Guantanamo Bay Escapes

Wolff

REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
By Mark Denbeaux


And who is Mark Denbeaux
oh a counsel for two detainees

this debate is getting stale and as I said before i care little for anyone detained in guantanamo...Ive also said before thats its a terrible thing to keep them locked up without charge but if its the only way that the americans can glean any information from them, so be it at the end of the day if there were a better way it would be done.

I can see the logic to it as they had a lot of prisoners after afghanistan and they probably reasoned that a maybe 20 % knew a lot about al queda so what do they do - time is an important factor they didnt want to go through lenghty trials etc that would take too long. so bring them to guantanamo and get to work on them there.

Kidnap, harass, drug, torture imprison without trial ....so what - its just fighting fire with fire...the americans didnt start this, the fundalmentalists did and now they are getting a taste of their own medicine - and they dont seem to like it .

Of course there are innocent people caught up in it but Im a firm beliver in the end justifies the means, regardless.

Not a very politicaly correct thing to say especially here on boards where I think ideals and holding the moral high ground is far more important to some of the posters than trying to stop these people commiting these terrible acts.

If anyone has a better more fool proof way of combating terrorism post it here, if not the next time you are in London on the tube or in a bus and the guy next you is sweating profusely and mumbling his final prayers and is squeezing something in his hand ask him what he thinks about your freedom...

You might not like his answer.

InFront

Wolff wrote:

they didnt want to go through lenghty trials etc that would take too long. so bring them to guantanamo and get to work on them there.

Kidnap, harass, drug, torture imprison without trial ....so what - its just fighting fire with fire...the americans didnt start this, the fundalmentalists did

That is a very poor argument. First of all it is wrong to refer to this dispute between america and Al Queda as a war. It is not. Al Queda is a group of militants within states, and a war on terror is a theoretical thing, not something that can physically occur. You can abominate al Queda by bombing Afghanistan to pieces only in the way you can eliminate weeds by burning your entire garden. There is no war between Afghanistan and America, nor is there a war between America and Iraq, only a physical dispute with insurgents. In fact America is not actually at war at all, but tied up in policing foreign states where she has no business whatsoever.

That point is essential if we are to consider the next point. In a war, there are victims, but there really are no 'murders'. If there is no war, and a state is responsible for murdering innocent civilians, such as that happens constantly in the Midldle East, then the state in question, America, and the insurgents responsible, Al-Queda, are equally responsible for cold blooded murder. These murderered cannot be brushed aside as martyrs of the western rally.

Which, eventually leads me to the conclusion of my point: In a situation where there is no war between states, it is baffling as to how the USA can 'pick up' civilians from the ground, and subject them to the physical indignities and torture that you have alluded to without giving them reason or fair trial.

Finally I would take issue with your matter-of-fact suggestion that 'the Americans didnt start this, the fundamentalists did'. Everybody here knows that the seeds of terrorism were planted long before September 2001

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

And who is Mark Denbeaux
oh a counsel for two detainees

and a well respected Law professor in the USA. The report was also based on the US Military data available.

as I said before i care little for anyone detained in guantanamo

Which is the crux of your argument as nothing else you have said to this point justifies the illegal detainment and torture of people beyond "I don't care".

Kidnap, harass, drug, torture imprison without trial ....so what - its just fighting fire with fire...the americans didnt start this, the fundalmentalists did and now they are getting a taste of their own medicine - and they dont seem to like it .

Read up on the history of Afganistan and see why the Taliban got into power in the first case.

Of course there are innocent people caught up in it but Im a firm beliver in the end justifies the means, regardless.

So you agree with terrorists killing innocent civilians, after all the ends justifies the means and "taste of thier own medicine" and all that.

bonkey

Wolff wrote:

Of course there are innocent people caught up in it but Im a firm beliver in the end justifies the means, regardless.

I think that right there is the root of why some/many people will disagree with you.

You profess to basically not caring about the innocent as long as the guilty are dealt with...or, if you care, you don't care enough to say that ti shouldn't be done in the name of achieving goals.

Many people see that as a fundamental betrayal of concepts like Human Rights, the purpose of law, and so on and so forth.

As a matter of curiosity, would you approve if the US were to nuke / MOAB / otherwise raze an Iraqi city to the ground in order to deal with an insurgent faction. Or are the limits to the amount of innocent death and suffering even you are prepared to approve in the name of getting the job done?

I ask because of your use of the word "regardless". I don't believe you really mean it, but if you do, then I think we should all be clear of just how monstrous the actions it can justify really are.

If you don't mean "regardless", then perhaps you should reconsider yoru stance. You are drawing a line somewhere, and need to rationalise why you draw it there as opposed to somewhere else.

How much suffering is too much?

Just as importantly...given that means are used to attempt to achieve ends, how much suffering etc. is acceptable in a failed attempt to achieve an end? Is it ok that these people suffer as long as we do it with the intention of achieving something, even if we don't achieve it? Would it remain acceptable even if our means made our ends impossible to achieve, but we didn't realise it at the time?

Indeed, couldn't one also argue that everythign Saddam did was done to achieve his ends? Surely then his means are also perfectly acceptable....in which case you should feel there was never any just cause to remove him. Of course...just causes don't enter into it, do they? As long as the US wanted him gone (that would be another end), they could do whatever tehy liked (means) to achieve that.

So not only woudl your belief in Machiavellianism seem to suggest that you draw no line on what is acceptable, its also an implicit admission both that there was no just cause to remove Saddam, and that one was not needed.

And if anyone thinks I'm being a bit harsh here, I would point out that I am not the one who put an unlimited qualifier on the means/ends justification argument. I'm simply asking the OP to verify that his unlimited qualification really was intentional, and if not then what to clarify he actually meant.

jc

ISAW

Wolff wrote:

REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
By Mark Denbeaux

And who is Mark Denbeaux
oh a counsel for two detainees

Ever heard of ad Hominem i.e. whwn you cant win the argument you resort to attacking the person. the document is based on defence data. Car to show where the analysis or the data is biased?

this debate is getting stale and as I said before i care little for anyone detained in guantanamo...

then why do you keep posting such weak and losing points to a discussion which is about that subject. why dont you start up another thread about what you are interested in instead of spouting unsupported hyperbole here?

Ive also said before thats its a terrible thing to keep them locked up without charge

But when ou see injustice you are not prepared to do things about it? I am sure there were German people who said "it is a terrible thing they are doing to the jews". do you see anything wrong in that?

but if its the only way that the americans can glean any information from them, so be it at the end of the day if there were a better way it would be done.

first you have not shown that it is the ONLY way. and I am certain you cant! second you persuppose that because an action is taken it must be justified since
1. the fact that it is justified and justice the best way 2. there is no better way than the best way 3. the best way is what is done
Isnt this circular reasoning? Ie they do the best way since the best way is what is done?

I can see the logic to it as they had a lot of prisoners after afghanistan and they probably reasoned that a maybe 20 % knew a lot about al queda so what do they do - time is an important factor they didnt want to go through lenghty trials etc that would take too long. so bring them to guantanamo and get to work on them there.

Yeah. Why not take all the population of afghanistan somewhere and I am sure you could "weed out" the bad ones? Wasnt that tried before? In Poland?

Kidnap, harass, drug, torture imprison without trial ....so what - its just fighting fire with fire...the americans didnt start this, the fundalmentalists did and now they are getting a taste of their own medicine - and they dont seem to like it .

Replace "americans" with "Germans" and "fundamentalists" with "jews" and yu have a quote Mein Kamph would be proud of!

Of course there are innocent people caught up in it but Im a firm beliver in the end justifies the means, regardless.

An even better quote!

Not a very politicaly correct thing to say especially here on boards where I think ideals and holding the moral high ground is far more important to some of the posters than trying to stop these people commiting these terrible acts.

i dont hide. I subscribe to international law and best practice and to ideas like "slavery was wrong" . apparently you don't subscribe to these principles which I hold as self evident namely that ALL people are created equal.

If anyone has a better more fool proof way of combating terrorism post it here, if not the next time you are in London on the tube or in a bus and the guy next you is sweating profusely and mumbling his final prayers and is squeezing something in his hand ask him what he thinks about your freedom...

Ah yes! the old fear gambit! lived in a country wher terrorism was ongoing for years. the worst times I can remember was the early seventies and mid eighties. Thank God we never stooped to the "mistrust your negihbour " fear gambit. Nope we didnt introduce concentration camps like the Us did for orientals in WWII. then again we did imprision some anti statists who were expressidely so fifty years ago.

You might not like his answer.

Even if he was a terrorist you are only shifting the burden again and are back to "whataboutery". you cant fool me . I dont want my freedom curtailed by the State on the basis that they argue I will be safer.

Wolff

ISAW wrote:

Ever heard of ad Hominem i.e. whwn you cant win the argument you resort to attacking the person. the document is based on defence data. Car to show where the analysis or the data is biased?

The point im making is the document is not independtly produced a poin the OP left out - did not specify where the doc origionated

ISAW wrote:

But when ou see injustice you are not prepared to do things about it? I am sure there were German people who said "it is a terrible thing they are doing to the jews". do you see anything wrong in that?

ISAW wrote:

Ah the Germans again good..good

ISAW wrote:

first you have not shown that it is the ONLY way. and I am certain you cant! second you persuppose that because an action is taken it must be justified since
1. the fact that it is justified and justice the best way 2. there is no better way than the best way 3. the best way is what is done
Isnt this circular reasoning? Ie they do the best way since the best way is what is done?

ISAW wrote:

Japers if thats the best counter agrument youve got I take my hat off to you - Im still trying to figure it out..no Germans though

ISAW wrote:

Yeah. Why not take all the population of afghanistan somewhere and I am sure you could "weed out" the bad ones? Wasnt that tried before? In Poland?

ISAW wrote:

Theres those Germans again

ISAW wrote:

Replace "americans" with "Germans" and "fundamentalists" with "jews" and yu have a quote Mein Kamph would be proud of!

ISAW wrote:

A really bad analogy and you know it....and those Germans go for the hat trick...

I mean really The Germans , the Jews Concentration camps Gas Chambers.....Are you putting suspected terrorists int he same category as the Jews

Im sure they would love the comparison given the depth of love they have for Israel

A Very Lame comparison.....

Hobbes

The point im making is the document is not independtly produced a poin the OP left out - did not specify where the doc origionated

Well I gave enough details for people to go find it themselves. However rather then dispute the facts in the document (I suspect you didn't even read it) you attacked the person who wrote it, who last time I checked is above reproach.

If your thinking there is some kind of impartiality in the document then you should know that it is totally based on the US military records available.

Your free to look them up and point out what parts of the report are incorrect. However just attacking the person who wrote the report is hardly helping your argument.

Stark

Wolff wrote:

I mean really The Germans , the Jews Concentration camps Gas Chambers.....Are you putting suspected terrorists int he same category as the Jews

Suspected terrorists.

The whole point of this exercise is to show how stupid and in fact racist those grounds for suspicion actually are. The Germans spread rampant fear about what the Jews were going to do to German society. The Americans are spreading rampant fear about what the Muslims are going to do to us.

People are being connected with terrorism and subjected to fiendishly inhumane treatment solely based on their nationality and happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's one of the few cases where you can draw Nazi parallels imo.

Wolff

Sorry I must have missed the bit in History class about the Jews crashing the hindenberg into the brandenburg gate killing thousands and giving the germans a reason for persecuting the jews.

Crap, Crap Analogy and bears no relation to Nazi Germany.

By your reasoning Islamic Terrorists are a persecuted minority and should be protected to allow them to go about their evil doings in peace - god forbid you might infringe on their rights.

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

Sorry I must have missed the bit in History class about the Jews crashing the hindenberg into the brandenburg gate killing thousands and giving the germans a reason for persecuting the jews.

Just because you make up some fake analogy doesn't means hes wrong. The Jewish people were persecuted and treated as the enemy (and this is really for another thread).

By your reasoning Islamic Terrorists are a persecuted minority and should be protected to allow them to go about their evil doings in peace - god forbid you might infringe on their rights.

By your reasoning muslims or those people who live in Afganistan or visit Afganistan are clearly terrorists and should be treated without respect as any other human being.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

By your reasoning muslims or those people who live in Afganistan or visit Afganistan are clearly terrorists and should be treated without respect as any other human being.

Ah now. Be fair, Hobbes.

By his reasoning, the Afghani and Iraqi people are all merely suspected or potential terrorists, and possibly only that once arrested/detained (regardless of the reason for said arrest/detention).

But thats enough. Once you're held, you must be a suspected terrorist, and thats good enough to throw your rights out the window.

Sorry I must have missed the bit in History class about the Jews crashing the hindenberg into the brandenburg gate killing thousands and giving the germans a reason for persecuting the jews.

And I must have missed the bit where it was Iraqi and Afghani terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon.

Maybe you could do em a favour and point me at where that is clarified? Alternately, would you be so good as to explain why Saudia Arabia (home of 14 of the 19), Egypt (1), Lebanon (1) or the UAE (2) have not been targetted?

jc

bonkey

Wolff wrote:

By your reasoning Islamic Terrorists are a persecuted minority

No, by his reasoning, Arabs and/or Muslims in general are being persecuted for the actions of a tiny minority who share these traits.

jc

Wolff

bonkey wrote:

And I must have missed the bit where it was Iraqi and Afghani terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon.

Maybe you could do em a favour and point me at where that is clarified? Alternately, would you be so good as to explain why Saudia Arabia (home of 14 of the 19), Egypt (1), Lebanon (1) or the UAE (2) have not been targetted?

jc

emm because Al Queda was sheltered, by the Taliban who lived in Afghanistan.......also who said anything about Iraqis ?

Also are you advocating because individuals are from a particular place we invade because they came from there ?

So spain should invade Morrocco beacuse some of its citizens bomb madrid

what kind of sense does that make

America invaded Afghanistan because its where al queda and Osama Bin Laden were

They would have done the same to Sudan if he had still been there only they had the sense to kick him out

No matter how many roads he had built for them.

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

America invaded Afghanistan because its where al queda and Osama Bin Laden were

Isn't amazing how history changes as time passes. That is not what happened at all.

1. After 9/11 Bushes administration try to find reasons to invade Iraq.

2. Told by the CIA "Saddam had nothing to do with it. It was AQ". Which was understandable because he didn't read the report that AQ were planning such an attack as he was busy with his holiday at the time.

3. Tells the Taliban "Hand over OBL or else".

4. Taliban realising that he wouldn't get a fair trial (who would after 9/11) said they would only hand him over to Saudi Arabia.

5. USA said "Not good enough".

6. OBL goes *missing* Taliban are all "Whoops sorry about that".

7. US invades Afganistan, despite the Taliban having no direct dealings with 9/11. During the same time there is intel that OBL has since moved to pakistan. Fearing an overthrow of the dictatorship in Pakistan the leader there does a deal with Bush not to arrest OBL if he is found in Pakistan. Bush agrees to arrangement in return Pakistan helps out with the Afganistan invasion. (good thing Bush set up the Afgan invasion plans some months before).

8. Northern Alliance hired to act as "people rising up to overthrow the evil Taliban" when the truth be told the Northern Alliance have a worse human rights record then the Taliban and were the reason the Taliban came into power in the first case.

9. President is put in that has no real power outside of the capital city, meanwhile the warlords rule the rest of Afganistan. Some photo ops about how women don't have to wear burkas anymore and musicians being allowed to sing (followed by news reports of the opposite some months later).

10. 5 years later OBL rumoured to be in Pakistan. No plans to invade them though (as they have nukes probably).

Victor

Yes, I would like the sons of bitches to be put on trial and locked away for a long time. Internment merely presents them as martyrs. Perhaps the camp commander was right, their suicides have become an attack on America.

Sand wrote:

Much as Ireland lost its war against the IRA the moment it employed internment and the SCC.....oh wait

Internemnt didn't work and it was pulled. Various human rights organisations challenge the need for the SCC, requiring it to be justified. They accept the justification that it is needed to deal with serious terrorist and other organised crime. The threat is still there, but it is much reduced. The SCC is still there, but its use is much reduced.

Sand wrote:

But for co-operative prisoners it can be at worst restrictive, or even almost Disneyland.

So kidnapping (the wrong people) and bankrupting a family is equivalent to Disneyland in your eyes?

Victor

Wolff wrote:

no im saying most of the foreigners in afghanistan at time of the war were there to fight the us or had been with al qaeda.

O RLY?

11 September WTC and Pentagon attacked
20-27 September "Secret" war starts in Afghanistan
7 October Bombing starts in Afghanistan

Are you suggesting every plane into Kabul in that period was full?

Victor

Wolff wrote:

Kidnap, harass, drug, torture imprison without trial ....so what - its just fighting fire with fire...the americans didnt start this, the fundalmentalists did

I kindly suggest you look up your history. The Great Game has been ongoing for centuries. First between the Russians and the British. Then the Soviets and the Iranians. Then with Egypt falling out with the Soviets in 1972, the fall of the Shah and the Iranian and Saudi revolutions in 1979 and the Iranians falling out with the Americans and the Soviets occupying Afghanistan the mantle fell between the Americans and the Soviets. Saudi Arabia passing on Egyptian- and Israeli-held Soviet made weapons (replaced by weapons sold by the Americans to the Egyptians and Israelis) to the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet .. .blah, blah, blah... fall of the Soviet Union ... .blah, blah, blah...

How, just how, did a 12 and 13 year start all this - before they were born?

Wolff

Hobbes wrote:

Isn't amazing how history changes as time passes. That is not what happened at all.

1. After 9/11 Bushes administration try to find reasons to invade Iraq.

2. Told by the CIA "Saddam had nothing to do with it. It was AQ". Which was understandable because he didn't read the report that AQ were planning such an attack as he was busy with his holiday at the time.

3. Tells the Taliban "Hand over OBL or else".

4. Taliban realising that he wouldn't get a fair trial (who would after 9/11) said they would only hand him over to Saudi Arabia.

5. USA said "Not good enough".

6. OBL goes *missing* Taliban are all "Whoops sorry about that".

7. US invades Afganistan, despite the Taliban having no direct dealings with 9/11. During the same time there is intel that OBL has since moved to pakistan. Fearing an overthrow of the dictatorship in Pakistan the leader there does a deal with Bush not to arrest OBL if he is found in Pakistan. Bush agrees to arrangement in return Pakistan helps out with the Afganistan invasion. (good thing Bush set up the Afgan invasion plans some months before).

8. Northern Alliance hired to act as "people rising up to overthrow the evil Taliban" when the truth be told the Northern Alliance have a worse human rights record then the Taliban and were the reason the Taliban came into power in the first case.

9. President is put in that has no real power outside of the capital city, meanwhile the warlords rule the rest of Afganistan. Some photo ops about how women don't have to wear burkas anymore and musicians being allowed to sing (followed by news reports of the opposite some months later).

10. 5 years later OBL rumoured to be in Pakistan. No plans to invade them though (as they have nukes probably).

I have to hand it to you - classic post especially the bit about the Taliban not want to hand hm over because he mightnt get a fair trial

Classic !

emm and I think it goes a bit further than women not having to wear burkas anymore like they can now get an education - dont fear the religious police beating them up for being out unaccompanied - hey wait a minute that sounds like Saudi Arabia as well.

Lets face it the Taliban were knackers - religious hicks if you will who provided shelter to Osama and his quacks and only talked about handing him over just after they realised america really was going to kick them out

Some friends they were - their leader was last seen scapering on a honda 50 as fast as he could - what a pathetic bunch.


and you have the cheek to call that skewered version of events history - i dont think so

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

I have to hand it to you - classic post especially the bit about the Taliban not want to hand hm over because he mightnt get a fair trial

Well some of us were paying attention to what was going on around the time it happened.

Of course if you think that is wrong please feel free to prove it.

emm and I think it goes a bit further than women not having to wear burkas anymore like they can now get an education - dont fear the religious police beating them up for being out unaccompanied

Looks like someone isn't paying attention to Afganistan at all then. That same sh!t is still going on, just not in the capital.

Lets face it the Taliban were knackers - religious hicks if you will who provided shelter to Osama and his quacks and only talked about handing him over just after they realised america really was going to kick them out

Actually the impression was they weren't expecting to be invaded at all because they had no direct dealings with 9/11 and prior to OBL disappearing he had claimed he had nothing to do with it. Also handing over to another Muslim country is somewhat understandable because to these extremists they believe the US to be as bad as we do them when it comes to Human rights, and oh look the US just proves them right with gitmo.

and you have the cheek to call that skewered version of events history - i dont think so

Then please feel free to prove it wrong with the actual facts. If there is something you feel is wrong and your unable to prove it and wish for more clarification I am more then happy to supply it for you.

However if your going to accuse me of lying you better back it up on this forum or stfu.

Wolff

Hobbes wrote:

However if your going to accuse me of lying you better back it up on this forum or stfu.

now now thats not nice...


facts are in extremely short supply on this thread anyways.

but heres how events went according to the facts - so you can see the taliban only offered Osama to a third country after operations commenced.

and even them Im not convinced they would have played the well we tried to hand him over but now hes escaped - wasnt Osamas son married to the talibans leaders daughter ?



U.S. invasion
Main article: U.S. war in Afghanistan
On September 20, 2001, as the U.S. strongly suspected Osama bin Laden and his hosts, the Taliban, were behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. made a five point ultimatum to the Taliban: (1) deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al Qaeda; (2) Release all imprisoned foreign nationals; (3) Close immediately every terrorist training camp; (4) Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities; (5) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection [10]. The Taliban rejected this ultimatum on September 21, 2001, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks [11].

On September 22, 2001, the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn Bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic shar'ia law [12]. Pakistan is believed to have rejected the offer. On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court[13]. This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.

Shortly afterward, on October 7, 2001, the United States, aided by the United Kingdom and supported by a coalition of other countries including the NATO alliance, initiated military actions, code named Operation Enduring Freedom, and bombed Taliban and Al Qaeda related camps[14][15]. On October 14 the Taliban openly counteroffered to hand Bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Ladens involvement in 9/11[16]. The U.S. rejected this offer as well and continued with military operations.

The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks, and disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations[17].

Sand

अधिनायक

Yes it would make a huge difference if the detainees in Gitmo had actually been charged with any crimes, had lawyers to defend them and were tried by civilian judiciary. Can you see no benefit to a justice system? Do you believe police should be allowed to lock people up directly seeing as they always claim to know who did it.

Who says theyd be tried by a civillian judiciary? Why wouldnt the US take a leaf out of Irelands book - learning from our experience in fighting terrorism? Maybe theyd introduce a court where the defendant is simply convicted on the contents of an intelligence file and/or the opinion of a suitably authoritive figure from the military or the CIA. Which is the basis for many of them being in Gitmo in the first place; some info and the opinion of a military or intelligence authority. Would getting a rigged court to rubberstamp make it all above board suddenly?

Your argument is premised on the SCC being necessarily harsh but effective and that Gitmo is somehow similar. But there is no comparison betwen the two and there is no proof that the SCC was effective or that its unorthodox methods had a net positive effect give the various miscarriages of justice and encouragement to republicans to feel victimised that they provided.

SCC was effective in securing the conviction of Provos and other subversives. McCabes murderers were convicted of manslaughter rather than murder simply because all prosecution witnessess suddenly refused to testify against the men, and one key witness took an 18 month sentence for contempt of court rather than risk the wrath of the SFIRA local community liason unit. This was in the SCC - imagine the sheer chaos that would ensue if SFIRA had a civillian jury to threaten and intimidate?

Terrorists are not joyriders or muggers. As for Provos feeling victimised - **** em. If there was a Autzwitch memorial, theyd push their way to the front and lecture all the survivors about real victimisation - sure werent them prods as bad as the Nazis? Whats 3 years in Autzwitch compared to 800 years of theft, rape, murder, blah, blah, blah....

Essentially your argument seems to be that the only way to preserve our freedoms is to remove them. The desired end justifies the bloody means. This is the same argument used by the terrorists. It's a fantastic way to recruit more support for terrorists and to make criminal acts appear to be acts of war.

My argument is you cant treat terrorists like people who fail to pay a traffic ticket. Irish freedoms were never seriously affected (if at all) by the SCC. Theres little cause to think the US experience will be much different.

Victor

Internemnt didn't work and it was pulled. Various human rights organisations challenge the need for the SCC, requiring it to be justified. They accept the justification that it is needed to deal with serious terrorist and other organised crime. The threat is still there, but it is much reduced. The SCC is still there, but its use is much reduced.

Internment did work. Its the primary reason the IRA ceased to be a threat to democratic parties in the Irish Free State (as it was at the time). And various human rights organisations can explain to the McCabe family how theyd have got even a manslaughter conviction in a jury trial when SFIRA intimidated witnesses into silence.

So kidnapping (the wrong people) and bankrupting a family is equivalent to Disneyland in your eyes?

The kids seem to think so. In their own words they thought they were exceptionally well treated, educated and looked after. A mistake to send to Gitmo, no doubt about it, but the kids seemed to view it as a net positive experience. Certainly, it jars with the accusations of brutal torture of children for the amusement of laughing camp guards that some reports would have you believe. Indymedia, or the kids themselves...who to believe...

Hagar

Sand wrote:

Certainly, it jars with the accusations of brutal torture of children for the amusement of laughing camp guards that some reports would have you believe.

But weren't the guards convicted of those offences by the courts whereas the prisoners have never been before a court?

अधिनायक

Sand, are you arguing that Gitmo was a good idea and a net benefit to US interests? Would you say that keeping it running as-is would provide a net benefit to US interests in the future?

tallus

I'm just wondering what this thread has to do with the "800 years of theft, rape, murder, blah, blah, blah...." if you want to bitch about the provo's why dont you start a new thread sand.

ISAW

Wolff wrote:

ISAW wrote:

Ever heard of ad Hominem i.e. whwn you cant win the argument you resort to attacking the person. the document is based on defence data. Car to show where the analysis or the data is biased?

The point im making is the document is not independtly produced a poin the OP left out - did not specify where the doc origionated

i.e. it is ad hominem. and he didnt leave it out.

But when ou see injustice you are not prepared to do things about it? I am sure there were German people who said "it is a terrible thing they are doing to the jews". do you see anything wrong in that?

Ah the Germans again good..good

Thats meant to be a reply? I pointed to the idea of natural and constitutional justice and arguments made by Jackson at the Nuremburg Trials. That is central to US jurisprudence.
Where is your rebuttal?

first you have not shown that it is the ONLY way. and I am certain you cant! second you persuppose that because an action is taken it must be justified since
1. the fact that it is justified and justice the best way 2. there is no better way than the best way 3. the best way is what is done
Isnt this circular reasoning? Ie they do the best way since the best way is what is done?

Japers if thats the best counter agrument youve got I take my hat off to you - Im still trying to figure it out..no Germans though

Again that isnt rebuttal is it?

ISAW wrote:

Yeah. Why not take all the population of afghanistan somewhere and I am sure you could "weed out" the bad ones? Wasnt that tried before? In Poland?

Theres those Germans again

And the argument isnt relevant because...?

ISAW wrote:

Replace "americans" with "Germans" and "fundamentalists" with "jews" and yu have a quote Mein Kamph would be proud of!

A really bad analogy and you know it...

that is just gainsaying. this isn't Monty Python. Provede rebuttal as to why it is a bad analogy and not just gainsaying!

I mean really The Germans , the Jews Concentration camps Gas Chambers.....Are you putting suspected terrorists int he same category as the Jews

Apparently you agree that "suspected" terrorists should be deprived of human rights. Ypu assume they are guilty as did people assume the Jews were guilty.

Im sure they would love the comparison given the depth of love they have for Israel

How do you know? You dont know anything about all these detainees.

A Very Lame comparison.....

A totally lame rebuttal

Sand

But weren't the guards convicted of those offences by the courts whereas the prisoners have never been before a court?

Are we talking about Abu Gharib here or Gitmo?

Sand, are you arguing that Gitmo was a good idea and a net benefit to US interests? Would you say that keeping it running as-is would provide a net benefit to US interests in the future?

Option 1, Treat all detainees as POW under GC: Cant question them, though could maybe stretch definitions of questioning over their "unit". Certainly they couldnt be interrogated. They would have to release them at the end of hostilities....arguable whether the end of hostilities would be when Taliban was toppled in Afghanistan, or could the US effectively hold them as POWs forever and ever. Also could people captured by non-military forces be treated as POWs? Basically, the same hassle as Gitmo (proving so and so is a member of a hostile force which aint always clearcut with subversive groups as they dont tend to broadcast their membership and wear uniforms), but no real benefits.

Option 2, Treat them as common criminals and charge them in court: Lose case after case as intelligence cant be divulged without risking current operations, or release that intelligence to be examined by the defence and their lawyer. Summoning of spies to that stand. Ludicrous.

Option 3, Release them all. Cant charge them for reasons given above. Illegal to hold them without charge. Wave them a cheery goodbye and wish them better luck next Jihad.

Option 4, Hold them in legal limbo at Gitmo. Interrogate them. Filter out the useless/mistaken IDs. Retain the high value ones for questioning in an attempt to find out whose who and what theyre up to. Figure out what to do with them later. This is the one they went with, probably because they need to hold these guys, and they need information on who theyre fighting and where they are.

Option 5......Well Im sure the US is all ears as to what their critics suggest they do with 450 suspected terrorists.

To answer your question more directly - Gitmo is the best option thought of so far. The best of a bad lot. I've pointed out (several times in this thread) why these guys cant be charged in an ordinary jury court and as yet, despite all the criticism no one has forwarded a reasonable alternative to Gitmo. Every headline is "Gitmo must be closed. Gitmo is bad news. Gitmo is trouble", theres a distinct shortage of "Workable alternative to Gitmo proposed!" type headlines.

I'm just wondering what this thread has to do with the "800 years of theft, rape, murder, blah, blah, blah...." if you want to bitch about the provo's why dont you start a new thread sand.

Im just wondering why you read my entire post and then only responded to one small portion of it, which was a response to the it being noted that Provos felt victimised by the SCC. But, you know what'll help the thread to stay on-topic? Not zeroing in on one part of one post and bringing it up for discussion.

Hagar

Sand wrote:

Are we talking about Abu Gharib here or Gitmo?

/me open mouth to change feet.