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.

That also seems a bit callous. Why not house our own criminals on some other
island nation? We could have another Australia!

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.

But not criminal level due process.

Until the SCOTUS decision, US juris prudence and protections DID NOT extend to everyone in the world.

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?

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.

No it won't. It never has. Our enemies have never blinked at the Geneva convention. Its utopian nonsense to believe that.

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.

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.

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.

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...........

Mod Mode on

OK this threads getting hostile. I'm going to shut it down to avoid flaming from either side.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, it looks like Obama's already signed an executive order to close Guantanamo.

Here is the link.

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.

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.

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.