Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Obama suspends trials at Guantanamo

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    One at a time please.


    The detainees in Gitmo don’t fall under the Geneva Convention.

    [/I]

    They might not even fall under the Geneva Convention since they aren't fighting for their Countries but these Terrorsit orgs they represent [Hamas, Al Quieda, Talliban]


  • Options
    #63
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    First, war is hell.
    Slippery slope. All you have to do is invent a war on any given abstract noun, declare "war is hell", and suddenly the bill of rights is a pinko commie document to be shredded at will.

    Do you, or do you not, agree with these words?
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
    The Constitution applies to US Citizens.
    Really? If I, as a non-US citizen, were arrested for a crime in the US, would I not have the right to silence? To a speedy trial? To protection from unreasonable search and seizure without probably cause? Do the cops not have to read foreigners their Miranda rights?

    Methinks someone needs to retake Civics 101.
    The detainees in Gitmo don’t fall under the Geneva Convention.
    Why not? Because someone decided to invent a convenient-sounding phrase, "unlawful combatant"?

    Basically, you've blithely accepted that your Commander in Chief is allowed to make up the rules as he goes along, and invent an entirely new class of prisoner that isn't subject to either the Constitution or the international laws governing the conduct of a war. Doesn't that bother you at all?


  • Options
    #64
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    RE: Unlawful Combatants

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Supreme_Court_ruling_on_Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

    Seems as of 2006 thats officially bullsh!t as far as Gitmo is concerned.


  • Options
    #65
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Slippery slope. All you have to do is invent a war on any given abstract noun, declare "war is hell", and suddenly the bill of rights is a pinko commie document to be shredded at will.

    Do you, or do you not, agree with these words?
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Yes I agree with them, and I do not consider the right to attach conceled bombs to yourself, women and children in order to blow up as many people as you hate as an Unalienable Right. Animals have a different set of rights.

    But it won't be a problem anymore. In the age of Obama, looks like the Washington comPost has declared that War On Terror has come to a sudden end.

    You want to go down there and decide who the good are and who's bad? And how many Gitmo detainees can we send to the apartment complex across from you and your family?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Really? If I, as a non-US citizen, were arrested for a crime in the US, would I not have the right to silence? To a speedy trial? To protection from unreasonable search and seizure without probably cause? Do the cops not have to read foreigners their Miranda rights?

    Methinks someone needs to retake Civics 101.

    This type of thing has been debated for years, becasue as I warned some believe the Constitution to be a "living document." If you are looking for a simple yes or no answer, then it will be NO. Don't like it, don't come here. Yes we give the same rights to aliens as we do citizens right now... stupid isn't it?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why not? Because someone decided to invent a convenient-sounding phrase, "unlawful combatant"?

    Basically, you've blithely accepted that your Commander in Chief is allowed to make up the rules as he goes along, and invent an entirely new class of prisoner that isn't subject to either the Constitution or the international laws governing the conduct of a war. Doesn't that bother you at all?

    No it doesn't. Sorry, In a combat situation when someone shakes hands with you, dressed in civilian clothing, then blows your head off when you turn away, they deserve a bullet, not protection from the Geneva Convention or an all-expense paid trip to club Gitmo.


  • Options
    #66
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    This type of thing has been debated for years, becasue as I warned some believe the Constitution to be a "living document." If you are looking for a simple yes or no answer, then it will be NO. Don't like it, don't come here. Yes we give the same rights to aliens as we do citizens right now... stupid isn't it?

    So you would have no problem with Americans travelling abroad being rounded up and interned without any due process or recourse to a court of law? Should all Americans stay at home just to avoid this? Rediculous arguments you make to be honest.
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    No it doesn't. Sorry, In a combat situation when someone shakes hands with you, dressed in civilian clothing, then blows your head off when you turn away, they deserve a bullet, not protection from the Geneva Convention or an all-expense paid trip to club Gitmo.

    Of course they deserve a bullet...no question. BUT you have to be able to distinguish between those who are doing that and innocents who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This kind of situation you describe was always going to happen when the US went into Iraq yet Rumsfeld and co. didn't legislate for it or seem to realise it was going to happen.

    There have been loads of prisoners already released from Gitmo. Whatever happened to them? If they were such a big threat why are they out now?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Ludo wrote: »
    So you would have no problem with Americans travelling abroad being rounded up and interned without any due process or recourse to a court of law?
    Isn't this already happening? And again... flawed reasoning. If they come to a country with the purpose of committing crimes then they don't deserve the same rights as US Citizens.
    Ludo wrote: »
    Should all Americans stay at home just to avoid this?
    As the hole premise in this line of questions is flawed, and since we only want to deal in absolutes… then yup!
    Ludo wrote: »
    Of course they deserve a bullet...no question. BUT you have to be able to distinguish between those who are doing that and innocents who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    So you think we've got little orphan Annie, who was rounded up while handing out flowers, locked up down there? Give me a break.
    Ludo wrote: »
    There have been loads of prisoners already released from Gitmo. Whatever happened to them? If they were such a big threat why are they out now?
    Hopefully the good guys are living productive and peaceful lives, and the bad guys are dead.


  • Options
    #68
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Isn't this already happening? And again... flawed reasoning. If they come to a country with the purpose of committing crimes then they don't deserve the same rights as US Citizens.

    Agree FULLY with your last sentence. I would like to see your sources for your opening one though? Where are these Americans being rounded up?
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Hopefully the good guys are living productive and peaceful lives, and the bad guys are dead.

    So why were the good in Gitmo? I thought you said they are all bad guys who deserve everything that comes to them.


  • Options
    #69
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Ludo wrote: »
    Agree FULLY with your last sentence. I would like to see your sources for your opening one though? Where are these Americans being rounded up?
    Dramatic effect. More a figurative expression rather than an actual one. Just look at any discussion of Americans by non-Americans before the Age of Obama... for some strange reason we're all good people now LOL
    Ludo wrote: »
    So why were the good in Gitmo? I thought you said they are all bad guys who deserve everything that comes to them.
    Ever hear of Rehabilitation? Would you like to go down an hang with the ones that are left?


  • Options
    #70
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Dramatic effect. More a figurative expression rather than an actual one.

    In other words, you made it up! No point in discussing things rationally with you really. This is the second time in this thread alone you have done this. First you tried to use attacks outside US soil when we were discussing attacks ON US soil....the ignored retort that there had been numerous attacks on US embassies during Bushs term.

    Now you are simply making things up (at least you admit it though). This ends my input in this thread as there is no point in continuing beating my head against an ever moving wall.


  • Options
    #71
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Ludo wrote: »
    In other words, you made it up! No point in discussing things rationally with you really. This is the second time in this thread alone you have done this. First you tried to use attacks outside US soil when we were discussing attacks ON US soil....the ignored retort that there had been numerous attacks on US embassies during Bushs term.

    Now you are simply making things up (at least you admit it though). This ends my input in this thread as there is no point in continuing beating my head against an ever moving wall.

    If you reread my response, wasn't it a cleverly worded question?

    The attacks on US embassy's during GWB's term happened after the War on Terror was declared. I may be wrong, but wasn't the whole premise based on war?

    And please don't hurt yourself, it's not worth it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    If they come to a country with the purpose of committing crimes then they don't deserve the same rights as US Citizens.
    Technically, we came to them.


  • Options
    #73
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Yes I agree with them, and I do not consider the right to attach conceled bombs to yourself, women and children in order to blow up as many people as you hate as an Unalienable Right.
    Straw man. Nobody's arguing for the right to do those things. What's being argued for is due process.
    Animals have a different set of rights.
    Sure, but - and here's the bit you seem to be having trouble with - the detainees in Guantanamo are not animals, they're human beings.

    They may well be evil human beings. They may well deserve severe punishment. But a little over two hundred years ago, the founding fathers of your great nation set out a rather superb system of checks and balances to make sure that people accused of even serious crimes were given access to justice, at a time when their fledgeling nation was under a much more serious existential threat than it faces now.
    You want to go down there and decide who the good are and who's bad?
    Nope. I'm no more qualified to make that call than you are. The difference between us is: you're making that call.
    And how many Gitmo detainees can we send to the apartment complex across from you and your family?
    There's talk of them coming here. I'm not sure why - we haven't denied them their basic human rights for the past several years - but if they do come here and commit a crime, the good news is that they'll at least face a fair trial.
    This type of thing has been debated for years, becasue as I warned some believe the Constitution to be a "living document." If you are looking for a simple yes or no answer, then it will be NO. Don't like it, don't come here. Yes we give the same rights to aliens as we do citizens right now... stupid isn't it?
    Only if you consider non-Americans less human in some way. Is that a road you really want to go down?
    No it doesn't. Sorry, In a combat situation when someone shakes hands with you, dressed in civilian clothing, then blows your head off when you turn away, they deserve a bullet, not protection from the Geneva Convention or an all-expense paid trip to club Gitmo.
    Can you say, hand on heart, that you're absolutely certain that every single Guantanamo detainee is guilty of what you've just described?


  • Options
    #74
    billy the squid
    Registered Users Posts: 12,811 ✭✭✭✭billy the squid


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Very promising news indeed; the make or break decision for me though, as far as Obama's credibility is concerned, is whether or not he's going to put Bush/Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (authorizing torture).

    Will be very interesting to see, if he does.

    As a member of the executive, it is not his job to bring people up on crimes like that. That is up to the lawyers. Bush is a regular citizen now so if someone in the legal industry wants to take up that case they are free to do so.


  • Options
    #75
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    without having to declare a reason for holding someone
    or even having to declare that person is being held,
    such practices can be corrupted to hold political prisoners and threaten dissension.


  • Options
    #76
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    GuanYin wrote: »
    So we've established that you don't believe in our (the American) constitution and would like to piss on the graves of the founding fathers because of your personal feelings. Lets move on.

    Ok, so what else doesn't deserve due process?

    Murder? Rape? Paedophilia? What your'e saying is, depending on the alleged crime, some people don't deserve a fair hearing.

    In fact, depending on the perception of crime. I mean, I might see you as a terrorist, you might see me as an invader whose with the army who dropped a bomb on your pregnant wife.

    Either you have law and rule or you don't. You can't pick and choose because you're prejudiced against a certain people.

    Talking in absolutes is disingenuous. “Either you have law and rule or you don't. You can't pick and choose because you're prejudiced against a certain people.” I’ll therefore ask you the same question, and give you a situation. Illegal Aliens are criminals under our law. Do you think they should all be rounded up and deported? Do you know any illegal aliens, and have you reported them to authorities? And if you haven’t, and believe in the rule of law, why not turn yourself into authorities and ask them to lock you up for aiding fugitives of law?

    I believe the basic argument here involves Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is a fundamental right in the Constitution that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment.

    Under the constitution, the US President does have the authority to suspend portions of the constitution. During the American Civil War, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, during WWII President Franklin D Roosevelt signed a presidential order removing all persons of Japanese ancestry from military zones on the West Coast, and Bush authorized the Patriot Act as part of the War on Terror. (Some pretty good company GWB kept don't you think?)

    Habeas Corpus is intended for “criminal” matters. War is not a criminal matter and cannot be fought in the courtrooms. That is why our founding fathers were smart enough to allow suspension of sections of the Constitution under a time of war.

    If it is the intention of our new Commander in Chief to fight the War on Terror as a criminal matter, then the war is lost, and I agree we need to bring home all of our troops… as the war is indeed over and lost.

    War is hell! War is War, it’s not Civilian Discourse.


  • Options
    #77
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Ludo wrote: »
    There have been loads of prisoners already released from Gitmo. Whatever happened to them? If they were such a big threat why are they out now?
    [url= wrote:
    Yahoo.com[/url]"]Pentagon officials say that about 110 detainees should never be released because of the potential danger they pose to U.S. interests.

    Washington has cleared 50 of the detainees for release but cannot return them to their home countries because of the risk they would be tortured or persecuted there.
    It sounds like 50 are amongst those to be released.


    As for the other 110? Probably rehabilitated and let go. Prison is prison, no matter how you look at it.


    Gitmo was a prison where "innocent" people got tortured, and put in jail cells. Sounds like some of the prisons in the USA.


    If Obama wants to "look good", the people kidnapped won't be in jail much longer. Unless the USA wants to allow good people (read: their sources on the ground) to be named in an open court, or their special forces to go on the stand, those in Gitmo will walk.


  • Options
    #78
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Under the constitution, the US President does have the authority to suspend portions of the constitution. During the American Civil War, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, during WWII President Franklin D Roosevelt signed a presidential order removing all persons of Japanese ancestry from military zones on the West Coast, and Bush authorized the Patriot Act as part of the War on Terror. (Some pretty good company GWB kept don't you think?)


    Historically, the internment of the Japenesse during WW II is consider a tragedy of human rights in the US. They lost their property and businesses.
    Every president since Nixon has publicly disavowed the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Gerald Ford rescinded Roosevelt's executive order. Jimmy Carter signed legislation that concluded the order was "not justified by military necessity." Ronald Reagan said internment was "wrong," and signed the Civil Liberties Act in 1988, which granted reparations to survivors. George H.W. Bush acknowledged "serious injustices" done to Japanese-Americans, and arranged for redress payments, as well. Bill Clinton did the same.

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/02/25/preserving-the-japanese-american-internment-camps.html
    In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[10] About $1.6 billion in reparations were later disbursed by the U.S. government to surviving internees and their heirs.[11]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment


  • Options
    #79
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    And the Civil War is hardly our crowning achievement, in regards to the slaughter, and Brother vs. Brother.

    While sometimes necessary, as seen by history, it should never last very long. Its a fallback measure at best. The long term effects, as in the case of WWII, can be damaging.

    Nobody is saying its not dangerous to let them all go - but they cant stay there. To do so would invite outside terror attacks on the demand that those prisoners be set free anyway. Thats usually when hostage situations happen. Besides, by letting them go - we know who they are, and they can be tracked. Hell, for all we know they could be tracked by satellite with Isotopes if im to have any faith in science fiction. better than an yet unknown group of terrorists taking hostages and demanding their release.
    War is not a criminal matter and cannot be fought in the courtrooms

    At the same time, they arent in uniform, they arent in battalion or platoon or formation. They're in schools hospitals and churches and homes and streets among non-combatants. So they cant be fought on the battlefield either. Where then shall they be fought?


  • Options
    #80
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »

    Under the constitution, the US President does have the authority to suspend portions of the constitution. During the American Civil War, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, during WWII President Franklin D Roosevelt signed a presidential order removing all persons of Japanese ancestry from military zones on the West Coast, and Bush authorized the Patriot Act as part of the War on Terror. (Some pretty good company GWB kept don't you think?)

    Habeas Corpus is intended for “criminal” matters. War is not a criminal matter and cannot be fought in the courtrooms. That is why our founding fathers were smart enough to allow suspension of sections of the Constitution under a time of war. .

    The patriot act doesn't suspend any part of the constitution as far as I'm aware. It has no bearing on Guantanamo. Nor has Bush suspended Habeas Corpus via act of congress etc. I fail to see what you're driving at.


  • Options
    #81
    Jim_Are_Great
    Closed Accounts Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Jim_Are_Great


    Also, Honest Abe and FDR both had bona fide wars on their plates (not that that justifies what happened under EO9066). A lot of authorities, including Alberto Gonzales and the Constitution, say that there's no war here, save in a figurative sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Overheal wrote: »
    Nobody is saying its not dangerous to let them all go - but they cant stay there.

    Then where? Your state of California? All the "Close Gitmo" people are all talk until its time to answer the most important question of all "Where do they go?"

    To do so would invite outside terror attacks on the demand that those prisoners be set free anyway. Thats usually when hostage situations happen.

    Hasn't happened so far. So you think it would better for than kind of situation to happen on US Soil in a heavily populated area in our local jails than in Gitmo on a US Naval Base with Soldiers armed to the teeth that can respond to that situation better than local authorities can?

    Besides, by letting them go - we know who they are, and they can be tracked. Hell, for all we know they could be tracked by satellite with Isotopes if im to have any faith in science fiction.

    We got crybabies whining when they doused them with water. You think there wouldn't be an uproar from said crybabies if they surgically implanted tracking devices in them? Best to leave the Science fiction to TV and movies and lets stay in reality please.


  • Options
    #83
    banquo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    internet wrote:
    Waterboarding is a form of torture consisting of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.

    Crybabies indeed. My 8yo sister can't take it for more than a minute. What a wuss.


  • Options
    #84
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Then where? Your state of California? All the "Close Gitmo" people are all talk until its time to answer the most important question of all "Where do they go?"

    Just because the problem is difficult to solve does not mean it should be ignored and allowed to continue. Gitmo is wrong...deep down I believe EVERYONE who believes in liberty and democracy knows this on some level.

    It will have to be closed at some stage so why not do it now while the new president has the opportunity to use the goodwill that currently exists towards the US. Countries will be keen to help out the new guy (usual brown-nosing) so it is the best time to do it. It is going to be problematic to achieve whenever it is done though.


  • Options
    #85
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    If the American's honestly believe those in Gitmo are guilty, then why not let them stand trial in the US, with full legal and constitutional rights?
    Let the US military state their case and present their evidence.
    People have a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.


  • Options
    #86
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    We got crybabies whining when they doused them with water.

    Hasn't the US been consistently prosecuting as a 'war crime' and torture the practice of water boarding since the Spanish-American war?


  • Options
    #87
    banquo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    I think in a regular court they'd have to say where they got the evidence i.e. didn't just make it up, and their spy network and intelligence gathering operations probably aren't things they want to reveal. Not being smart, just saying.


  • Options
    #88
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Story in the Washington Post entitled: Guantanamo Case Files in Disarray
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401702.html

    Quite revealing. The whole military tribunal thing is a bit of a joke. As it stands, the CIA doesn't have the goods to secure a conviction even in that kangaroo court specifically arranged for them.
    It's time to put up or shut up.
    They've had these people locked up for years. Either they have the goods against them or not.


  • Options
    #89
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Ludo wrote: »
    Just because the problem is difficult to solve does not mean it should be ignored and allowed to continue. Gitmo is wrong...deep down I believe EVERYONE who believes in liberty and democracy knows this on some level.

    It will have to be closed at some stage so why not do it now while the new president has the opportunity to use the goodwill that currently exists towards the US. Countries will be keen to help out the new guy (usual brown-nosing) so it is the best time to do it. It is going to be problematic to achieve whenever it is done though.

    Can the garbage? WHERE DO WE PUT THEM???? Do you want them in your prisons?
    banquo wrote:

    Crybabies indeed. My 8yo sister can't take it for more than a minute. What a wuss.

    You obviously didn't read my response to overheal saying we should implant them with Isotopes. In his mind and no doubt other wacky libs Waterboarding is bad, Surgically implanting radioactive material in them good. Especially if Adolf Hussein is for it.


  • Options
    #90
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    JohnMc1 is taking some time to acquaint himself with our charter and the call for posting reasonably without spreading hate or propaganda.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Can the garbage?

    Don't know what you mean there.
    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    WHERE DO WE PUT THEM???? Do you want them in your prisons?

    erm..no. They have not committed any crime in Ireland or against Ireland so why would I want them in our prisons?

    Now if you are done shouting, what do YOU want to do with Gitmo and the people held there?


Advertisement