President Obama calls for a 120-day freeze on Guantanamo Bay prosecutions

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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?

**Frazzled**

See everything was successful. We now know the location of the infamous three blind mice

**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.

**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)

**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.

**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.

**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.

**dogma**

No better way to debunk a bad theory than by pointing out that it takes human sensibility as a given.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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."