3081
Post by: chaplaingrabthar
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html
There you go Republicans/conservatives, the President's finally done something you can attempt to crticize him for, delaying 21 War Crimes trials until May
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why try 'em when accidents can happen. 21 accidents, thats bus that fell in the gulf. No problem 
6887
Post by: Greebynog
Frazz: What happened to innocent untill proven guilty?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Some of the people in Guantanamo got swept up by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of the others must surely be guilty. The same thing used to happen in the Vietnam war.
One of the main points about democratic free societies is the rule of law, innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt by evidence brought in front of a jury.
My worry about Guantanamo and the associated issues of 'extraordinary rendition' and detention without trial is that western democracies cannot hold their heads high in front of the rest of the undemocratic world while carrying on such unjust practices.
If we want to convince people (the general population) of non-democratic countries that our system is better, we should be seen to operate it properly and not abandon it for a temporary convenience.
Of course, every nation has episodes like this. The UK's special internment of suspected IRA during the 70s and 80s is an example.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Greebynog wrote:Frazz: What happened to innocent untill proven guilty?
1. that applies to US citizens.
2. That applies to crimes.
He's not a citizen and he didn't commit a crime. He committed genocide and war. He's not wearing a uniform and thus has no rights under the Geneva Convention. As his compatriots routinely used screwdrivers and saws on people, and cut other people's heads off on TV, then he should be treated as they treated others. Frankly, his only right is a right to a bullet to the head after we've finished interrogating him.
In the immortal words of the Hobbit "Stew 'em, baste 'em, put 'em in a pot!"
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
This seems like rather circular logic.
They don't deserve a trial because of the horrible things they did. How do we know they actually did these horrible things? We don't, they haven't been tried.
That's the point of a trial, it's to see if they actually committed these crimes.
Rapists and murders in America don't deserve anything more than terrorists, they are tried because that's the way they are found out to be rapists and murderers.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
1. that applies to US citizens.
2. That applies to crimes.
He's not a citizen and he didn't commit a crime. He committed genocide and war.
He can't commit war, he is not a state. He also didn't commit genocide. Genocide is the systematic destruction of a cultural group, and the WTC was not a cultural group.
Frazzled wrote:
He's not wearing a uniform and thus has no rights under the Geneva Convention.
Which does not absolve us of the need to produce a legal framework that he would have rights under. At least if we are to actually going to hold to the notion that our values are universal.
Frazzled wrote:
As his compatriots routinely used screwdrivers and saws on people, and cut other people's heads off on TV, then he should be treated as they treated others. Frankly, his only right is a right to a bullet to the head after we've finished interrogating him.
Eye for an eye, eh? I think perhaps the system of justice you're looking for was thought up by this guy named Hammurabi. He wasn't an American though, so I don't think it applies here.
221
Post by: Frazzled
These aren't criminals. In this specific case he was specifically targetted as an Al Qaeda operative. He's admitted to it.
Again, reserve concepts of guilt, crimes, and rights where they belong, with criminal trials. This is not a crime. This is not some mugger writ large. if you are going to charge with any sort of crime it has to be a war crime-genocide. Otherwise smear him on the road.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I didn't even think we gave these guys trials. I though we just locked them up indefinitely.
221
Post by: Frazzled
At least the dude we're talking about.
6887
Post by: Greebynog
You have to look at what conditions confessions were extracted under. I don't know about this guy, maybe he just fessed up straight away because he's a loon and loves killing; but I'm certain that any confession gained under torture is worth bugger all. I'll confess to whatever the hell you want me to after you bring out the lube and the rubber gloves...
10128
Post by: Mekniakal
Wow, frazz, for once I agree with you!
I, for one, and perfectly happy with letting these people die horrible deaths!
Yes, maybe quite a few (by our government's own admission) are innocent and were prosecuted unjustly, but hey, god will sort them out!
And why should they get due process? They are all terrorists! Every one! Even those who haven't been prosecuted!
...
You know, for someone who seems to be so wary of too much Governmental power when it could be used to potentially help someone, you seem pretty comfortable with the government having the power of life and death over us.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Not us.
Them.
EDIT: I should say I'm all in favor of a military tribunal to determine if these characters
1) Are US citizens?
2) captured on the battlefield or in the cmopany of known terrorists-aka minimum standard.
If they aren't US citizens and were captured working with AlQaeda/on the bottom actively fighting US soldiers/caught ina raid planning or abbetting terrorists-then send them to dirt town nap time.
666
Post by: Necros
Death is too good for those guys. Hell, they probably want to die. I'd rather see them dumped in a general population in a big prison, and let em get butt-raped by big fat mexicans and skinheads every night.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Ah yes, the place whre the military act as the jury, judges, prosecutors, the defense counsel, interrogators executioners.
That's fairness... that's comedy.
5534
Post by: dogma
There must be a legal framework for this type of matter if we are to hold to the notion that the law is more than simple morality.
Is it a form of global governance? Surely. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.
10128
Post by: Mekniakal
Frazzled wrote:
If they aren't US citizens and were captured working with AlQaeda/on the bottom actively fighting US soldiers/caught ina raid planning or abbetting terrorists-then send them to dirt town nap time.
Except they weren't all found working with AlQaeda or actively fighting against the us. Many were rounded up as suspects after an attack. One of my marine buddies told me of a time when he (along with the rest of his unit) were instructed to round up everyone named "Muhammad" in one small town they were in. Now, if you know anything about names, you'd realize that "Muhammad" is the most common name in the world. This, compounded with the fact that no one in his unit spoke Arabic, they pretty much went door to door grabbing everyone named Muhammad; what else are they going to do?
I'm not saying that this is par for the course, but mistake like that happen regularly enough to warrant giving everyone imprisoned their fair shake at proving their innocence, or hell, releasing them if they have not been charged with anything.
91
Post by: Hordini
Except for some of the guys who have actually committed war crimes (like the guys who have been charged in connection with 9/11, most of these guys we are holding shouldn't be charged with anything.
If they haven't committed war crimes, but we picked them up in combat or otherwise operating against our forces, then they are effectively prisoners of war, (if not officially, since there's some disagreement about the way the Geneva convention applies or doesn't to non-uniformed fighters). If they haven't committed war crimes, you don't charge POWs with anything. You hold them until the fighting is over, so they can't go back and fight against you again (like many of the guys we have released from Guantanamo have already done.)
For most of these guys "innocent until proven guilty" has absolutely nothing to do with it, and shouldn't. Unless someone is suggesting we should just release all the fighters we capture while fighting against us.
Honestly, the idea of charging and trying foreign POWs who haven't committed war crimes is as ridiculous as it is pointless. We took lots of German and Japanese prisoners during WWII, and besides the war criminals, we didn't charge them with anything. It's not about being innocent or guilty, it's about keeping enemies off of the battlefield without just killing everyone we capture (Something I hope no one is advocating).
221
Post by: Frazzled
Exactly.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Hey Frazzled, if I didn't know any better I'd think you're advocating a very... "communist" approach to dealing with enemies, real or perceived. Of course it's all ok if the US does it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/
9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials
Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
"To me it's beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists," said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. "Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again."
Obama's request on the first full day of his presidency came as a draft order was being prepared ordering the closing of the Guantanamo prison within a year. A judge responded by halting the case against a Canadian detainee accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, issuing a 120-day continuance in the case.
Click here for photos.
"I see no reason why we should delay these proceedings. Let justice be served," said Jefferson Crowther, whose 24-year-old son, Welles, was killed in the Twin Towers after he saved the lives of several others.
Critics blasted Obama's decision, which they said would delay justice in cases that have already been waiting for the better part of a decade.
"There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can't conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people," said former Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who lost 17 sailors during a suicide bombing attack on the USS Cole in 2000. A suspect in the case is being held at Guantanamo.
"It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed," Lippold told FOXNews.com.
Obama's request may mark the end of the system used by the Bush administration to try terror suspects. War crimes charges against 21 men are pending at Guantanamo, though the detainees may have to be moved to America or extradited, depending on the administration's plans for them.
The Obama administration is calling for a systematic review of each detainee's case to determine who can be released and who cannot. "It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how such individuals can and should be prosecuted," says the draft order released on Wednesday.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said he would take the detainees in his own district, which lies just a few miles from the field near Shanksville, Pa., where United Flight 93 crashed after it was hijacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, killing all 44 people aboard.
"Sure, I'd take them. They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo," Murtha said, calling the Guantanamo prison a "sore in the United States' moral standards."
"There's no reason not to put them in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners."
But some 9/11 families said they were concerned that if the trials were moved to criminal courts in the U.S., the proceedings would put civilians at risk.
"The safest place to have these trials is Guantanamo Bay. If they were to move to the homeland it would endanger all of us," said Lorraine Arias Believeau of New Jersey, whose brother, Adam, was killed on 9/11.
But human rights groups welcomed the president's draft order, calling it an important first step for his administration.
"It is a major positive step in the right direction," said Jamil Dakwar, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who observed pretrial hearings at Guantanamo this week.
If transferred to U.S. courts, some of the detainees might be freed because of the aggressive interrogation techniques used against them. Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 plot, was interrogated so severely at Guantanamo Bay that Bush administration officials said he was tortured and did not refer his case for prosecution.
Some of the accused terrorists, meanwhile, were impatient to have their trials proceed.
"We should continue so we don't go backward, we go forward," Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks told the judge in their case. He is among five detainees accused in the attacks who have asked to be given the death penalty, believing they will become martyrs if they are executed.
Lippold, who helped determine detainee policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a strategic planner, said he feels he has a large investment "in making sure that these guys do not return to the fight, that they do not kill again."
He said moving the cases to civilian courts was primarily a political act and could make it difficult to proceed with cases without compromising vital intelligence sources and methods.
"The whole issue of detainees has become so politically charged that people forget that Americans lives are at stake," he told FOXNews.com.
Crowther, a volunteer fireman for decades, said he does not care where the trials take place, but he wants to see more action from his government.
"I'm constantly doing my part -- I want my government to do its part for me. I want those people who participated in my son's death and the death of some 3,000 others, I want to see them punished, if found guilty, in a court of law," he said.
If the cases don't go to trial, Crowther said, "many, many families are going to be very upset."
91
Post by: Hordini
dogma wrote:There must be a legal framework for this type of matter if we are to hold to the notion that the law is more than simple morality.
Does anyone actually believe this? That the law is more than just a sort of codified morality, that is?
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
blackfang wrote:Hey Frazzled, if I didn't know any better I'd think you're advocating a very... "communist" approach to dealing with enemies, real or perceived. Of course it's all ok if the US does it.
What would be the capitalistic way handling it? 
221
Post by: Frazzled
lord_blackfang wrote:Hey Frazzled, if I didn't know any better I'd think you're advocating a very... "communist" approach to dealing with enemies, real or perceived. Of course it's all ok if the US does it.
Don't insult me with your commie pinko dispersions. My shirt is Chavez red today baby.
Just following the Zulu mantra "never leave an enemy behind."
As noted they aren't criminals. They are either terrorists or POWs. POWs get out when the war is over. Terrorists don't get out.
10128
Post by: Mekniakal
Frazzled wrote:
Don't insult me with your commie pinko dispersions. My shirt is Chavez red today baby.
Wow.
It must be fun living in a black and white world.
91
Post by: Hordini
Has anyone besides Frazzled actually read my post? I mean seriously. I feel like the issue is already being skirted.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Annn...wrong answer ork avatar boy but what would I expect from a colorblind greenskin.
Chavez red! I'm wearing a glorious red Chavez shirt today. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Viva me?
5534
Post by: dogma
Hordini wrote:
Honestly, the idea of charging and trying foreign POWs who haven't committed war crimes is as ridiculous as it is pointless. We took lots of German and Japanese prisoners during WWII, and besides the war criminals, we didn't charge them with anything. It's not about being innocent or guilty, it's about keeping enemies off of the battlefield without just killing everyone we capture (Something I hope no one is advocating).
But when the battlefield is the globe, and the war is against an emotion, when does this battle end?
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Frazzled wrote:
As noted they aren't criminals. They are either terrorists or POWs. POWs get out when the war is over. Terrorists don't get out.
While it appalls me that these people have been put in a legal limbo through slowed semantics, it's even more worrying that some people don't even acknowledge the fact that some of these prisoners could be innocent. Or even worse, don't care. Kill them all, let God sort them out? Killing random strangers isn't justice, it isn't even retaliation. It's just dumb. Not to mention horribly morally wrong. But only if the commies do it.
246
Post by: Lemartes
A qoute from fox news is very reliable. I harken back to the presidential debates when they had the polls something like Obama 20% McCain 80%. Fair and balanced just went out the window along with the qoute's from fox news sources.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
It's worse, Fox news is the most laughable news source known to western man.
91
Post by: Hordini
dogma wrote:But when the battlefield is the globe, and the war is against an emotion, when does this battle end?
The war is not against an emotion, that's ridiculous. Labels and catchphrases don't always tell the whole story. Just because it's called "The War on Terror" doesn't mean we're fighting against an emotion. We're fighting against terrorists. The war, just like all other wars since the invention of gunpowder and the firearm, is against the people who are shooting at us and bombing us. It ends when they stop shooting and bombing. Some wars last longer than others.
It's also interesting that of the Guantanamo inmates that could be released, many of the countries who want us to close the place down also don't want to take any of the inmates off our hands if we release them. That says a lot, right there, I think.
91
Post by: Hordini
Fox isn't any more (or less) biased than any of the rest of the mainstream media sources. Fox is just an easy scapegoat.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Hordini wrote:Fox isn't any more (or less) biased than any of the rest of the mainstream media sources. Fox is just an easy scapegoat.
Honestly? Try retuning your television.
5534
Post by: dogma
Hordini wrote:
The war is not against an emotion, that's ridiculous. Labels and catchphrases don't always tell the whole story. Just because it's called "The War on Terror" doesn't mean we're fighting against an emotion. We're fighting against terrorists.
Admittedly that was a polemical statement, but I think it somewhat encompasses the issue. Terrorism is a tactic, it cannot be fought against. Least of all when we utilize terrorism in the course of combating it. Indeed, all organized violence is in some sense terroistic in that it leans on affecting the will of a given group to resist control. No, we are not fighting against terrorism, we are not fighting against terrorists, we are fighting against destabilizing militant action. And we cannot make the world less-stable in the course of that conflict if we are to be successful.
Hordini wrote:
The war, just like all other wars since the invention of gunpowder and the firearm, is against the people who are shooting at us and bombing us. It ends when they stop shooting and bombing. Some wars last longer than others.
It ends when we can incorporate those people into the system such that they do not feel the need to shoot us, and bomb us. That means governing them by the rule of law, which means global governance. You can't use old rules to apply to a new world.
Hordini wrote:
It's also interesting that of the Guantanamo inmates that could be released, many of the countries who want us to close the place down also don't want to take any of the inmates off our hands if we release them. That says a lot, right there, I think.
Sure, but unfortunately the willingness of a state has little to do with the feelings of its people.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
1) 120 days is fine.
2) "Most" of these guys aren't fine. Some are.
3) Believe the hosannas all you want, but some of these people will be kept within CONUS and without trial. Some will get a trial, and some will be released. That is a good thing. Quite a few will not. Welcome to a very murky world. Maybe it wasn't just that "Bush was evil and hated the Constitution". We'll soon know. As I said, some of these people will continue to be detained without trial under President Obama as well. He's said as much.
4) Fox News is a joke.
5) After last nights coverage of the apparent apotheosis of Barack Obama, neither are ABC, NBC, CNN, or CBS. I've never seen more people whose job it is to dispassionately inform the public about our government go into the tank for a politician. Which also clearly speaks to how they covered the election. In the last few years, the mainstream media has completely abdicated it's responsibility and accountability. So spare me the hatred of Fox News. They are overt, which is actually more "moral" than pretending to be neutral.
6) Though they will turn on him the minute ripping him will sell more papers than praising him.
7) I am excited President Obama is the new president. I don't blame him for the coverage, and appreciate the value his inspiration brings to the table, even without legislation.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Greebynog wrote:Frazz: What happened to innocent untill proven guilty?
He abandoned his principles in the face of adversity. Such men are considered cowards once that adversity has passed. Sorry, it's just the truth. Freedom isn't built on equality for the few and laws that apply only to those who are lucky enough to live within america. If you abandon the high minded ideals of liberty and freedom for all then you don't deserve them ever. Innocent until proven guilty is so cut and dry that it's not even something that should be debatable. It's not right to bear arms, it's not right to marry, it's not right to an education. It's the simple right to exist in a just world. It's right after right to life and right before the pursuit of happiness.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:These aren't criminals. In this specific case he was specifically targetted as an Al Qaeda operative. He's admitted to it.
Again, reserve concepts of guilt, crimes, and rights where they belong, with criminal trials. This is not a crime. This is not some mugger writ large. if you are going to charge with any sort of crime it has to be a war crime-genocide. Otherwise smear him on the road.
Words have meanings, you know.
Genocide
"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."
There’s a fine line between resident hardline right winger and raving loon, and in running about saying a terrorist should be charged with genocide, you’re threatening to wander into the second category.
Meanwhile, of course they deserve trial. It’s completely obvious they deserve trial. Like the right to vote, people getting a fair trial is a core part of Western society. It is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would ever suggest otherwise. Lots of these people have been charged with doing very horrible things, and plenty probably did those things. But it doesn’t matter, everyone gets a trial, no matter what they’re accused of.
Meanwhile again, does anyone find it odd that the sorts of people that want guns to protect them from their government are the same people that are happy for their government to retain the right to hold someone for as long as it wants without trial?
5470
Post by: sebster
Hordini wrote:dogma wrote:There must be a legal framework for this type of matter if we are to hold to the notion that the law is more than simple morality.
Does anyone actually believe this? That the law is more than just a sort of codified morality, that is?
Well yeah. But codifying it and applying by that code and not the passing whim of the judge, it becomes a very different thing to morality.
5470
Post by: sebster
Hordini wrote:Fox isn't any more (or less) biased than any of the rest of the mainstream media sources. Fox is just an easy scapegoat.
No, FOX gets targeted because it has crap standards. All media is biased, even the most respected media has some bias, but this is kept in line by journalistic standards.
For instance, The Times newspaper in the UK is a very conservative paper, but it has standards, it makes sure its facts are true and supportable before printing them. On the other hand the Daily Mail is also right wing (arguably more populist than right wing, but whatever) but it has crap standards. It doesn’t care if what it says is true or not, as long as its exciting.
91
Post by: Hordini
So are you guys saying that we should actually be charging enemy fighters that we capture in battle, who are effectively POWs, with crimes, and then try them, or otherwise simply release them to continue fighting us?
91
Post by: Hordini
The driving force behind the media is money, not some respectable journalistic standard. They will print or broadcast what will get them the most readers or viewers, and that is the bottom line.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
sebster wrote:No, FOX gets targeted because it has crap standards. All media is biased, even the most respected media has some bias, but this is kept in line by journalistic standards.
For instance, The Times newspaper in the UK is a very conservative paper, but it has standards, it makes sure its facts are true and supportable before printing them. On the other hand the Daily Mail is also right wing (arguably more populist than right wing, but whatever) but it has crap standards. It doesn’t care if what it says is true or not, as long as its exciting.
Perhaps that is why the bias shown by the "respected" networks is even more dangerous. One way to lie is to print stories that are not true. Another, far more insidious (and professional) way to influence opinion is to print stories that are true, but remove certain context or use word choices that create a response in the audience not in line with the observational nature of an unbiased source.
As stated, words have meaning. During the election, certain words were chosen to influence opinion on both candidates by almost all major news organizations (including Fox) during standard news stories (not the editorials, where such influence is desired). If you think the voters pushed past the pretense to judge the events, you are naive. And newspapers know this.
This is why the mainstream media bias should absolutely infuriate most of America. These are people given access and incredible influence (due to the laziness of the average human), and what we ask in return for that power is dispassionate reporting.
It is, quite simply, an abuse of power. Again, their "specials" yesterday illustrated a level of prejudice that boggles the mind, and simply reinforces how awful their coverage of the 2008 election was.
And that is coming from someone who voted for President Obama. Someone who woke up at 5 AM yesterday to attend his Inauguration. Someone who is very excited about his presidency.
But I care about truth.
4977
Post by: jp400
Lets not forget that a bunch of the idiots that are in Gitmo are Insurgents from Iraq. Since its not a war, its a damn police action... you cant call them POW's. They are detainees.
A good portion of the people that are there are actual fighters that were caught and not killed in country.
My unit over the course of our tours sent lots of people away.... (Either dead or alive)
Its pretty easy to tell who to tag and bag.
For example..
IED goes off.... it was command detonated. You follow the wire back to a small house and kick the door in. You find a half dozen people playing dumb. You line them all up and test them for GSR, Nitro ect ect. One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?
Now We have to accept the fact that people like him will be set free?
Hate to quote a marine......... but:
We should have killed them all and let god sort them out!
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dienekes96 wrote:One way to lie is to print stories that are not true. Another, far more insidious (and professional) way to influence opinion is to print stories that are true, but remove certain context or use word choices that create a response in the audience not in line with the observational nature of an unbiased source.
Yes, obviously this happens. But I can't see how you can argue that the later is worse than the former.
5534
Post by: dogma
Hordini wrote:So are you guys saying that we should actually be charging enemy fighters that we capture in battle, who are effectively POWs, with crimes, and then try them, or otherwise simply release them to continue fighting us?
I'm saying there should be explicit standards of procedure for the treatment of irregular combatants in the environment of a failed state. That doesn't mean we subject them to civilian criminal law, but it does mean that we make the proceedings more transparent than they currently are. And that means not defaulting to the military as a means of oversight.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Frazzled wrote:Greebynog wrote:Frazz: What happened to innocent untill proven guilty?
1. that applies to US citizens.
2. That applies to crimes.
He's not a citizen and he didn't commit a crime. He committed genocide and war. He's not wearing a uniform and thus has no rights under the Geneva Convention. As his compatriots routinely used screwdrivers and saws on people, and cut other people's heads off on TV, then he should be treated as they treated others. Frankly, his only right is a right to a bullet to the head after we've finished interrogating him.
In the immortal words of the Hobbit "Stew 'em, baste 'em, put 'em in a pot!"
Ok. This is the main problem.
Frazzled, you dont intend this but you are justifying Al-Quaeda. One of the principle basic recruiting message of Iclamic militants is the assumption that the US and other countries are out to get them, out to do them down, and firmly opposed to them no matter how far Israel oversteps the line. While this is exteme sometimes they are right and when this is true it makes moderate Moslems angry, let alone fanatics.
The whole idea that 'not US citizen = no rights' will bite America on the arse sooner or later. Too many people have sat and watched that and are increasingly unhappy. A number of countries and bloks including the EU have already added the US to the list of countries they will not extradite to over human rights, on the same principles that they wont extradite to Burma or Zimbabwe. It has and will continue to lose the US favour in the world at large. Obama is making the right decision by reviewing Guantanamo detainees. It has also been noted that non US national from allied nations have also been dertained without observation of legal rights. While i have no more sympathy for UK passport holders who support Al-Quaeda many over here are angry that UK passport holders were detained while John Walker was transfered to the main justice system. Furthermore a number of those passport holders were eventually cleared. In this I am more annoyed with poodle Blair than Bush as he did not do enough to secure those persons rights.
Secondly the reaction of 'vengeance' as opposed to justice is doing America no favours. It is ironic that you are now treading the same road as the people you are fighting. They are out for vengeance too. there isnt too much difference between the WTC bombing and an airstrike from the point of view of greiving rerlatives looking at the bodies in the morgue. The US in particular has hit a lot of innocents in its various adventures in the Arab world. Currently in Iraq civilian casualties account for 50% of Iraqis killed by US forces, an unacceptably high figure. You want vengeance. Fine. They will play by your rules. Obama again is trying to regain some moral high ground by distancing from these problems, and not just to site artillery, I hope he doesnt give too much time to the blood baying and deal with these matters in a more civilised way.
6887
Post by: Greebynog
What Orlanth said. Great post.
10889
Post by: Ghetto_Fight
Funny how America is still against torture...
Shut this fookin place down!!!!!
5534
Post by: dogma
I jumped over this post at first, but I feel it needs to be addressed.
Frazzled wrote:
1. that applies to US citizens.
2. That applies to crimes.
This is the worst kind of nationalism. I'm sorry Fraz, I'm sure you're a good guy. But leaning on the law alone to justify your emotional response is not conducive to progress.
Frazzled wrote:
He's not a citizen and he didn't commit a crime. He committed genocide and war.
Individuals cannot go to war, only states can, at least per the modern definition. He also didn't commit genocide, as the WTC was not a cultural group.
Frazzled wrote:
He's not wearing a uniform and thus has no rights under the Geneva Convention.
Actually, non-uniformed combatants do have rights under the Geneva Conventions. The crux of the Bush argument is that we are not at war with any state, and therefore we can do what we want.
Frazzled wrote:
As his compatriots routinely used screwdrivers and saws on people, and cut other people's heads off on TV, then he should be treated as they treated others. Frankly, his only right is a right to a bullet to the head after we've finished interrogating him.
Please don't pretend that you really believe we should reinstate the Code of Hammurabi. Humans are animals, but that is not how we should behave.
Frazzled wrote:
In the immortal words of the Hobbit "Stew 'em, baste 'em, put 'em in a pot!"
Arabs wouldn't taste very good on average, they get too much exercise. Americans, on the other hand, could be counted on to have a good amount of marbling. 
5470
Post by: sebster
dienekes96 wrote:Perhaps that is why the bias shown by the "respected" networks is even more dangerous. One way to lie is to print stories that are not true. Another, far more insidious (and professional) way to influence opinion is to print stories that are true, but remove certain context or use word choices that create a response in the audience not in line with the observational nature of an unbiased source.
As stated, words have meaning. During the election, certain words were chosen to influence opinion on both candidates by almost all major news organizations (including Fox) during standard news stories (not the editorials, where such influence is desired). If you think the voters pushed past the pretense to judge the events, you are naive. And newspapers know this.
This is why the mainstream media bias should absolutely infuriate most of America. These are people given access and incredible influence (due to the laziness of the average human), and what we ask in return for that power is dispassionate reporting.
The problem is that bias cannot be removed. No subject can be reported fully, and as a result every journalist and editor has to make decisions about what parts of a story to include, and what to exclude. The decision to include one fact ahead of another is going to come from personal judgement, which will likely be different to someone else’s judgement.
And to a large extent bias is also good. It makes perfect sense to report on a murder with ‘bias’ that murder is bad, and that the police catching the murderer is good.
Once you accept bias is inevitable and necessary, you have to start looking at professionalism.
And yeah, it means that it is very dangerous to rely on one source for the whole story, but there’s not much that can be done about that. Honestly, with most of the people I know I’d be ecstatic that they’ve seen one story on the issue.
It is, quite simply, an abuse of power. Again, their "specials" yesterday illustrated a level of prejudice that boggles the mind, and simply reinforces how awful their coverage of the 2008 election was.
I suspect the media is on something of downward slope. I certainly think they’re getting worse, but that’s due to an unwillingness to make professional judgements, to critically review what’s come across their desks. Instead they’ve been happy to parrot one side’s claim, then parrot the rebuttal, without ever doing the legwork to find out who’s claims have merit.
While a few websites popped up during the election to challenge the spurious claims of both candidates, those websites shouldn’t have been necessary. News services should have been clearly stating which claims were truthful.
And that is coming from someone who voted for President Obama. Someone who woke up at 5 AM yesterday to attend his Inauguration. Someone who is very excited about his presidency.
But I care about truth.
The coverage of Obama’s inauguration was over the top, and not just in the US. I like to think Obama got home that night watched a little of the coverage and thought ‘well this is all a little embarrassing’.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
"One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?"
Ah the age old "drag a person out, beat him down. LAPD style".
IDK what Us Military you are in but, in the one I'm in what you said is punishable by court martial, and maybe even jail time. If you were ordered to do that, you ask to have the order repeated twice, then you say. "Sir, that is an unlawful order and I can not comply." I'll just assume they slacked off in your basic training and you didn't know about the Military code of conduit.
Think about the damage you could have done, if somebody recorded you rounding up Arab men and beating them like a "Pinata"? A lot more than the shot of GIs passing out blankets and coloring books.
I think saddest of all is you say this openly over the Internet for the world to see.
5534
Post by: dogma
Props to the above. We need more people like you in the military.
jp400 wrote:Lets not forget that a bunch of the idiots that are in Gitmo are Insurgents from Iraq. Since its not a war, its a damn police action... you cant call them POW's. They are detainees.
A good portion of the people that are there are actual fighters that were caught and not killed in country.
My unit over the course of our tours sent lots of people away.... (Either dead or alive)
Its pretty easy to tell who to tag and bag.
Which also means it should be easy to prove under a reasonable legal framework.
jp400 wrote:
Now We have to accept the fact that people like him will be set free?
They won't be if the system is well designed, and people like you testify to your experiences.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
I'm amazed at the attitudes that support the continued existence of this place, which is stain upon the character of the United States and the western world in general.
The key word here is 'suspect', until an inmate has been convicted of an offence in a court of law they are not terrorists. Terrorist is an emotive word that’s dropped constantly into to scare people in complicity. Here in the UK for example increasingly draconian surveillance measures are often dressed up with the terms 'terrorists' and 'paedophiles' as its know that these terms push the right buttons and people willing lap it up. Thankfully increasing numbers of people are seeing through this and I for one am glad about this.
That many inmates are not US citizens is neither here nor there, if you are holding them for crimes against your state then you should afford them the full legal procedure of your state. Anything else is blatant hypocrisy.
I think the ideal situation would be give 12-8 months for a case to be drawn up for each of the inmates, if insufficient evidence is avlaible then send them of their way with a big apology and allot of financial compensation for their destroyed lives. If a case can be drawn up then arrange a court date (and not a millitary court!) If your legal system finds them guilty (with the same required standard of evidence one of your own criminal courts would require) then (and only then) by all means deal with them as you see fit.
Screaming "but their terrorists, we don’t have to give them a trial!", "there not Americans, we don’t have to give them a trial! " or "there not POW's, we don’t have to give them a trial!" is highly dangerous smokescreen. The law applies to everyone or it applies to no one and to suggest otherwise is the start of a very very slippery slope. Perhaps your attitude will change when someone you know is hauled off in the middle of the night for seditious remarks against the state overheard in the pub, only to be told, sorry no trail, he's a suspected terrorist! That’s the logical conclusion of the sorts of attitudes on display.
I'm confident that history will one day view Guantanamo bay with the same kind of horror that the Japanese internment is viewed with today.
5394
Post by: reds8n
sexiest_hero wrote:"One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?"
Ah the age old "drag a person out, beat him down. LAPD style".
IDK what Us Military you are in but, in the one I'm in what you said is punishable by court martial, and maybe even jail time. If you were ordered to do that, you ask to have the order repeated twice, then you say. "Sir, that is an unlawful order and I can not comply." I'll just assume they slacked off in your basic training and you didn't know about the Military code of conduit.
Think about the damage you could have done, if somebody recorded you rounding up Arab men and beating them like a "Pinata"? A lot more than the shot of GIs passing out blankets and coloring books.
I think saddest of all is you say this openly over the Internet for the world to see.
 Bless you.
Cause those tests are infallible right ?
For example-- and this is going back a few years to when the IRA were active-- they used to swab hands for traces of explosives and this was used as evidence. Until it was discovered that the chemical used in the glossy finish on packs of playing cards also tested positive as explosives. The same chemical was/is (?) found on cigarette packs and adhesive tape.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:Greebynog wrote:Frazz: What happened to innocent untill proven guilty?
He abandoned his principles in the face of adversity. Such men are considered cowards once that adversity has passed.
Sorry, it's just the truth. Freedom isn't built on equality for the few and laws that apply only to those who are lucky enough to live within america. If you abandon the high minded ideals of liberty and freedom for all then you don't deserve them ever. Innocent until proven guilty is so cut and dry that it's not even something that should be debatable. It's not right to bear arms, it's not right to marry, it's not right to an education. It's the simple right to exist in a just world. It's right after right to life and right before the pursuit of happiness.
I have abandoned no principles here. I do not believe war criminals have rights. If you are not a US citizen and not on US property you do not have the protections of the US Constitution. If you want those protections, become a territory state of the US. Thats also a clear legal view and the whole reason for Gitmo. As I stated I'm all for a military tribunal to determine if someone is a terrorist or enemy combatant. If combatant you get held until the war is over. If terrorist you are treated as a war criminal.
Here's the other part-where are you going to put the GITMO guys? No state will want them. No nation wants them. Lets free them in the locales of people screaming about how evil we are for having GITMO-see how many miliseconds it will be before they scream NIMBY. Its already happening.
OT but are you calling me a coward?
If so it takes a brave man to put slanders over the internet and not to someone's face.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:I have abandoned no principles here. I do not believe war criminals have rights. If you are not a US citizen and not on US property you do not have the protections of the US Constitution. If you want those protections, become a territory state of the US. Thats also a clear legal view and the whole reason for Gitmo. As I stated I'm all for a military tribunal to determine if someone is a terrorist or enemy combatant. If combatant you get held until the war is over. If terrorist you are treated as a war criminal.
I believe Fraz when he says he hasn't abandoned any principles, because the guy is nothing if not consistent. You're a US citizen, then you get protection because you're on Fraz's team. If not you're not and it's okay to hold you forever without ever seeing if the charges against you are worth a damn. I don't know if anyone here knows Kohlberg's levels of moral development, but Fraz is sounding to me a lot like very heavily locked into Authority thinking. Law is law, society is society and if you don't fit into that model well it sucks to be you. You can argue about greater principles than this but you'll be wasting your time - he won't get it.
Here's the other part-where are you going to put the GITMO guys? No state will want them. No nation wants them. Lets free them in the locales of people screaming about how evil we are for having GITMO-see how many miliseconds it will be before they scream NIMBY. Its already happening.
Come on. The Swiss offer to take inmates has already been mentioned in this thread. Even if you skimmed over that, why are you posting about no nation being willing to take in-mates, like you've been following the issue at all. If you had you'd be aware of the Swiss offer. As it is you're just a guy on the internet making stuff up to suit your ideology.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
BS frazz, I'm sorry to be so harsh but thats bs. Tell that to the German POWs we captured or the Jews we freed. Tell that to the North Veitenam soldiers we captured. Everybody, has protection under the US constitution. its states all men, Not All American men. While at court to pay my wife's speeding ticket some months ago, The Judge said "Here in America, Under the laws of the court, you never have to prove you are Innocent. The state has to prove you are guilty. Beyond any reasonable doubt. This is nothing more than a sad rerun of the WWII detention camps, that we had for Japanese-Americans. And before that the wasteland hell-holes we put Native Americans who were "Resisting our manifest destiny."
Bill of rights article 7 (Amendment IV)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Amendment IV)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(Amendment VI)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Here is a little tidbit from the Declaration of Independence . 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.
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"
"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world"
"For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States"
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"
"For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us"
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people"
"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation"
"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
5394
Post by: reds8n
From Today's Independent
A poll conducted in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration was presented as an illustration of the success of the incoming administration's moves to "manage expectations". Even though the new president's popularity was running at more than 80 per cent, the poll found, people were willing to give Obama a "couple of years" before they expected easily discernible improvement. This, those analysing the poll suggested, was "realistic".
But time limits of any duration are surely unrealistic, except in the case of climate change. In the current perilous international situation, every move in the right direction is to be cherished, however cautious it may seem. Instead, already some people have expressed disappointment that in his first hours as President, Obama moved only as far as to request a 120-day halt to military trials at Guantanamo Bay, while an executive order to close the camp by year-end has been prepared but remains unsigned. Some are irked that Obama made no direct reference to Guantanamo in his inauguration speech, even though such phrases as "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" were clearly drafted with this, alongside many other abuses, in mind.
Obama's campaign pledge to close Guantanamo was one that he interceded himself to "manage expectations" about. While President-elect he admitted that shutting down the notorious detention facilities in Cuba was more difficult that might at first have appeared. He didn't suggest that this was no longer a goal just that it was a tricky manoeuvre to pull off, as it involved working out what to do with many "dangerous individuals".
He is, of course, right. In theory, solving the Guantanamo problem is as easy as pie. All one has to do is decide which of the remaining inmates should be freed, and which should be charged for trial in a US federal court. Yet dealing even with the former group is fraught with difficulty.
Apart from anything else, the human-rights records of a number of the countries involved are such that detainees cannot in good conscience be returned to them. Many detainees themselves fear repatriation, and since the US detained them in the first place, it falls to the US, to set up an open process whereby their claims to asylum can be assessed.
Some of these detainees are relatively easy to deal with. Up to 17 Chinese Uighurs, it is accepted, have good reason to fear return to China. It has already been decided that they will not face charges, and Uighur communities in the States have said they are willing to accommodate them. Yet still they languish in Cuba.It is easy to see why the Bush administration was reluctant to offer asylum to the Uighurs. But it is not much harder to understand that even now an immediate push to resettle them all in the US would alarm many Americans, and quickly reignite fears that Obama is too idealistic a liberal for many powerful tastes. This would be of practical benefit tono-one.
With an eye to fresh starts, and international co-operation, it would be far more acceptable for detainees in this category to be dispersed to many countries – those, preferably, where the individuals concerned have relatives, or where migrant communities are willing and able to offer benign support.
Some countries – Australia and Portugal among them – have already indicated that they would not be averse to accepting released detainees who can't return home. Fifty or 60 detainees have already been cleared for release. Perhaps it is time to reconvene the coalition of nations that came together to mount the military retaliation against Afghanistan, so that the work of resettling those left in Guantanamo as a consequence of that action can begin in earnest
The rehabilitation of these people, who no doubt have been traumatised by their seven years of captivity alone, ought to be shared. The US cannot be expected to atone for is errors alone. Yet, it is plain again that were Gordon Brown to announce unilaterally that Britain would be taking a number of Guantanamo detainees, his declaration might not provoke universal joy in these isles. An international coalition offering asylum to those detainees who have been cleared for release cannot be put together so very quickly. But this is something that Obama must do. It will take time.
And these are only the detainees who are not considered be be an ongoing threat. The rest should indeed be put on federal trial. In general, federal trial has proved far more efficient in dealing with terrorists than the military trials that have now been suspended. For some, this is evidence in itself that they are a better way of achieving justice.
But the trouble here is that Guantanamo cannot be wished away. Much of the evidence against even those whose charges can be independently collaborated has been obtained using torture, illegal rendition, secret prisons, secret courts and, of course, long-term arbitrary detention without trial. In a federal court, therefore, much of the evidence against these people is tainted far beyond use. In some cases, this will apply to all of it.
That possibility, precisely, is the reason why so many observers were so appalled when it became apparent in the early weeks of the Afghanistan war that the US intended to dispense rough justice as it came along. As time has gone on, those problems have only become greater. Hardly anyone has any useful suggestions in the way of practical steps that can be taken in the wake of collapsed trials or acquittals. Yet such eventualities are surely unavoidable.
The rhetoric of human rights is soothing, for it declares that all men are innocent until proven guilty. The facts are less comforting. Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, released into Kuwaiti custody from Guantanamo, was acquitted after trial in Kuwait. It is now fairly certain that he was responsible for a suicide attack last year in Mosul, which killed seven Iraqis.
It is hard enough to envisage an international coalition dispersing those detainees who are not facing charges. But it is even more difficult to persuade oneself that this coalition would further agree to accept some of those who have faced charges, and been released on the "technicality" of torture and abuse sustained over seven years.
Canada, shamefully, has barely objected to the incarceration of the young Canadian, Omar Khadr, even though he was only 15 when he committed his alleged crime. His military trial has been stopped by Obama's intercession, and it is devoutly to be hoped that Canada will now negotiate his return. Unfortunately it isn't hard to work out why it has not done so thus far.
The unpalatable truth about Guantanamo is that international revulsion against it has never been converted into practical consensus about how it should be dismantled. Often, the Bush administration itself rebuffed offers that would have helped with this process. Sometimes, though, there has been barely disguised relief that there was an unpleasant but easy option, whereby problematic individuals could be left in the hands of the US. The unpalatable truth is that they can't.
Underlining is mine.
221
Post by: Frazzled
sexiest_hero wrote:BS frazz, I'm sorry to be so harsh but thats bs. Tell that to the German POWs we captured or the Jews we freed. Tell that to the North Veitenam soldiers we captured. Everybody, has protection under the US constitution. its states all men, Not All American men. While at court to pay my wife's speeding ticket some months ago, The Judge said "Here in America, Under the laws of the court, you never have to prove you are Innocent. The state has to prove you are guilty. Beyond any reasonable doubt. This is nothing more than a sad rerun of the WWII detention camps, that we had for Japanese-Americans. And before that the wasteland hell-holes we put Native Americans who were "Resisting our manifest destiny."
Oh and as far as military court goes, It's a lot fiarer than civilian court IMHO. Finding an unfair ruling is pretty hard to do.
POWs are governed by the Geneva Convention and Presidential Orders/legislation implementing that treaty as we are asignatory.
Please show me in the US Constitution where it states all men. Please cite where the US COnstitution extends legal protections to all citizens of the world. That would be a bit smug don't you think?
Note your own example-"here in America." I said in the US. Thats why they had GITMO, It wasn't in the US.
Not going to argue about this any more. Feel free to keep calling me the evil American.
On the positive Murtha has volunteered his district to be be the home of these poor innocents. Something tells me he doesn't mean it.
EDIT: Reds8n I had not seen that. Thanks. Would be nice to see if these countries do accept these individuals, but until they actually do then its talky talky. I had heard about the Chinese and others not wanting to go back, fearing persecution in their home countries. We actually had a similar problem with North Korean prisoners after Korea. Many did not want to go back-not sure what happened to them.
131
Post by: malfred
That also seems a bit callous. Why not house our own criminals on some other
island nation? We could have another Australia!
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
The important point is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people."
It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .
I.Make no law abridging freedom of speech, press, .religion, or assembly,
II.Do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
II.Don't quarter soldiers in peacetime.
IV.Don't conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
V.Don't commit double jeopardy or force people to testify against themselves.
VI.Don't deny an accused a speedy trial.
VII.Don't deny an accused a trial by jury.
VIII.Do not impose excessive bail.
IX.Just because certain rights of the people aren't mentioned in this Constitution doesn't mean you're allowed to usurp them.
X.Don't exercise any power not authorized in this Constitution.
Where exceptions were meant to apply, they are specifically stated. And there are no exceptions stated for any type of guns, for any type of speech, for any specific crimes, or for crimes where non-citizens are involved.
My overriding point in the article was that, until a suspected "terrorist" gets a fair and impartial trial, you don't know whether he is a terrorist. So even if you think non-citizen terrorists have no rights, how do you even know for sure that they are terrorists – or that they are non-citizens – until every facet of due process has been applied.
221
Post by: Frazzled
But not criminal level due process.
Until the SCOTUS decision, US juris prudence and protections DID NOT extend to everyone in the world.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:But not criminal level due process.
Until the SCOTUS decision, US juris prudence and protections DID NOT extend to everyone in the world.
It's obvious that US law only runs where US jurisdiction is in effect.
Are you saying that US government agencies are allowed to snatch anyone, anywhere in the world and do what they like with them, as long as it's outside US jurisdiction and the victim is not a US citizen?
2700
Post by: dietrich
There's a difference between what is lawful and what is right. You can't legislate morality.
What the Bush admin did with Gitmo is an abuse of executive power. It was skirting around the law, since they were technically outside the US (but if the miltary base is US soil....it's an arguement that doesn't work for me).
Now, I don't think we should release everyone tomorrow either. I think there are 'unlawful combatants' who want to do bad things. And I don't trust the UN or World Court to handle things in a proper fashion either.
But, trying to tapdance around US law to 'do what you want' (which is what Bush admin did) doesn't cut it, especially from the Chief Executive - whose primary job is to enforce the laws of the US. Not make them. Not dance around them. Enforce them.
I don't know what the answer is, but hiding people at Gitmo was wrong, just as using torture to extract confessions was wrong.
Remember the golden rule - treat others how you want them to treat you. If we play the 'eye for an eye' role, it continues to escalate the situation. It may take years for 'taking the high road' to have any effect, but it will - at some point.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No it won't. It never has. Our enemies have never blinked at the Geneva convention. Its utopian nonsense to believe that.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Using an eye for an eye just makes you both blind. Sorry, I don't think that is utopian nonsense, I think that we need to treat non-combatant prisoners according to the norms and morals of our society. There's people that should never be out of prison (including a lot of US citizens). But, the solution isn't to stick them in some legal limbo because it's not unlawful.
I think Bush did some good things, and I think history will be a lot kinder to him. But, the Gitmo detainee and torture issues will never look good.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
OT but are you calling me a coward?
If so it takes a brave man to put slanders over the internet and not to someone's face.
Nah, its just pragmatic. I could do it over the phone too if you wanted. I'm not taking a greyhound just to slander someone in person.
As for your response, I'm not talking about the constitution. I'm talking about the basic tenants of a free society. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an axiom of a free civilization and I fervently believe that all men in all nations deserve the concept of equality and fair treatment equally. To believe otherwise is the most insidious of double standards.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:
OT but are you calling me a coward?
If so it takes a brave man to put slanders over the internet and not to someone's face.
Nah, its just pragmatic. I could do it over the phone too if you wanted. I'm not taking a greyhound just to slander someone in person.
Big words internet boy, especially when you don't know me. Oh well, shame its not in person. I would enjoy that.
4977
Post by: jp400
sexiest_hero wrote:"One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?"
Ah the age old "drag a person out, beat him down. LAPD style".
IDK what Us Military you are in but, in the one I'm in what you said is punishable by court martial, and maybe even jail time. If you were ordered to do that, you ask to have the order repeated twice, then you say. "Sir, that is an unlawful order and I can not comply." I'll just assume they slacked off in your basic training and you didn't know about the Military code of conduit.
Think about the damage you could have done, if somebody recorded you rounding up Arab men and beating them like a "Pinata"? A lot more than the shot of GIs passing out blankets and coloring books.
I think saddest of all is you say this openly over the Internet for the world to see.
So let me get this straight Highspeed?
Someone sets off a EFP on your vehicle tarying to KILL YOU, and you can physically trace the wire back to some jerkoffs front door. He then tests positive for Nitro and when searching his house you find A copper plate, Wire, and a little book written by some guy named Saddam titled "What to do when America Invades" and you wont beat the living tar out of him?? (for those that dont know, EFP= Explosive Formed Projectile, made by takeing a Copper Plate and forming it over the shaped part of a shaped charge)
The idiot was lucky we didnt just shoot his sorry ass on the spot.
I dont know what panzy ass Guard transportation unit you were in, but thats the way I did it on OIF 1&2, and I did it again on OIF 5&6. I bet you think that going outside the wire ment going outside your Cat5 wire. I bet your not even combat arms, just some fobbit sucking up all the fobs hot water and Ac. (NO just because you have combat in your MOS title doesnt make you combat arms IE: Combat Box Packer)
Lawful Orders doesnt apply here. My Job was to seek out and destroy any hostile forces we encountered. By DoD standards thats as good as a smoking barrel in there eyes. You going to argue with DOD?
The rule of engagement for both my tours boiled down: If its a uniformed enemy, Kill it. If someone trys to inflict harm upon you or any other soldiers, kill them. Dont kill unarmed civies. (Even if you really wanted too)
Also Yes the older kits you were able to get false positives on, not going to deny that. This is why we switched to something a little better and easier to use.
Lets think of all the damage I could have done, if lets say the CNN embeded reporter that was with us recorded us shooting and beating our enemies. I guess thats why my unit was featured on CNN during OIF 1&2 and I personally made the back cover of Army Magazine. (My unit had a multi page interview inside)
Now lets look at it from our enemies point of view shall we?
They show whenever they can video of soldiers getting blown up and killed on television and Behead International News People LIVE, yet our country wonders why soldiers mistreat them. Id rather go to prision and be screwed with then have my head sawed off with a rustly blade while kids throw things at me on national television.
I think the saddest thing here is how big a coward you are comming off to be.
Its a WAR, not a Slumber Party or UN Red Cross Op.
@ Frazz:
You know that we dont see eye to eye 9 outta 10 times, but I will agree with you on this one.
Ask anyone who has seen real combat from any war.
Winning the hearts and minds will never work.
Also if anyone thinks that anything Gitmo did was even close to real torture, I have some lovely pictures of REAL torture houses and what they would do to eachother.
Hostile doesnt hold a candle to this...........
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mod Mode on
OK this threads getting hostile. I'm going to shut it down to avoid flaming from either side.
221
Post by: Frazzled
OK.
Due to special request this has been re-opened. Fair warning to all (including myself):
Disparaging of other members on this board will not be tolerated. We can argue the positions, but lets keep it civil.
If that resurfaces then the thread will be closed and disciplinary actions taken if warranted.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
POWs are governed by the Geneva Convention and Presidential Orders/legislation implementing that treaty as we are asignatory.
The trouble is that the Geneva Conventions only deal with state citizens, and stipulates that even non-uniformed combatants shall be returned to their country of origin at the cessation of hostilities. The trouble is that a lot of the guys in Gitmo don't have citizenship papers, so the US is basically free to claim them as citizens of any nation they feel obliged to. And, even then, it really doesn't matter because the hostilities in question do not necessarily involve discreet entities, so the 'end' of conflict is nearly possible to determine.
Frazzled wrote:
Please show me in the US Constitution where it states all men. Please cite where the US COnstitution extends legal protections to all citizens of the world. That would be a bit smug don't you think?
No, I think its smug to believe only US citizens deserve the inalienable rights accorded under the Constitution.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:No it won't. It never has. Our enemies have never blinked at the Geneva convention. Its utopian nonsense to believe that.
Who cares? If you want the rule of law to mean anything, then you must allow yourself to be ruled by the law. Every single empire in history, from the Persians, to the Romans, to Mongols, has been predicated on bringing fair treatment to the territories into which they expanded. Even the British gave (some) rights of due process to colonial subjects.
5534
Post by: dogma
ShumaGorath wrote:
As for your response, I'm not talking about the constitution. I'm talking about the basic tenants of a free society. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an axiom of a free civilization and I fervently believe that all men in all nations deserve the concept of equality and fair treatment equally. To believe otherwise is the most insidious of double standards.
That sounds all well and good until you realize that freedom can only be a national value when the nation wants it to be. You can't make someone desire a democracy, and democracy is not always the best form of government. The propensity of US citizens to see the world through rose colored glasses that tell them anything not 'us' is not good is just absolutely ridiculous, and incredibly dangerous. To both us, and our enemies.
91
Post by: Hordini
I do not have any problem with more transparency involving our POWs, in Gitmo and elsewhere, (including both "official" uniformed POWs and "effective" POWs, i.e. non-uniformed foreign fighters), but I think that releasing most of them at this point would absolutely be a mistake, and a slap in the face to our soldiers who fought against them and either captured them or accepted their surrender. With the exception of those who have committed or are suspected of having committed war crimes, trying them in a court, either civilian or military, would make absolutely no sense.
At least as far as captured enemy fighters who have not committed war crimes go, I'm not saying they don't have the right to be treated fairly and humanely, but to say they have the same rights as a U.S. citizen is not really accurate. Again I will say, the reason you hold enemy fighters as POWs (officially or unofficially) is not to charge them with crimes and sentence them, it is to get information from them, and to keep them off the battlefields without killing them.
If some of them do not have citizenship papers, that is really their problem, however, I'm not saying that means we can or should treat them any differently than other foreign, non-criminal fighters.
In regards to citizenship papers, I will say one thing though. I realize this is anecdotal, but my brother recently finished a tour in Iraq. He told me that most of they guys they tangled with were foreigner fighters not from Iraq (I think a lot of people know this already), and the reason they knew they weren't Iraqis, is because they all carried foreign passports and IDs on them. I'm not arguing that some of the guys in Gitmo might not have proper citizenship papers, but it seems that at least recently, a lot of these guys do have proper passports and IDs, from whatever country they actually come from.
6641
Post by: Typeline
Getting back on topic here.
I really like agreeing with you on this one Frazz.
But I think a lot of people saying that there are some innocent guys in there are a little off. There 'were' some wrong place wrong time guys in there when there were over 800 fellows detained there. But now there are a little over 200 and these guys are the grey area's. People we know who did some things, but we lack actual evidence other than soldiers and death records of people they have killed.
What I'd really like to see here is a majority of these guys going to the U.S. court system. Then a group of their peers (A.K.A. Muslims from the U.S., U.S. citizens descended from that region of the world) declare them guilty. Now if some evidence needs to be fabricated to do it, I'm fine with that. These guys are really terrorists, not descenters or maybe terrorists. Seeing them go through our system and put to death and publicly shamed by their own people is what needs to happen. That is only if they don't go through the military court system.
91
Post by: Hordini
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:No it won't. It never has. Our enemies have never blinked at the Geneva convention. Its utopian nonsense to believe that.
Who cares? If you want the rule of law to mean anything, then you must allow yourself to be ruled by the law. Every single empire in history, from the Persians, to the Romans, to Mongols, has been predicated on bringing fair treatment to the territories into which they expanded. Even the British gave (some) rights of due process to colonial subjects.
Except that Iraq is not a colonial territory of the U.S., and is not connected to our legal system. If Iraq is a U.S. colonial territory, then Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other countries must be U.S. territories too. After all, we still have troops in all those places.
10326
Post by: ungulateman
malfred wrote:That also seems a bit callous. Why not house our own criminals on some other
island nation? We could have another Australia!
.....
[sarcasm]Australia turned out GREAT, DIDN'T IT?  [/sarcasm] (I meant for Britian, fyi.)
5470
Post by: sebster
jp400 wrote:So let me get this straight Highspeed?
Someone sets off a EFP on your vehicle tarying to KILL YOU, and you can physically trace the wire back to some jerkoffs front door. He then tests positive for Nitro and when searching his house you find A copper plate, Wire, and a little book written by some guy named Saddam titled "What to do when America Invades" and you wont beat the living tar out of him?? (for those that dont know, EFP= Explosive Formed Projectile, made by takeing a Copper Plate and forming it over the shaped part of a shaped charge)
The idiot was lucky we didnt just shoot his sorry ass on the spot.
I dont know what panzy ass Guard transportation unit you were in, but thats the way I did it on OIF 1&2, and I did it again on OIF 5&6. I bet you think that going outside the wire ment going outside your Cat5 wire. I bet your not even combat arms, just some fobbit sucking up all the fobs hot water and Ac. (NO just because you have combat in your MOS title doesnt make you combat arms IE: Combat Box Packer)
Hang on, so you’re here on some random gaming board talking about your unit committing war crimes as regular policy? Completely unprompted.
I read something one time about Texas sheriff saying that if criminals were smart enough to keep their idiot mouths shut no-one hardly anyone would ever get caught. This really brings that home, doesn’t it?
7783
Post by: BloodofOrks
Typeline wrote:Getting back on topic here.
But I think a lot of people saying that there are some innocent guys in there are a little off. There 'were' some wrong place wrong time guys in there when there were over 800 fellows detained there. But now there are a little over 200 and these guys are the grey area's. People we know who did some things, but we lack actual evidence other than soldiers and death records of people they have killed.
The government was assuring us that gitmo was for "the worst of the worst" when their were 800 prisoners there. So the government was wrong in about 75% of these cases and you still believe them? And you can't forget that the government has now admitted to torturing several of these people so any confessions now can be legitimately questioned. The most pitiful part of all this is that had Bush never created this legal gray zone in the first place, most of the inmates in gitmo would have been tried and either sentenced or released by now.
91
Post by: Hordini
BloodofOrks wrote:The most pitiful part of all this is that had Bush never created this legal gray zone in the first place, most of the inmates in gitmo would have been tried and either sentenced or released by now.
And what about the ones who we are holding to keep them off the firing line, basically as POWs, who should not be charged with anything? They would be neither sentenced nor released by now. So I don't think saying most of the inmates would be tried, sentenced or released by now is accurate, and this legal gray zone doesn't really have anything to do with those types of prisoners. Why are so few people willing to discuss this side of the issue?
1423
Post by: dienekes96
The current number of "gray zoners" is listed as high as 60-80. The new administration might create a new framework to hold them, but the long and the short of it is that they will be held without trial indefinitely.
People don't talk about it, because it complicates the issue of what the previous administration did. They were clearly wrong about some of their actions. But not all of them.
10998
Post by: yani
Wow heated argument or what? 
Prehaps Americans dont realise the damage that Gitmo is doing to the worlds opinion on them. FYI America the world hates you . The reason the 'War on Terror' is not being won is that a) it is being waged against not a country but against a tactic. and b) every time the US invade another country it ends up fuling the  of hatred even more. Btw i have a brother in Iraq and he shares the same views.
91
Post by: Hordini
yani wrote:Prehaps Americans dont realise the damage that Gitmo is doing to the worlds opinion on them. FYI America the world hates you . The reason the 'War on Terror' is not being won is that a) it is being waged against not a country but against a tactic. and b) every time the US invade another country it ends up fuling the of hatred even more. Btw i have a brother in Iraq and he shares the same views.
Hey, I just want to thank you for repeating what I read in one of the latest CNN editorials. It's a good thing you speak for the rest of the world, or else we might not have ever figured out what we were doing wrong.
Gee, I guess we better listen to the rest of the world, since they always make the right decisions.
But then again, maybe the global popularity contest shouldn't necessarily be the issue at the top of our list of important stuff to care about.
No, we are not fighting against a specific country, but the only people who think that because the popular tagline for this conflict is "The War on Terror," that means we are fighting against a tactic, are a few of the people who write mainstream media editorials, and the masses of people who actually believe these editorials. Maybe if people thought about it for more than a few seconds, they'd realize that we are fighting against terrorists, who happen to utilize a tactic called terrorism, and not the tactic itself. And although terrorism is the predominant tactic that these guys use, it is certainly not the only one they use. It is merely the one they have used the most successfully.
There is more to this conflict than just its name. Anyone who tries to measure the pros and cons or successes and failures of this conflict based on semantics is ignoring the reality of the situation.
7783
Post by: BloodofOrks
Hordini wrote:BloodofOrks wrote:The most pitiful part of all this is that had Bush never created this legal gray zone in the first place, most of the inmates in gitmo would have been tried and either sentenced or released by now.
And what about the ones who we are holding to keep them off the firing line, basically as POWs, who should not be charged with anything? They would be neither sentenced nor released by now. So I don't think saying most of the inmates would be tried, sentenced or released by now is accurate, and this legal gray zone doesn't really have anything to do with those types of prisoners. Why are so few people willing to discuss this side of the issue?
Problem is of the 600 prisoners we've released, how many have gone back to commit acts of terror? The numbers the government has given have been all over the map and they've counted people who returned to their home countries only to be throw in jail as "returning to the fight."I'm not convinced holding these people for the duration of the "war on terror" makes any rational sense. Like the "war on drugs," the "war on terror" is not fought against a collected, tightly knit group of foes, but by a loose web of cells, most capable of acting and recruiting independently. This war is by its very nature a war without end. Invading countries that hate us only pisses them off more. Holding their people prisoner pisses them off. Yes they do horrible things to us. Yes we are held to a total double standard, but that is simply the reality we live in. Try those we can, let the rest go and lets all pledge to stop throwing rocks at the wasp's nest that is the middle east and focus on our security here at home.
91
Post by: Hordini
Well, it looks like Obama's already signed an executive order to close Guantanamo.
Here is the link.
10895
Post by: Ironhide
dogma wrote:But when the battlefield is the globe, and the war is against an emotion, when does this battle end?
It doesn't. It is an un-winnable war. You can't defeat an idea or emotion. Did we win the "War on Drugs? The "War on Poverty"? The "War on Hunger"? Nope. All three are still around.
To quote an old adage, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Our American forefathers who started the American Civil War would have been deemed terrorists by the British, but to us they are freedom fighters.
We Americans loved these terrorists when they fought against the Soviet Union as the Mujehadeen in the 80s. Hell, we even supplied them with weapons and ammo then abodoned them when it didn't fit our political views anymore. Same goes for Saddam Hussien. When he was fighting the Iranians in 80s, he was an okay guy to us, but then he invaded Kuwait and showed us what a real dictator he is.
You think these guys deserve a bullet in the head because they are terrorists, but if the situation were reversed and it was american terrorists being held in a prison off the coast of Iran for conducting attacks against Iran, you'd be screaming for their right to a trial.
I'm glad we got a president who finally sees these guys as people and has moral compass. Unlike Bush who went to war in Iraq for oil and money.
91
Post by: Hordini
Ironhide wrote:
Our American forefathers who started the American Civil War would have been deemed terrorists by the British, but to us they are freedom fighters.
If by "the American Civil War" you mean, "the American Revolution," then okay.
As to the rest of your post, I've already addressed it several times, but comparing the War on Terror the the War on Drugs, Hunger, and Poverty, is an absolute fallacy. Mainly because it's actually a war. You know, with soldiers, and bombs, and shooting, on a relatively large scale by modern standards. There's even been a few actual battles. The war on terror isn't a war against an emotion. We are not fighting an emotion, or a tactic, that is inherently impossible and to suggest we are, as some people continue to do, is pointless. We are fighting against terrorists. Yes, terrorists are also not a country, but they are not an emotion or a tactic either. They are the people who are gunning for us and our soldiers, and while terrorism is their most successful tactic so far, it is not the only one they've used.
Stop saying the "War on Terror" is a war against an emotion or a war against a tactic. It's not, and to claim that it is is a disgrace to anyone who has fought or suffered in this conflict. I'll tell you right now, none of the men and women we have over there have been shot at, bombed, wounded, or killed by an emotion or a tactic.
7783
Post by: BloodofOrks
Hordini wrote:
Stop saying the "War on Terror" is a war against an emotion or a war against a tactic. It's not, and to claim that it is is a disgrace to anyone who has fought or suffered in this conflict. I'll tell you right now, none of the men and women we have over there have been shot at, bombed, wounded, or killed by an emotion or a tactic.
Please define exactly who the "war on terror" is against. Is it confined specifically to the fight against the Taliban and Al Queada? Is Iraq included? How about the US-Ethiopian joint venture into Somalia? Would that be included as a part of the "war on terror"? IMHO the "war on terror" has had a funny way of meaning anything the Bush administration needed it to be at the time.
91
Post by: Hordini
Exactly. The guys we are fighting are coming from loosely connected cells from lots and lots of different countries. The main thing they have in common is that they are all gunning for us. They are extremely flexible, and to fight them effectively we need to be too. Everything that needs to be included, can be.
It includes the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and also the fight in Iraq (since, you know, Al Qaeda and other groups are operating in Iraq and have been for years). However, it is not necessarily limited to those places or those groups. If another terrorist group starts throwing their weight around, they can be added to the list.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ironhide wrote:To quote an old adage, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Meh, there’s a difference between a civilian who takes up arms against government by targeting military targets, and a guy who hijacks a civilian plane and flies it into a building. Call them whatever you want, but they’re very different things.
We Americans loved these terrorists when they fought against the Soviet Union as the Mujehadeen in the 80s. Hell, we even supplied them with weapons and ammo then abodoned them when it didn't fit our political views anymore. Same goes for Saddam Hussien. When he was fighting the Iranians in 80s, he was an okay guy to us, but then he invaded Kuwait and showed us what a real dictator he is.
You’re right, the US has supported plenty of dodgy governments. It’s later turned on those governments and started listing their failings, when it was happy to ignore those failings as long as they were towing the US line.
Funny story about Kuwait, and bare in mind this is very much an ‘apparently’ kind of story, but apparently Saddam inquired to the US ambassador what the US would think of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The US ambassador replied ‘the US has no opinion on that at this time’ which is diplomat speech for ‘I don’t know, where did that come from I haven’t briefed on that why are you asking these questions I’ll talk to state dept and get back to you’. Saddam understood it as ‘we don’t care, do whatever’. And well, now we’re where we are.
You think these guys deserve a bullet in the head because they are terrorists, but if the situation were reversed and it was american terrorists being held in a prison off the coast of Iran for conducting attacks against Iran, you'd be screaming for their right to a trial.
Followed to its logical conclusion, Fraz and co would be alright if Russia kidnapped US citizens, and then explained to the US those citizens don’t deserve a trial because they’re not Russian citizens.
Unless it’s the kind of morality than only works when you’ve got the guns.
I'm glad we got a president who finally sees these guys as people and has moral compass. Unlike Bush who went to war in Iraq for oil and money.
It’s a lot more complicated than that.
Hordini wrote:As to the rest of your post, I've already addressed it several times, but comparing the War on Terror the the War on Drugs, Hunger, and Poverty, is an absolute fallacy. Mainly because it's actually a war. You know, with soldiers, and bombs, and shooting, on a relatively large scale by modern standards. There's even been a few actual battles.
There’s guns and soldiers is the war on drugs as well. There’s even bombing runs and lots of shooting if you go to the right parts of South America.
The point is not to discredit the efforts of the soldiers in pointing that this isn’t a war, the point is to discredit the line of thinking that assumes it can be won with military means. You win a war by marching your army towards the enemy capital. There is geography to take and military facilities to blow up.
The war on terror sometimes has these things. There were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and so a military operation there made sense. But there are key differences between counter-terrorism and war, and ultimately treating it as such fails every time.
In a war, you kill a soldier and there’s one less guy fighting against you. In a terrorist operation, killing a terrorist produces two more. It’s a simple but unavoidable piece of arithmetic and as a result bodycounts are the worst measure of success. Instead you have to focus on prevention. While you still need to take measures you oppose terrorists, you can’t mistake successful operations at that level with strategic success.
7783
Post by: BloodofOrks
Hordini wrote:Exactly. The guys we are fighting are coming from loosely connected cells from lots and lots of different countries. The main thing they have in common is that they are all gunning for us. They are extremely flexible, and to fight them effectively we need to be too. Everything that needs to be included, can be.
It includes the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and also the fight in Iraq (since, you know, Al Qaeda and other groups are operating in Iraq and have been for years). However, it is not necessarily limited to those places or those groups. If another terrorist group starts throwing their weight around, they can be added to the list.
Okay, so we only need to knock off: Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Lebanon, Sudan, North Korea, Somolia (already tried with Ethiopia's army and failed) and about a dozen or so other countries to go then.
5470
Post by: sebster
EDIT - missed the point by a long way.
91
Post by: Hordini
Mentioning that there are other countries who support terrorism that we don't have troops in right now isn't really much of a counterpoint. Realistically, we have to start somewhere, and we can't fight everyone at once.
I'm not saying we should "knock off" all of even some of those countries, however. I'm just saying it's a ridiculous point, and I can't believe how many people still bring it up as some kind of "defense."
Sebster, I realize that there are guns and soldiers involved in some parts of the war on drugs, I still think it's significantly different to the war on terror, however. I do realize that counter-terrorism at times takes more subtlety than most military operations are capable of, and that is an important part of it, I agree. I'm certainly not claiming that a flat body count is how we're going to measure victory in this, but I do think that military operations are a big part of it. I understand that it is possible to produce more terrorists by killing them, but we will have to kill and capture some of them. As with most things, it's finding the balance that is tricky.
5470
Post by: sebster
Hordini wrote:Sebster, I realize that there are guns and soldiers involved in some parts of the war on drugs, I still think it's significantly different to the war on terror, however. I do realize that counter-terrorism at times takes more subtlety than most military operations are capable of, and that is an important part of it, I agree. I'm certainly not claiming that a flat body count is how we're going to measure victory in this, but I do think that military operations are a big part of it. I understand that it is possible to produce more terrorists by killing them, but we will have to kill and capture some of them. As with most things, it's finding the balance that is tricky.
Yeah, it’s about balance. You will need to kill people at one time or another, but it’s important not to mistake killing people with moving towards success. I think emphasis on terms like ‘war on terror’ increases the chance of heading too far down the military path.
4977
Post by: jp400
sebster wrote:jp400 wrote:So let me get this straight Highspeed?
Someone sets off a EFP on your vehicle tarying to KILL YOU, and you can physically trace the wire back to some jerkoffs front door. He then tests positive for Nitro and when searching his house you find A copper plate, Wire, and a little book written by some guy named Saddam titled "What to do when America Invades" and you wont beat the living tar out of him?? (for those that dont know, EFP= Explosive Formed Projectile, made by takeing a Copper Plate and forming it over the shaped part of a shaped charge)
The idiot was lucky we didnt just shoot his sorry ass on the spot.
I dont know what panzy ass Guard transportation unit you were in, but thats the way I did it on OIF 1&2, and I did it again on OIF 5&6. I bet you think that going outside the wire ment going outside your Cat5 wire. I bet your not even combat arms, just some fobbit sucking up all the fobs hot water and Ac. (NO just because you have combat in your MOS title doesnt make you combat arms IE: Combat Box Packer)
Hang on, so you’re here on some random gaming board talking about your unit committing war crimes as regular policy? Completely unprompted.
I read something one time about Texas sheriff saying that if criminals were smart enough to keep their idiot mouths shut no-one hardly anyone would ever get caught. This really brings that home, doesn’t it?
Wow, Did you even read the rest of my post? Do you even know what a War Crime is? The My Lai Massacre was a war crime in case you cant tell the difference.
The second someone commits an act of agression (aka trying to kill you) in any way shape or form, doesnt matter if its by trying to drop a cinderblock on your head from a rooftop, or setting off an IED... they stop being an unarmed civilian and become a armed combative. Guess what you do when you come across armed combatives? You kill them.
I dont care if your a Man setting off an IED, a woman wearing a sucide vest at a checkpoint, or a child takeing aim with an Ak-47... If you try to kill me or anyone in my unit around me... I will not think twice about venting your head with 5.56. If you go about your normal lives and dont try to harm us, we wont screw with you. In fact you will most likely get some form of aid. (Which the US give out in the millions by the way)
I just love how people with no real life experience try to dictate how it should be.
7783
Post by: BloodofOrks
sebster wrote:Hordini wrote:Sebster, I realize that there are guns and soldiers involved in some parts of the war on drugs, I still think it's significantly different to the war on terror, however. I do realize that counter-terrorism at times takes more subtlety than most military operations are capable of, and that is an important part of it, I agree. I'm certainly not claiming that a flat body count is how we're going to measure victory in this, but I do think that military operations are a big part of it. I understand that it is possible to produce more terrorists by killing them, but we will have to kill and capture some of them. As with most things, it's finding the balance that is tricky.
Yeah, it’s about balance. You will need to kill people at one time or another, but it’s important not to mistake killing people with moving towards success. I think emphasis on terms like ‘war on terror’ increases the chance of heading too far down the military path.
Agreed. I feel the US should seriously cut back on any tactic which causes civilian casualties. Every time the US military is seen taking an innocent life, terrorist groups gain another piece of propaganda.
4977
Post by: jp400
BloodofOrks wrote:sebster wrote:Hordini wrote:Sebster, I realize that there are guns and soldiers involved in some parts of the war on drugs, I still think it's significantly different to the war on terror, however. I do realize that counter-terrorism at times takes more subtlety than most military operations are capable of, and that is an important part of it, I agree. I'm certainly not claiming that a flat body count is how we're going to measure victory in this, but I do think that military operations are a big part of it. I understand that it is possible to produce more terrorists by killing them, but we will have to kill and capture some of them. As with most things, it's finding the balance that is tricky.
Yeah, it’s about balance. You will need to kill people at one time or another, but it’s important not to mistake killing people with moving towards success. I think emphasis on terms like ‘war on terror’ increases the chance of heading too far down the military path.
Agreed. I feel the US should seriously cut back on any tactic which causes civilian casualties. Every time the US military is seen taking an innocent life, terrorist groups gain another piece of propaganda.
Sorry, but I disagree.
This train of though caused my second tour to be alot harder then it had to be. We couldnt use any type of AOE within city limits for fear of collateral damage. No grenades, Mk19, Laws, At4s, Javs, Tows, 25mm, 120's ect ect ect.
However Haji could take down an overpass trying to crush Strykers under the tons of concrete then fire RPG's from as far away as they want. (Anything over 75m tends to become very corkscrewish and tends to fly off in any direction)
Go figure.
5534
Post by: dogma
Hordini wrote:
Except that Iraq is not a colonial territory of the U.S., and is not connected to our legal system. If Iraq is a U.S. colonial territory, then Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other countries must be U.S. territories too. After all, we still have troops in all those places.
Colonial territory isn't defined by the presence of troops, but by the relationship of the states involved. We don't practice formal vassalage, but it comes pretty close in some cases. Certainly close enough that we should at least open up our legal proceedings, involving foreign nationals, for external review.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ironhide wrote:
It doesn't. It is an un-winnable war. You can't defeat an idea or emotion. Did we win the "War on Drugs? The "War on Poverty"? The "War on Hunger"? Nope. All three are still around.
It was a rhetorical question.
7783
Post by: BloodofOrks
jp400 wrote:
However Haji could take down an overpass trying to crush Strykers under the tons of concrete then fire RPG's from as far away as they want. (Anything over 75m tends to become very corkscrewish and tends to fly off in any direction)
Go figure.
Yep. It's called a double standard and it sucks. But it's the reality of the situation and we have to deal with it.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
BloodofOrks wrote:Hordini wrote:
Stop saying the "War on Terror" is a war against an emotion or a war against a tactic. It's not, and to claim that it is is a disgrace to anyone who has fought or suffered in this conflict. I'll tell you right now, none of the men and women we have over there have been shot at, bombed, wounded, or killed by an emotion or a tactic.
Please define exactly who the "war on terror" is against. Is it confined specifically to the fight against the Taliban and Al Queada? Is Iraq included? How about the US-Ethiopian joint venture into Somalia? Would that be included as a part of the "war on terror"? IMHO the "war on terror" has had a funny way of meaning anything the Bush administration needed it to be at the time.
The "war on terror" doesn't mean crap, and in its own way is a form of terrorism against both foreign populations and domestic left wingers. It's like calling a conflict the war on evil, it means nothing and is little more than an easy way to defame anyone that disagrees with what falls under the umbrella.
5470
Post by: sebster
jp400 wrote:Sorry, but I disagree.
This train of though caused my second tour to be alot harder then it had to be. We couldnt use any type of AOE within city limits for fear of collateral damage. No grenades, Mk19, Laws, At4s, Javs, Tows, 25mm, 120's ect ect ect.
Of course, things started getting better in Iraq and stopped getting worse when exactly?
However Haji could take down an overpass trying to crush Strykers under the tons of concrete then fire RPG's from as far away as they want. (Anything over 75m tends to become very corkscrewish and tends to fly off in any direction)
Go figure.
Yeah, there’s a double standard. Like when a player on the home team lays a bad tackle and the crowd doesn’t make a noise, but when an away player does it the whole crowd erupts. Well when you invade someone else’s country you’re the away team, and you’ve got to play really cleanly to convince anyone you’re the fair team. If you don’t like it stop invading other countries.
5534
Post by: dogma
The "war on terror" doesn't mean crap, and in its own way is a form of terrorism against both foreign populations and domestic left wingers. It's like calling a conflict the war on evil, it means nothing and is little more than an easy way to defame anyone that disagrees with what falls under the umbrella.
To call the term 'war on terror' a form of terrorism is just a ridiculous, rhetorical point. Terrorism lean on physical actions for the production of an emotional response. Fire-bombing Dresden was terrorism. Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, were terrorism. Poorly conceived polemic is not terrorism.
5470
Post by: sebster
jp400 wrote:Wow, Did you even read the rest of my post? Do you even know what a War Crime is? The My Lai Massacre was a war crime in case you cant tell the difference.
You were testing a guy for nitro, so he was in your custody. When the test confirmed, you beat him. Damn right that ain’t cool.
The second someone commits an act of agression (aka trying to kill you) in any way shape or form, doesnt matter if its by trying to drop a cinderblock on your head from a rooftop, or setting off an IED... they stop being an unarmed civilian and become a armed combative. Guess what you do when you come across armed combatives? You kill them.
And when they’re taken captive you stop trying to kill them. We should write a book together called ‘Things that aren’t rocket science’.
I just love how people with no real life experience try to dictate how it should be.
I like it when people on the internet claim ‘War is hell and you weren’t there. How could you possibly understand how important it is to beat captives!’
5394
Post by: reds8n
jp400 wrote:
I just love how people with no real life experience try to dictate how it should be.
As opposed to who ? People who come across as traumatised at what they've seen and/or done ?
Or do you mean people like the ex President of the USA and his cabinet ?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
jp400 wrote:sebster wrote:jp400 wrote:So let me get this straight Highspeed?
Someone sets off a EFP on your vehicle tarying to KILL YOU, and you can physically trace the wire back to some jerkoffs front door. He then tests positive for Nitro and when searching his house you find A copper plate, Wire, and a little book written by some guy named Saddam titled "What to do when America Invades" and you wont beat the living tar out of him?? (for those that dont know, EFP= Explosive Formed Projectile, made by takeing a Copper Plate and forming it over the shaped part of a shaped charge)
The idiot was lucky we didnt just shoot his sorry ass on the spot.
I dont know what panzy ass Guard transportation unit you were in, but thats the way I did it on OIF 1&2, and I did it again on OIF 5&6. I bet you think that going outside the wire ment going outside your Cat5 wire. I bet your not even combat arms, just some fobbit sucking up all the fobs hot water and Ac. (NO just because you have combat in your MOS title doesnt make you combat arms IE: Combat Box Packer)
Hang on, so you’re here on some random gaming board talking about your unit committing war crimes as regular policy? Completely unprompted.
I read something one time about Texas sheriff saying that if criminals were smart enough to keep their idiot mouths shut no-one hardly anyone would ever get caught. This really brings that home, doesn’t it?
Wow, Did you even read the rest of my post? Do you even know what a War Crime is? The My Lai Massacre was a war crime in case you cant tell the difference.
The second someone commits an act of agression (aka trying to kill you) in any way shape or form, doesnt matter if its by trying to drop a cinderblock on your head from a rooftop, or setting off an IED... they stop being an unarmed civilian and become a armed combative. Guess what you do when you come across armed combatives? You kill them.
I dont care if your a Man setting off an IED, a woman wearing a sucide vest at a checkpoint, or a child takeing aim with an Ak-47... If you try to kill me or anyone in my unit around me... I will not think twice about venting your head with 5.56. If you go about your normal lives and dont try to harm us, we wont screw with you. In fact you will most likely get some form of aid. (Which the US give out in the millions by the way)
I just love how people with no real life experience try to dictate how it should be.
There is a clear moral and legal difference between shooting an armed person in the act of fighting, and shooting someone you have captured and disarmed, who was found in possession of a weapon.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
There are many americans on dakka , so im pressured to not say whats on my mind.
The world is mad at US gov for A LOT of reasons , and i can tell you " oh terrorist are just jealous of our freedom and our way of life " is not one of them.
Weapon of mass destruction? ok Korea had one , if our technology is fueled by kimchi, Bush would have been there years ago.
Protect freedom and way of life? sure, Taiwan have been trying to stand as country for decades. China kept threatening with military pressure, they *practice fire their missle to Taiwanese coast every month for gods sake. Not to mention Tibet , Mongolia .
Sure its easy to label your action as something noble when the situation have advantage towards you.
And then you revert back to your true intention the moment it doesnt benefit you anymore.
Half of my American friends agree with what i said, while the other half want to burn me to stake.
But there i said it, thats what i wanted to say.
4977
Post by: jp400
sebster wrote:"War is hell and you weren’t there. How could you possibly understand how it is!"
Fixed the Typo for you!
You all think you may have some points, but the fact of it remains (and any real combat vet will tell you)..........
Until you live the life and have experienced the gak for yourself first hand, you just dont know Jack. Sure you see whats on the news and read whats in the paper, but nothing on this earth will ever come close to first hand experience.
Imagine this....
Your driving down the road in your vehicle with your family. (Wife/husband/kids/mom/dad/whatever) Suddenly a roadside bomb goes off and kills them right before your eyes. Turned into lets say a chunky red meatpile with one hand on you and the other in the trunk somewhere. Now lets say that you dont even have time to grieve before your thrown back into the gak chaseing the person that set off the roadside bomb. You then catch the guy a little while later..
Now tell me with a straight face....
You wouldnt want to beat the living crap out of him?
Let me guess, you would just walk up and calmly zipcuff him and haul him away without so much as a second thought? Knowing full well that the odds of him being set free cause some desk jocky at the local police station was too lazy to file the proper paperwork cause they were only makeing 20k a year deployed were pretty high??
If you just thought yes........
bs.
How many of you can say in all truth that you have stood toe to toe with someone hell bent on ending your life by any means possible and looked him in the eye through a set of Iron sights and pulled the trigger?
How many of you have slept in a hole that you dug behind your RV every night for months on end?
How many of you have had close friends, people you consider family killed right before your eyes?
How many of you had the guy standing next to you on patrol take a bullet that was so close that you heard the incomming round?
How many of you at oh dark thirty been awaken by incomming fire?
Who here did even 1 tour in any branch of military?
Who else here worked 24 hours a day, Seven Days a week, through holidays, with no paid vacation or sick days for 365 days x2?
I could go on for pages but I wont.........
This is why you hear vets say...
"Unless you were there, you just dont know."
5394
Post by: reds8n
Does indeed sound horrific.
You were of course drafted against your will right ?
I still don't actually see what point you're trying to make.
Fair enough, apparently no-one else here has any understanding of what it is you go through. Except other soldiers who post here but they don't count as...as they suck or are cowards.Or something.
...and ? Why does this make it acceptable for you to say things like You find a half dozen people playing dumb. You line them all up and test them for GSR, Nitro ect ect. One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?
Now We have to accept the fact that people like him will be set free?
Hate to quote a marine......... but:
We should have killed them all and let god sort them out!
advocating the execution of civilians and you wonder why people might have a problem with that ?
You'll note that in criminal trials they disregard jurors who have or might be unable to judge fairly and coolly the facts of the situation. There's a reason for that, and the same need applies to things like defining what is legal, what is a war crime etc etc.
Now I'm sure you haven't shot executed people "just in case", but that's what you're advocating.
And you wonder why the Iraqis don't want you there ?
Really ?
221
Post by: Frazzled
BloodofOrks wrote:Hordini wrote:Exactly. The guys we are fighting are coming from loosely connected cells from lots and lots of different countries. The main thing they have in common is that they are all gunning for us. They are extremely flexible, and to fight them effectively we need to be too. Everything that needs to be included, can be.
It includes the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and also the fight in Iraq (since, you know, Al Qaeda and other groups are operating in Iraq and have been for years). However, it is not necessarily limited to those places or those groups. If another terrorist group starts throwing their weight around, they can be added to the list.
Okay, so we only need to knock off: Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Lebanon, Sudan, North Korea, Somolia (already tried with Ethiopia's army and failed) and about a dozen or so other countries to go then.
Sounds like a plan to me.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
reds8n wrote:Does indeed sound horrific.
You were of course drafted against your will right ?
I still don't actually see what point you're trying to make.
Fair enough, apparently no-one else here has any understanding of what it is you go through. Except other soldiers who post here but they don't count as...as they suck or are cowards.Or something.
...and ? Why does this make it acceptable for you to say things like You find a half dozen people playing dumb. You line them all up and test them for GSR, Nitro ect ect. One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?
Now We have to accept the fact that people like him will be set free?
Hate to quote a marine......... but:
We should have killed them all and let god sort them out!
advocating the execution of civilians and you wonder why people might have a problem with that ?
You'll note that in criminal trials they disregard jurors who have or might be unable to judge fairly and coolly the facts of the situation. There's a reason for that, and the same need applies to things like defining what is legal, what is a war crime etc etc.
Now I'm sure you haven't shot executed people "just in case", but that's what you're advocating.
And you wonder why the Iraqis don't want you there ?
Really ?
Thats the thing now days. Double standards everywhere, and doesnt apply if its against the person that holds power.
It all boils down to " im pissed off, and im going to kill you CUZ-I-CAN "
what Obama decided to do is the correct choice i believe. No he isnt been lenient , he is just showing the world "hey look, I have the power, but im not blood thirsty,
give us a chance to fix what Bush did wrong "
221
Post by: Frazzled
LunaHound wrote:
There are many americans on dakka , so im pressured to not say whats on my mind.
The world is mad at US gov for A LOT of reasons , and i can tell you " oh terrorist are just jealous of our freedom and our way of life " is not one of them.
Weapon of mass destruction? ok Korea had one , if our technology is fueled by kimchi, Bush would have been there years ago.
Protect freedom and way of life? sure, Taiwan have been trying to stand as country for decades. China kept threatening with military pressure, they *practice fire their missle to Taiwanese coast every month for gods sake. Not to mention Tibet , Mongolia .
Sure its easy to label your action as something noble when the situation have advantage towards you.
And then you revert back to your true intention the moment it doesnt benefit you anymore.
Half of my American friends agree with what i said, while the other half want to burn me to stake.
But there i said it, thats what i wanted to say.
You conveniently ignore the US Navy has been keeping Taiwan from being invaded for decades. Oh well.
It inevitably drags down to the standard line doesn't it. The US is evil.
So how about the evil US pull out completely? No troops in Korea. No Navy near Taiwan. China go for broke baby we don't give a  .
No forces in Europe. Russia if they get snippy just cut off their gas and nuke 'em. After all, thats what the Evil US would do.
Who are you going to pick on when we've pulled out, and you just have to face yourselves? You think China is going to be your savior? Russia?
10705
Post by: Velsharoon
You say it like Europe couldnt defend itself? it just needs the political will- fact is for mainland europe having suffered 2 world wars the military is a big deal (the first is only just fading out of living memory).
If the americans said yeh we be pulling out I am sure you would see a European rapid reaction force pushed through ASAP.
5394
Post by: reds8n
It inevitably drags down to the standard line doesn't it. The US is evil.
So how about the evil US pull out completely? No troops in Korea. No Navy near Taiwan. China go for broke baby we don't give a .
No forces in Europe. Russia if they get snippy just cut off their gas and nuke 'em. After all, thats what the Evil US would do.
Who are you going to pick on when we've pulled out, and you just have to face yourselves? You think China is going to be your savior? Russia?
Well we are socialist apparently. 
You're not actually suggestting that the reason the Russians don't instantly invade Europe is because of the few Ks worth of USA soldiers over here are you ?
I thinkn it much more interesting that it inevitably drags down to Americans complaining that they're viewed as evil or the bad guys regardless of what you do. No actual rebuttal or argument against the gakky things your military does, just the same old "why pick on us..blah blah.. fought communism.... saved you from the Nazis... etc etc etc.
You know you used to be such a forward looking nation, it really is disheartening for the rest of the world to see how small you've let the last few years of your government make you.
5030
Post by: Grignard
jp400 wrote:sebster wrote:jp400 wrote:So let me get this straight Highspeed?
Someone sets off a EFP on your vehicle tarying to KILL YOU, and you can physically trace the wire back to some jerkoffs front door. He then tests positive for Nitro and when searching his house you find A copper plate, Wire, and a little book written by some guy named Saddam titled "What to do when America Invades" and you wont beat the living tar out of him?? (for those that dont know, EFP= Explosive Formed Projectile, made by takeing a Copper Plate and forming it over the shaped part of a shaped charge)
The idiot was lucky we didnt just shoot his sorry ass on the spot.
I dont know what panzy ass Guard transportation unit you were in, but thats the way I did it on OIF 1&2, and I did it again on OIF 5&6. I bet you think that going outside the wire ment going outside your Cat5 wire. I bet your not even combat arms, just some fobbit sucking up all the fobs hot water and Ac. (NO just because you have combat in your MOS title doesnt make you combat arms IE: Combat Box Packer)
Hang on, so you’re here on some random gaming board talking about your unit committing war crimes as regular policy? Completely unprompted.
I read something one time about Texas sheriff saying that if criminals were smart enough to keep their idiot mouths shut no-one hardly anyone would ever get caught. This really brings that home, doesn’t it?
Wow, Did you even read the rest of my post? Do you even know what a War Crime is? The My Lai Massacre was a war crime in case you cant tell the difference.
The second someone commits an act of agression (aka trying to kill you) in any way shape or form, doesnt matter if its by trying to drop a cinderblock on your head from a rooftop, or setting off an IED... they stop being an unarmed civilian and become a armed combative. Guess what you do when you come across armed combatives? You kill them.
I dont care if your a Man setting off an IED, a woman wearing a sucide vest at a checkpoint, or a child takeing aim with an Ak-47... If you try to kill me or anyone in my unit around me... I will not think twice about venting your head with 5.56. If you go about your normal lives and dont try to harm us, we wont screw with you. In fact you will most likely get some form of aid. (Which the US give out in the millions by the way)
I just love how people with no real life experience try to dictate how it should be.
I'm not trying to get on your case, but for someone who came out on my side in the 2nd amendment thread, you certainly want to draw a line between unarmed civilians and combatives, and it sounds like you're drawing that line by who has weapons. That is the problem I have with all of this, I never thought we were supposed to be invading this country and taking over the machinery of government, I thought we were removing a dictator, with the help of other Iraqi's.
When you test someone for "nitro" what is meant by that? Are you talking about a test for an explosive like nitrocellulose or nitroglycerin, TNP, TNT, whatever, or is it more general, like a test for nitrate or nitrite or. Do you know if that particular test can produce false positives, and if so, from what?
Also, and I don't know this, I'm asking....Can these guys actually achieve a true EFP with an improvised device? Not saying they couldn't kill someone even if it didn't work perfectly.
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:
It inevitably drags down to the standard line doesn't it. The US is evil.
So how about the evil US pull out completely? No troops in Korea. No Navy near Taiwan. China go for broke baby we don't give a .
No forces in Europe. Russia if they get snippy just cut off their gas and nuke 'em. After all, thats what the Evil US would do.
Who are you going to pick on when we've pulled out, and you just have to face yourselves? You think China is going to be your savior? Russia?
Well we are socialist apparently.
You're not actually suggestting that the reason the Russians don't instantly invade Europe is because of the few Ks worth of USA soldiers over here are you ?
I thinkn it much more interesting that it inevitably drags down to Americans complaining that they're viewed as evil or the bad guys regardless of what you do. No actual rebuttal or argument against the gakky things your military does, just the same old "why pick on us..blah blah.. fought communism.... saved you from the Nazis... etc etc etc.
You know you used to be such a forward looking nation, it really is disheartening for the rest of the world to see how small you've let the last few years of your government make you.
Well Red, your response to Russia cutting off your gas has been "we'll sue you." yea that will bother the Russians.
Again, any problem with us just leaving, including pulling back our nuclear umbrella? We'll let you deal with the Middle East and Iran. We can always get our gas and oil from the north and south.
Its the perfect solution. We can balance our budget. After all, only the US is a threat to world peace apparently.
5394
Post by: reds8n
You do know the UK doesn't get much or require gas from Russia right ?
You appear to be confusing part of Europe with the whole thing.
A sizable % of the UK would indeed love you to pull all your nukes and military out of the UK, personally I'm ambivalent about it. I'd like to keep some of your stuff here as you are our allies. That said if you want to not fly people through here on the way to torture them, that's be good.
We're on much better terms with the Iranians and the Middle east as a whole than you guys.
..not least as we keep selling them football teams, but that's a whole other thread.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm talking greater Europa as a whole Red. I know you get lots of North Sea stuff.
I'm actually fully in favor of pulling back. Now. WWII is long over. No reason to have troops and spend money defending Europe any longer. Its not sane that we are still there.
said if you want to not fly people through here on the way to torture them, that's be good.
Well all those tourist flights to France have to land somewhere to refuel Red
5394
Post by: reds8n
I believe in fact that a good number of British Airways customers actually requested rendition flights as the whole thing is a more pleasant experience.
Not least the food, and on rendition flights you're allowed to bring your own bag on board. Admitedly, it's on your head but....
the deployment thing..... is odd, we've still got bases dotted here and there over the globe. I guess it makes sense from a potential rapid deployment scenario and I assume it must make easier for governemnt figures, diplomats etc etc to do their thang.
5534
Post by: dogma
jp400 wrote:
Now tell me with a straight face....
You wouldnt want to beat the living crap out of him?
Of course I'd want to, but that doesn't mean that its acceptable.
jp400 wrote:
Let me guess, you would just walk up and calmly zipcuff him and haul him away without so much as a second thought? Knowing full well that the odds of him being set free cause some desk jocky at the local police station was too lazy to file the proper paperwork cause they were only makeing 20k a year deployed were pretty high??
If you just thought yes........
bs.
Who said anything about calm? In all honesty I think you're use of phrase 'beaten like a pinata' conjures different images for different people, and that most likely you didn't do anything like what Sebster is probably imagining.
jp400 wrote:
"Unless you were there, you just dont know."
No one's claiming knowledge here. They're objecting to a poorly conceived turn of phrase. I really doubt you strung this dude up in the middle of a CP and beat him with heavy objects, but that's what 'beat him like a pinata' conjures in he mind.
10895
Post by: Ironhide
Terror is usually described as the feeling of dread and anticipation that precedes the horrifying experience. Hence an emotion. Those people who use terrorism, usually use it for an ideological goal. Hence an idea.
The War on Terror is not the only ideological war we have used soldiers to combat. We have used soldiers in the War on Drugs and the War on Hunger. In the former they were used to interdict drug shipments and to conduct surveillance in South America. In the later, soldiers were used to deliver foreign aid in Africa and other countries, not to mention providing medical aid in the same countries. Unfortunately in the War on Hunger, we no longer provide that kind of service. We just throw money at the problem which usually ends up in the coffers of the leaders of those countries.
The main problem I have with just shooting a terrorist, is you deny yourself the info they can provide in finding more terrorists. Most of these guys who set up IEDs and such, are just doing it for money. They get paid by the real terrorists. So by capturing them and interrogating them you can find out who the real terrorists are. To me it seems money is the real incentive for most of these so-called terrorists in third world countries.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Ironhide wrote:Terror is usually described as the feeling of dread and anticipation that precedes the horrifying experience. Hence an emotion. Those people who use terrorism, usually use it for an ideological goal. Hence an idea.
The War on Terror is not the only ideological war we have used soldiers to combat. We have used soldiers in the War on Drugs and the War on Hunger. In the former they were used to interdict drug shipments and to conduct surveillance in South America. In the later, soldiers were used to deliver foreign aid in Africa and other countries, not to mention providing medical aid in the same countries. Unfortunately in the War on Hunger, we no longer provide that kind of service. We just throw money at the problem which usually ends up in the coffers of the leaders of those countries.
The main problem I have with just shooting a terrorist, is you deny yourself the info they can provide in finding more terrorists. Most of these guys who set up IEDs and such, are just doing it for money. They get paid by the real terrorists. So by capturing them and interrogating them you can find out who the real terrorists are. To me it seems money is the real incentive for most of these so-called terrorists in third world countries.
Are you really that sure you can say most of these people are doing terrorism for money? Do you not think there are plenty of people out there who are ideologically motivated?
4977
Post by: jp400
Grignard wrote:
Also, and I don't know this, I'm asking....Can these guys actually achieve a true EFP with an improvised device? Not saying they couldn't kill someone even if it didn't work perfectly.
This is the only question im going to answer this morning due to the GF just woke up with the flu and I wont be on the rest of the day. That and my reply would be really really long.
To answer simply...
Its very hard to do, but when Iran Supplies the machined copper plates:
YES.
I have pictures from my personal collection from when my vehicle was hit by a small one. The only thing that saved us was it hit a couple of 5 gallon oil cans and that cooled it down enough that the armor was able to stop it. Though it still went through the Rpg cage, a bulletproof tire, storage rack, modular armor plate, and one side of the hull. The hole was roughly softball sized.
If you want to see them ill send a link via PM if I get on later. Im not about to post them for everyone to see.
Although some pics for the rest of you that prove without a doubt that every Local National just hates us from the bottom of there hearts....
Espically when we hand out Gatorade to people whos water was knocked out from a VBIED.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/jp400/S6000026.jpg
Or give Free Medical care useing our own personal medical supplies. Putting us at risk if something happens to one of us.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/jp400/S6000044.jpg
Or when we drop off enough school supplies that we patitioned for on our spare time to help rebuild a school that was hit by a sucide bomber.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/jp400/DSCN0168.jpg
How do the little heartless heathens repay us?
The Children proceeded to swarm us like rippers...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/jp400/DSCN0182.jpg
Attempt to be funny across the culture barrier....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/jp400/S6000045.jpg
And this little bastard took the medics Mich...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/jp400/S6000047.jpg
How did we respond?
Like any Real, true, Red Blooded American we blew up the house with a surgical strike from a B52 on a carpet bombing run. We then killed the dog, beat them with wiffle ball bats, then waterboarded the house cat until he told us the location of the Insurgent cell known only as Three Blind Mice.
And the little bastard that took the medics Mich? He is sitting at Gitmo.
10895
Post by: Ironhide
Are you really that sure you can say most of these people are doing terrorism for money? Do you not think there are plenty of people out there who are ideologically motivated?
Pretty sure. When I was over there in 2004 the terrorists were giving out rewards to people who conducted attacks against US forces. Gave them even more if they killed an american soldier. I'm sure they are still doing it. I'm sure there are still people who conduct terrorist attacks for ideological reasons, but let's face it, in poor countries what's going to be the best recruiting method to a guy who can't feed his family?
221
Post by: Frazzled
See everything was successful. We now know the location of the infamous three blind mice 
5030
Post by: Grignard
Ironhide wrote:Are you really that sure you can say most of these people are doing terrorism for money? Do you not think there are plenty of people out there who are ideologically motivated?
Pretty sure. When I was over there in 2004 the terrorists were giving out rewards to people who conducted attacks against US forces. Gave them even more if they killed an american soldier. I'm sure they are still doing it. I'm sure there are still people who conduct terrorist attacks for ideological reasons, but let's face it, in poor countries what's going to be the best recruiting method to a guy who can't feed his family?
I was reading a book that the guy I went hunting with last gave to me ( He was a Vietnam vet). According to the guy that wrote that one they would find little placards on some of the NVA they killed. Apparently they were rewards for killing U.S. soldiers. It didn't say if money came along with that, but I guess it is reasonable to assume there could have been a monentary reward for that. It probably doesn't have to be one or the other, I guess there is nothing saying you can't have an ideology and get paid to pursue it *shrug*
Weird.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Grignard wrote:Ironhide wrote:Terror is usually described as the feeling of dread and anticipation that precedes the horrifying experience. Hence an emotion. Those people who use terrorism, usually use it for an ideological goal. Hence an idea.
The War on Terror is not the only ideological war we have used soldiers to combat. We have used soldiers in the War on Drugs and the War on Hunger. In the former they were used to interdict drug shipments and to conduct surveillance in South America. In the later, soldiers were used to deliver foreign aid in Africa and other countries, not to mention providing medical aid in the same countries. Unfortunately in the War on Hunger, we no longer provide that kind of service. We just throw money at the problem which usually ends up in the coffers of the leaders of those countries.
The main problem I have with just shooting a terrorist, is you deny yourself the info they can provide in finding more terrorists. Most of these guys who set up IEDs and such, are just doing it for money. They get paid by the real terrorists. So by capturing them and interrogating them you can find out who the real terrorists are. To me it seems money is the real incentive for most of these so-called terrorists in third world countries.
Are you really that sure you can say most of these people are doing terrorism for money? Do you not think there are plenty of people out there who are ideologically motivated?
or as majority believe the motivation behind terrorism = promised virgins when they die / disrupt the american freedom way of life ( i still cant figure out if they were serious or not)
10895
Post by: Ironhide
LunaHound wrote:or as majority believe the motivation behind terrorism = promised virgins when they die / disrupt the american freedom way of life ( i still cant figure out if they were serious or not)
Ya know what I find funny about that? If they just channeled all that energy they put into being a terrorist into being a professional mack daddy, they could have the virgins AND still be alive.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Ironhide wrote:LunaHound wrote:or as majority believe the motivation behind terrorism = promised virgins when they die / disrupt the american freedom way of life ( i still cant figure out if they were serious or not)
Ya know what I find funny about that? If they just channeled all that energy they put into being a terrorist into being a professional mack daddy, they could have the virgins AND still be alive.
no thats not what i meant. I meant thats what American think Terrorist's motivations are.
well i guess you just provided a fine example to what i said.
10895
Post by: Ironhide
I wasn't trying to imply that is what you meant. I got what you were saying, but I just thought I'd throw that in there. I'm sure terrorists have many different motivations for the life they lead, just like American soldiers have different motivations for joining the US Armed forces.
5534
Post by: dogma
No better way to debunk a bad theory than by pointing out that it takes human sensibility as a given.
5470
Post by: sebster
jp400 wrote:sebster wrote:"War is hell and you weren’t there. How could you possibly understand how it is!"
Fixed the Typo for you!
Yeah, that's one of those tired old internet jokes. Well done.
You all think you may have some points, but the fact of it remains (and any real combat vet will tell you)..........
I think a real combat vet is more likely to tell you if you do something like beat a prisoner, don't shoot your mouth off about it.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:
You conveniently ignore the US Navy has been keeping Taiwan from being invaded for decades. Oh well.
You have absolutely no idea how Chinese/Taiwan politics works. The idea that China would have invaded decades ago is quite ignorant.
You should have picked North and South Korea, the US has been a key in peace there. It's defence of Europe is also a viable argument. But Taiwan, just no.
It inevitably drags down to the standard line doesn't it. The US is evil.
It doesn't no. But when folk spend time talking about how the rule of law doesn't apply to people who aren't US citizens, then you get extreme rhetoric back.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
sebster wrote:Frazzled wrote:
You conveniently ignore the US Navy has been keeping Taiwan from being invaded for decades. Oh well.
You have absolutely no idea how Chinese/Taiwan politics works. The idea that China would have invaded decades ago is quite ignorant.
You should have picked North and South Korea, the US has been a key in peace there. It's defence of Europe is also a viable argument. But Taiwan, just no.
It inevitably drags down to the standard line doesn't it. The US is evil.
It doesn't no. But when folk spend time talking about how the rule of law doesn't apply to people who aren't US citizens, then you get extreme rhetoric back.
Im glad that atleast someone know something about china's policy vs taiwan ( im guessing you have relatives there? )
But i sort of give up explaining this type of stuff, i figured even if they know the truth, nothing can be done.
Ppl just dont really care about others unless its happening to themselves ( this apply to ALL humans ) so ya : /
the way i see it, there are different reasons people seek Justice. Some sort of seek it to satisfy the urge to...
they'll pick w/e is convenient to believe in, and act on it.
while other seriousely put in efforts , thoughts , to help with justice.
Myself is an immigrant , grand parents are Japanese, mom is Taiwanese , i spend 5 years of my life there
before immigrating to Canada . I can tell you while i was in Taiwan, there is not a single night there isnt a form
of unrest or pressure from China may it be military , economic , politic Taiwanese public feels . I still remember,
its on news, my father talked about it, my grandparent talked about it. Its far worse then people outside the country knows.
After all, most people easily settle into what ever propaganda the government feeds them. and acts accordingly too.
Thus real question is , how do public know their government has been doing the right thing, when they have been fed
lies to start with . They wont know . Thats the source of problem with our world.
5470
Post by: sebster
LunaHound wrote:Im glad that atleast someone know something about china's policy vs taiwan ( im guessing you have relatives there? )
Nah, man, not even that. Just follow politics, and while I don't know enough to understand the ins and outs of China/Taiwan relations, I know enough to understand the silliness of 'thank God for the US'.
But i sort of give up explaining this type of stuff, i figured even if they know the truth, nothing can be done.
Ppl just dont really care about others unless its happening to themselves ( this apply to ALL humans ) so ya : /
And yeah, there's no point telling people that China isn't poised to sweep across the Strait. The US right wing needs to create future conflicts, and this is just the latest convenient option.
You can tell them it doesn't work like that but they won't believe you because they really like the idea of China wigging out and launching a naval invasion.
221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/4349265/Britain-will-not-take-Guantanamo-prisoners-despite-plea-by-Barack-Obama.html
Britain will not take Guantanamo prisoners despite plea by Barack Obama
Britain will not take any more detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp despite a plea from President Barack Obama for help from Europe.
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 7:53PM GMT 26 Jan 2009
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that Britain had "done our bit" following the nine British nationals and six British residents already received or expected.
"Britain has given that help already," he said. "We have done our bit. We have played an important role in showing that this can be done in a safe and secure way."
European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels, gave a warm welcome to the new US President's decision to close the camp within a year. But most were lukewarm about the idea of taking in non-Europeans that the US does not intend to put on trial and who cannot be sent home for fear they might be mistreated.
The issue has become an early test of Europe's relationship with President Obama.
"There was nobody very hot about it," said Karel Schwarzenberg, the Czech foreign minister, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency.
"It is not an easy question and it is up to each nation what they will decide."
The ministers failed to reach a conclusion on the fate of up to 60 Guantanamo inmates, from Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Chad, China, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, who could face abuse, imprisonment or death if returned home.
European countries are particularly concerned that the US is not yet able to prove that prisoners do not pose security risks.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, expressed the fear that the EU could be accused of hypocrisy if it did not take in detainees after years of criticising the US over the camp.
"There is no question that chief responsibility to do with solving the problem of this detention centre lies with those who set it up, the Americans themselves," he said.
"But it is also a question of our credibility - of whether we support the dismantling of this American camp or not."
|
|
