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.

Where does it say they weren't?
OK I'll give and say captured on raids and other activities as well. They weren't sitting eating a quarter pounder at Whataburger.

Where does it say they weren't isn't a very good answer frazz'.

 Frazzled wrote:
Where does it say they weren't?
OK I'll give and say captured on raids and other activities as well. They weren't sitting eating a quarter pounder at Whataburger.

It doesn't matter where they were or what they were doing. They have a right to challenge their detentions, have a trial or at least a tribunal, and get sentenced appropriate to what they allegedly did.

I have no bleeding heart for these guys: if there is evidence they committed war crimes, and were sentenced to death after a tribunal, I'd be A-OK with that. That would be justice. Their lives, I don't care about.

But the idea we're a nation that lives by the rule of law is quite important to me and to be honest I thought it was to you too.

 Frazzled wrote:

If a state had stolen 10 years of my life and spent that time torturing me I think I might give a thought to fighting against them if I were ever to be freed too...

So you agree with me. Excellent.

No, but I entirely understand why someone would go on from this and actually do the things that got them kidnapped in the first place.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Where does it say they weren't?
OK I'll give and say captured on raids and other activities as well. They weren't sitting eating a quarter pounder at Whataburger.

It doesn't matter where they were or what they were doing. They have a right to challenge their detentions, have a trial or at least a tribunal, and get sentenced appropriate to what they allegedly did.

I have no bleeding heart for these guys: if there is evidence they committed war crimes, and were sentenced to death after a tribunal, I'd be A-OK with that. That would be justice. Their lives, I don't care about.

But the idea we're a nation that lives by the rule of law is quite important to me and to be honest I thought it was to you too.

When did we started living by the rule of law?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

If a state had stolen 10 years of my life and spent that time torturing me I think I might give a thought to fighting against them if I were ever to be freed too...

So you agree with me. Excellent.

No, but I entirely understand why someone would go on from this and actually do the things that got them kidnapped in the first place.

thereofre its prudent to keep them safely locked awy. Alternatively, and to link in a few threads, dump them in the middle of a furry convention. Oh the shennanigans that will ensue.

 Frazzled wrote:
thereofre its prudent to keep them safely locked awy. Alternatively, and to link in a few threads, dump them in the middle of a furry convention. Oh the shennanigans that will ensue.

Or maybe, you know, not do it in the first place and actually try to behave like a civilised nation?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
thereofre its prudent to keep them safely locked awy. Alternatively, and to link in a few threads, dump them in the middle of a furry convention. Oh the shennanigans that will ensue.

Or maybe, you know, not do it in the first place and actually try to behave like a civilised nation?

1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.
2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
thereofre its prudent to keep them safely locked awy. Alternatively, and to link in a few threads, dump them in the middle of a furry convention. Oh the shennanigans that will ensue.

Or maybe, you know, not do it in the first place and actually try to behave like a civilised nation?

1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.
2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.

Frazz, so will letting people have guns, or knives, or tools, or cars.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.

You mean like poking the hornets nest by constantly invading half of the middle east, propping up "freedom fighters" all over the world and watching them then decide that they actually would rather start blowing you up instead?

Not having places like Guantanamo increases your risk exactly 0%.

2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?

Prisoners of war don't require a trial either.

1.) They're alleged terrorists. They have never been tried for anything, let alone convicted. They've had no chance to show evidence they're even the right person, let alone guilty of what they allegedly did. This is the same administration that brought us Fast & The Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS scandal, btw - you seemed a lot less trusting of their competence in those threads. I'm sure they made no mistakes here though!

2.) Prisoners of war also have rights that have not been accorded to these guys, either. So maybe not a great example.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that anyone there has been wrongfully accused of being a terrorist or having ties to a terror group?

There's as much proof they are rightfully accused as they are wrongfully accused, i.e. none. We scooped these guys up, claimed they were terrorists, and threw them in a hole for 12 years. We can't even try them now, because of course they got tortured and any evidence is now inadmissable.

Are you really good with this? That the President of the United States can just point at someone, go "he's a terrorist", and boom, off you got into some extrajudicial gulag, without any rights or oversight? You don't see any concerns there?

I should remind you that "Innocent until proven Guilty" only applies to people we are trying in the US or that are US citizens.

You may feel it should apply to everyone on the planet, but it actually doesn't.

So only suspected Terrorists who are US citizens actually deserve a trial under US law.


I'm not necessarily "good with this", but I'm not going to pretend I actually give a rat's sphincter about these particular individuals in question.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
America: Land of Freedom*

*you won't be free if your being free might in any way shape or form possibly cause harm, even if we are in the wrong and you are in the right

Works for me.

Then I guess all gun owners have to go to jail .

The difference of course is that the Gitmo detainees aren't US citizens who were caught on the battlefield. *


*Here's where Frazzled quits caring.

Reading your posts makes me ashamed to have been a soldier sworn to defend the citizenry of the United States.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.

You mean like poking the hornets nest by constantly invading half of the middle east, propping up "freedom fighters" all over the world and watching them then decide that they actually would rather start blowing you up instead?

Not having places like Guantanamo increases your risk exactly 0%.

2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.

You're right. we should not have left anyone behind in the first place. If only Gitmo hadn't magically appeared forcing us to launch WWIII without any reason whatsoever, there would be no terrorism, just peace and happiness and bacon. America truly the world's most evil villain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
America: Land of Freedom*

*you won't be free if your being free might in any way shape or form possibly cause harm, even if we are in the wrong and you are in the right

Works for me.

Then I guess all gun owners have to go to jail .

The difference of course is that the Gitmo detainees aren't US citizens who were caught on the battlefield. *


*Here's where Frazzled quits caring.

Reading your posts makes me ashamed to have been a soldier sworn to defend the citizenry of the United States.

Then my job is done. Time to light up a cuban and drink some nice Stolichnoya.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I should remind you that "Guilty until proven innocent" only applies to people we are trying in the US or that are US citizens.

Surely you mean innocent until proven guilty?

You may feel it should apply to everyone on the planet, but it actually doesn't.

So only suspected Terrorists who are US citizens actually deserve a trial under US law.

Actually, if a crime is commited against America/American citizens and the suspect is remanded into US custody they would be tried under US law, regardless of what that crime was. If the nation where the person was aprehended did not agree to transfer the person into the care of the US, they could be tried in the country where they were arrested, or released, or even protected (depends on what that country feels like doing).

You seem to have a really poor grasp of American and international law...

I'm not necessarily "good with this", but I'm not going to pretend I actually give a rat's sphincter about these particular individuals in question.

"They came for the people who had dark skin, beards and funny accents and I said nothing, as I was not one of those sorts of people... wait a second? Where did everyone go and why are you taking me?!?!"

Man, I would swear up and down I typed those in the correct order

 Grey Templar wrote:
Man, I would swear up and down I typed those in the correct order

You were possessed by the spirit of Gul Dukat and applied the more correct Cardassian legal standard.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.

So do a lot of other things that we do under the rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Imagine:

*police arrest a random black guy for a murder because it's easier than finding the real killer*
Police: "you're clearly guilty of something, so we'll just put you in jail forever."
Victim: "but there's no evidence! I'm innocent!"
Police: "we don't care, it would increase the risk to our citizens if we let you out."
Victim: "but the constitution says you can't do this!"
Police: "oops, you're right."
*police move the suspect to an offshore prison facility that is outside of US territory*

 Grey Templar wrote:
I should remind you that "Innocent until proven Guilty" only applies to people we are trying in the US or that are US citizens.

And this argument depends on the ridiculous technicality that we can have people in US prisons that are entirely under US control, but because we put those prisons outside our border they don't count as being "in the US".

You may feel it should apply to everyone on the planet, but it actually doesn't.

Obviously it shouldn't apply to everyone on the planet, because there are other countries with their own justice systems. But this isn't a case of letting other countries take care of their own business, it's a case of claiming judicial authority over a group of people while simultaneously claiming that they aren't part of our system. If the US justice system doesn't apply to these people then we shouldn't be holding them in US prisons.

I'm not necessarily "good with this", but I'm not going to pretend I actually give a rat's sphincter about these particular individuals in question.

Yeah, who cares if they might be innocent (or at least only guilty of lesser crimes that don't deserve this kind of punishment), we'll just call them "terrorists" and assume that any "terrorist" is an inhuman monster that deserves whatever happens to them.

Some serious mental disconnect going on when people pretend that US laws don't give protections to the same people that are prosecuted under US laws.

Our laws either apply or they don't, picking and choosing like this is just stupid.

Nobody is claiming they're being prosecuted under US law.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?

In the goddamn Constitution of the United States of America. Right after the bit about not depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nobody is claiming they're being prosecuted under US law.

So they were arrested and held for 12 years with no legal authority of any kind?

Yeah, but that doesn't matter apparently because someone said they were terrorists.

I mean, their word is definitely good enough for me. Because you should always trust the Government. (Except about healthcare!)

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?

In the goddamn Constitution of the United States of America. Right after the bit about not depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The Constitution doesn't apply to these people.

What is being applied to them would be an undefined legal authority held by the US government to protect the people of the US.

I think we should write up a better defined code for dealing with Terrorists than what we currently are doing, but just shoehorning them into the existing system wouldn't work.

They are either covered under US laws or they aren't, it's not shoehorning them into any system.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Constitution doesn't apply to these people.

Then what legal system does? If they're not being held under US civilian law or as prisoners of war then what authority does the US have? Why are they in US prisons instead of free or turned over to some other country's legal system? The obvious answer here is that the US legal system should apply to them, but we've declared that it doesn't because it's much more convenient to to just decide that people are guilty and put them in prison without a trial.

What is being applied to them would be an undefined legal authority held by the US government to protect the people of the US.

It must be nice to be able to invent these things whenever it is convenient. "The existing laws are inconvenient, let's just make new ones that let us do whatever we want". Why even have laws at all if the government is allowed to ignore them whenever it feels like it?

I think we should write up a better defined code for dealing with Terrorists than what we currently are doing, but just shoehorning them into the existing system wouldn't work.

Sure it would. Most acts of terrorism (and all violent acts of terrorism) are already crimes, so people suspected of those crimes can be dealt with by the civilian court system. When people say that it "wouldn't work" what they really mean is that it would take away the ability to arbitrarily declare a person guilty and punish them, and people the US government has declared to be Bad People might be found innocent.

It's interesting territory legally.

Uh... I have no problem with the release.

If they can't/won't be charged, then release them.

Besides... more potential target practice for our drone operators.

Or... maybe they were implanted with tracking/homing devices internally. (okay... I keed. I need to stop watch spy movies).

 whembly wrote:
Uh... I have no problem with the release.

If they can't/won't be charged, then release them.

Besides... more potential target practice for our drone operators.

Or... maybe they were implanted with tracking/homing devices internally. (okay... I keed. I need to stop watch spy movies).

I did think about that to be honest.
GPS tag everyone you capture, let them go and just watch where they go.
Leave the innocent ones alone and watch the others.
For an added bonus the government declares they are not formally under US law and therefore have to be released to the government under whose jurisdiction the offence took place and then they have a trial (Some released, others aren't, doesn't need to be fixed.) which appeases a lot of the legal issues.
Then follow them.
If they're only a footsoldier just bomb wherever he ends up into oblivion, if they're something a bit more follow them and then bomb the more important places into oblivion.

That said, i'm not totally sure it'd be legal...

Whether that matters at all is another question.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?

In the goddamn Constitution of the United States of America. Right after the bit about not depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The Constitution doesn't apply to these people.

Why do you hate America?

Are they people? Then the constitution applies. There is no footnote in the Bill of Rights that says "* Unless they are terrorists", let alone "* Unless they are accused without evidence of being terrorists".

Terrorist is just the magical word politicians use these days to get what they want. Want to spy on your people or smash in their doors? Well we're protecting them from terrorists... Apparently there must be one of these Terrorists (I'm not sure they know what that words means...) under every bed, as countries seems to be endlessly creating new laws in order to protect us from them (I wonder how many domestic terrorist attacks happen every year in the West compared to your every day shooting sprees or gang violence).

Terrorist is our generations "communist".