smoking pot...

The trials will come at the same time they come in any other American conflict...when the fighting stops and such luxuries can be afforded.

Yes they need Trials. Some of these guys were picked up just sitting around, or on someone's suspicion. Those that were caught shooting guns should obviously be kept in prison. Military Tribunals are much easier to prove guilt than in the civilian system.

I am suprised that noone has made an analogy to Red Dawn.

[THECHICKEN]

Yes they need Trials. Some of these guys were picked up just sitting around, or on someone's suspicion. Those that were caught shooting guns should obviously be kept in prison. Military Tribunals are much easier to prove guilt than in the civilian system.

I am suprised that noone has made an analogy to Red Dawn.

So are you saying they need CIVILIAN trials?

[FORSAKENR320]

Yes they need Trials. Some of these guys were picked up just sitting around, or on someone's suspicion. Those that were caught shooting guns should obviously be kept in prison. Military Tribunals are much easier to prove guilt than in the civilian system.

I am suprised that noone has made an analogy to Red Dawn.

[nickluto]

So are you saying they need CIVILIAN trials?

I think he was saying that military tribunals are easier to get convictions for the accused because I was talking about what a clusterfuck it would be to attempt to get all of the stuff together for a fair trial.

[nickluto]

Yes they need Trials. Some of these guys were picked up just sitting around, or on someone's suspicion.

While I agree that some might be falsely imprisoned by the U.S. forces for these reasons, I seriously doubt this typical of people the kind of people that end up in Guantanamo Bay.

[FORSAKENR320]

+

=
solution

[chook]

They could ride a missile test back home