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.

 Ouze wrote:

I think you forgot the word "allegedly" in there somewhere. Unless, of course, you're trying to say that US government employees - the same ones you scream about being too incompetent to run a lemonade stand, let alone healthcare, immigration, embassy security, or the IRS - could never make a mistake, such as, say, grabbing the wrong guy because he has a similar name.

I'm sure they're right about these guys, though. We can trust the employees of the US government.

A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time! Guilt by (name) association! Blame the victim!


I'm done now.

 whembly wrote:
I have a question to those who served in active warzones...

Since Guantanamo is a touchy subject, how would you feel that instead of holding them indefinitately, that they're released back in their home country. Even if they go back to actively fighting you?

A lot of them have been released. A lot of them have gone back to fighting us. There's atleast a hundred so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_alleged_to_have_returned_to_terrorism

We've also got an issue with a lot of these peoples countries just refuse to take them back as well.

 Easy E wrote:
Free to be you and me.... except you are not free. You are in Guantanamo indefintiely.

Besides, everyone knows the United States was founded on the principles of Thomas Hobbes!

Calvin and Hobbes? Where's my transmogrifier!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Free for me. Evil feren devils shooting at US troops, not so much.

I think you forgot the word "allegedly" in there somewhere. Unless, of course, you're trying to say that US government employees - the same ones you scream about being too incompetent to run a lemonade stand, let alone healthcare, immigration, embassy security, or the IRS - could never make a mistake, such as, say, grabbing the wrong guy because he has a similar name.

I'm sure they're right about these guys, though. We can trust the employees of the US government.

Meh who cares?

The bedwetting terror that the GOP has displayed over bringing them to America is only laughable to the point where you realize the real reason is because we tortured these men and they would be released in our court of law.

Release them into Compton. Give them white robes to wear when you let them out the car. Sounds like a plan.

Funny for being GOP terror it passed both houses

 Frazzled wrote:

Funny for being GOP terror it passed both houses

GOP's done a pretty bang up job keeping them out of american prisons, got to be those muslim super powers they're packing.

 Grundz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Funny for being GOP terror it passed both houses

GOP's done a pretty bang up job keeping them out of american prisons, got to be those muslim super powers they're packing.

O.o

You do know that the President can simply close the prison and release them...right?

 whembly wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Funny for being GOP terror it passed both houses

GOP's done a pretty bang up job keeping them out of american prisons, got to be those muslim super powers they're packing.

O.o

You do know that the President can simply close the prison and release them...right?

CLose prison, march them forward 800 yards. Problem, solution?

prisoners who have been designated as too dangerous to release but who can't be prosecuted.

I do not understand this.

Would you let out Lex Luthor?

 Fafnir wrote:

prisoners who have been designated as too dangerous to release but who can't be prosecuted.

I do not understand this.

The evidence provided cannot be admissible to court because of torture, therefore they would go free.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Free for me. Evil feren devils shooting at US troops, not so much.

I think you forgot the word "allegedly" in there somewhere. Unless, of course, you're trying to say that US government employees - the same ones you scream about being too incompetent to run a lemonade stand, let alone healthcare, immigration, embassy security, or the IRS - could never make a mistake, such as, say, grabbing the wrong guy because he has a similar name.

I'm sure they're right about these guys, though. We can trust the employees of the US government.

Meh who cares?

Presumably the individuals being detained without trial, indefinitely? Their friends, families, people with notions of fairness and freedom and people worried by the precedent this might be setting...

If they are filthy terrorists, then by all means unleash terrible draconian punishment upon them, but we must have some form of trial first, not just snatch people off the street and put them away on a whim.

Good grief, you and others here are always on about big government and abuse of power and when it's shown and indicated to be a really serious thing, your answer is 'well they're brown foreigners so who cares'...

I care, a great deal, that there must be due process, there must be accountability. At the very least, to establish we're snatching up the right people.

 Grundz wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

prisoners who have been designated as too dangerous to release but who can't be prosecuted.

I do not understand this.

The evidence provided cannot be admissible to court because of torture, therefore they would go free.

Maybe the administrative powers should have thought of that before they decided to torture them then?

If you are buying into it that the only thing we have on them has been obtained by "torture".

1. You have no proof they were tortured, just smoke out your ass.

2. They are enemy combatants. We can keep them until the war is over. As soon as Al Qaeda is done the war is over. until then, oh well.

 djones520 wrote:
If you are buying into it that the only thing we have on them has been obtained by "torture".

Which is the schizophrenia showing again. Either it's NOT torture, which we keep getting told, so you should be able to prosecute them of something, or it is, which means that the US Goverment has been torturing humans for information.

That's not the real justification though is it?

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If you are buying into it that the only thing we have on them has been obtained by "torture".

Which is the schizophrenia showing again. Either it's NOT torture, which we keep getting told, so you should be able to prosecute them of something, or it is, which means that the US Goverment has been torturing humans for information.

Your conflating terrorism with crime. Its a common democrat mistake.

 Frazzled wrote:


Your conflating terrorism with crime. Its a common democrat mistake.

Wow. That's quite literally the first time anyone's ever conflated me into the democrat category. Republican, generally. Libertarian, sometimes. Democrat? This is genuinely I think the first time.

It pleases me to be the first!

 Frazzled wrote:
terrorism

I've probably heard this word every day since I was 10.

Is there anything under the law that provides for a war with 'no quarter given?' I mean, if they kill 100% of American/British POWs (which they do) then they are no longer afforded protections under the law of armed conflict and can be interrogated, tortured, and executed. It's a dick move, arguably, but it is not illegal.

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If you are buying into it that the only thing we have on them has been obtained by "torture".

Which is the schizophrenia showing again. Either it's NOT torture, which we keep getting told, so you should be able to prosecute them of something, or it is, which means that the US Goverment has been torturing humans for information.

US Soldiers are not Law Enforcement officials. As such anything that was obtained for a lot of these people on the battlefield would be inadmissable in a US Court.

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If you are buying into it that the only thing we have on them has been obtained by "torture".

Which is the schizophrenia showing again. Either it's NOT torture, which we keep getting told, so you should be able to prosecute them of something, or it is, which means that the US Goverment has been torturing humans for information.

US Soldiers are not Law Enforcement officials. As such anything that was obtained for a lot of these people on the battlefield would be inadmissable in a US Court.

Interesting. So we've literally rounded up these people and have nothing to do with them?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
terrorism

I've probably heard this word every day since I was 10.

Hell, you can't even see a movie without hearing about terrorists.

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If you are buying into it that the only thing we have on them has been obtained by "torture".

Which is the schizophrenia showing again. Either it's NOT torture, which we keep getting told, so you should be able to prosecute them of something, or it is, which means that the US Goverment has been torturing humans for information.

US Soldiers are not Law Enforcement officials. As such anything that was obtained for a lot of these people on the battlefield would be inadmissable in a US Court.

There you go.

We have some wild game reserves here. We could import some lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) and release them into the wild.

 Frazzled wrote:
2. They are enemy combatants. We can keep them until the war is over. As soon as Al Qaeda is done the war is over. until then, oh well.

How convenient that we've declared war on an ideology rather than a specific enemy that could ever be defeated. As long as someone uses the name Al Qaeda, no matter how little they have to do with the original group we declared war on, the war can continue forever! And really, since this is a war on terrorism as long as there's a single terrorist left in the world the war and all of those wartime emergency powers can continue forever!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Is there anything under the law that provides for a war with 'no quarter given?' I mean, if they kill 100% of American/British POWs (which they do) then they are no longer afforded protections under the law of armed conflict and can be interrogated, tortured, and executed. It's a dick move, arguably, but it is not illegal.

Let's just ignore the possibility of the prisoners not being one of "them". After all, if our enemies don't care about the law why should we care about silly things like not torturing and executing innocent people?

Getting a little tired of all this moral high ground stuff regarding torture. When you're conducting a military campaign against an enemy you need data from people you capture. How do you get that data from hardened terrorists if not through torture? Hugs and giggles?

 Breotan wrote:
Getting a little tired of all this moral high ground stuff regarding torture. When you're conducting a military campaign against an enemy you need data from people you capture. How do you get that data from hardened terrorists if not through torture? Hugs and giggles?

Nah... we'll just feed 'em the most wonderful food on the planet:

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If you are buying into it that the only thing we have on them has been obtained by "torture".

Which is the schizophrenia showing again. Either it's NOT torture, which we keep getting told, so you should be able to prosecute them of something, or it is, which means that the US Goverment has been torturing humans for information.

US Soldiers are not Law Enforcement officials. As such anything that was obtained for a lot of these people on the battlefield would be inadmissable in a US Court.

So you're saying they would be tried in us court and not a tribunal? What do do you think judge judy will rule in that reality?