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.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh yes, more pointless legalism. You know, if your ethical system goes beyond legalism you recognize the fundamental point involved and don't argue the technicality that one piece of paper doesn't officially apply to them.

Look, when you get out of college and hit the real world, I think you're going to find that your ethical system doesn't actually change the law all that much. At all, in fact. You can make an argument about a hypothetical - applying the standard we use for enemy combatants to American citizens on trial for ordinary crimes - but because we know, legally, that can't happen, it's entirely moot.

I have no problem with treating citizens of foreign countries that took up arms against us as though they're not citizens or residents of this country who have not taken up arms against us. To shriek that they're all deserving of the same constitutional protections is correct from neither a legal nor a moral standpoint.

 Ouze wrote:
The fact anyone would argue against this just amazing.

FOR torture

QFT.

There are very few things I cna think of that are just categorically wrong and anti-American. This is one of them.

The fact that anyone would even argue for torture is appalling. I don't care who you are advocating for torture, you are wrong.

I'm sure the one that was captured at 14 and is still there has always been a serious threat to mankind and keeping him detained indefinitely is the only way to protect us from his mind melting powers

 Grundz wrote:
I'm sure the one that was captured at 14 and is still there has always been a serious threat to mankind and keeping him detained indefinitely is the only way to protect us from his mind melting powers

A 14 year old can definitely shoot an AK.

 Grundz wrote:
I'm sure the one that was captured at 14 and is still there has always been a serious threat to mankind and keeping him detained indefinitely is the only way to protect us from his mind melting powers

Well why don't you write the government offering to take him into your home and rehabilitate him.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
I'm sure the one that was captured at 14 and is still there has always been a serious threat to mankind and keeping him detained indefinitely is the only way to protect us from his mind melting powers

A 14 year old can definitely shoot an AK.

if youtube is any indicator, so can a chimp

I dont /think/ we're incarcerating chimps on shakey legal grounds

Chimps aren't shooting at US soldiers. These guys were actively trying to Americans.

 Frazzled wrote:
Chimps aren't shooting at US soldiers. These guys were actively trying to Americans.

And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

 Grundz wrote:
And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

Prisoners of war aren't detained enemy combatants, and these guys aren't prisoners of war.

Edit: The worst thing about Gitmo is that we're going to have to keep having the same arguments each successive year as somebody else graduates high school and suddenly starts paying attention to the news and believes they've figured out the perfect loophole argument to shut the place down.

 Seaward wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

Prisoners of war aren't detained enemy combatants, and these guys aren't prisoners of war.

Edit: The worst thing about Gitmo is that we're going to have to keep having the same arguments each successive year as somebody else graduates high school and suddenly starts paying attention to the news and believes they've figured out the perfect loophole argument to shut the place down.

What this guy said.

 Seaward wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

Prisoners of war aren't detained enemy combatants, and these guys aren't prisoners of war.

His perquisite was that they were shooting at soldiers, which is separate from their status as enemy combatants, I'm pretty well aware of the invented status of the prisoners that negates any rule we don't want to apply to them.

Well I'm sure some of them tried to blow up soldiers and such. I was just being general.

That 14 year old frag a US Soldier deader then Hell. Think the same 14 year old was brought in last thread about this to.

Seaward wrote:Look, when you get out of college and hit the real world

Seaward wrote: The worst thing about Gitmo is that we're going to have to keep having the same arguments each successive year as somebody else graduates high school and suddenly starts paying attention to the news

When you don't have an argument, bang the table, I guess.

Hopefully sometime tomorrow you're dismissing people's arguments by claiming it all seems pretty cut & dried in the middle school playground, but out here in the real world, etc etc.

 Jihadin wrote:
That 14 year old frag a US Soldier deader then Hell. Think the same 14 year old was brought in last thread about this to.

and that makes him some sort of super villain incapable of being tried, sentenced, and shot?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished like DJ wants to think, I'm just saying they should be processed. Sure, one guy got killed, thats sad, but the other side continues to use our internationally illegal prison camp as a rallying cry to kill more, thats measurably worse.

 Grundz wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
That 14 year old frag a US Soldier deader then Hell. Think the same 14 year old was brought in last thread about this to.

and that makes him some sort of super villain incapable of being tried, sentenced, and shot?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished like DJ wants to think, I'm just saying they should be processed. Sure, one guy got killed, thats sad, but the other side continues to use our internationally illegal prison camp as a rallying cry to kill more, thats measurably worse.

I love all these words your throwing around like they mean something. "Internationall illegal prison camp" That's a good one.

Do believe there was no trial but is held as an enemy combatant. So how should we process them? UCMJ or regular court system. Since there are no funds to transport them to the US for trial we have to send everyone to GITMO...you know....Fed Judge, civilian lawyers, and jurors. Since that cost a shiny penny. Not going to happen. I'm jaded against this 14 yrs old anyway. Been quite a few Keffi I removed from expired shooters that haven't even first shaved yet.

edit
14 yrs old kid was lucky he wasn't killed off the bat

 Grundz wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
That 14 year old frag a US Soldier deader then Hell. Think the same 14 year old was brought in last thread about this to.

and that makes him some sort of super villain incapable of being tried, sentenced, and shot?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished like DJ wants to think, I'm just saying they should be processed. Sure, one guy got killed, thats sad, but the other side continues to use our internationally illegal prison camp as a rallying cry to kill more, thats measurably worse.

Even before Guantanamo Bay was being used as "an internationally illegal prison camp", they had a rallying cry to kill more Americans.

That will not change. The only change if Guantanamo Bay is closed is what the rallying cry will be.

Does it seem interesting to anyone else that we have legal provision to kill people in other countries, but we have no legal provision apparently to try people from other countries?

Wouldn't matter what the rallying cry be or if GITMO close down eventually. It won't change. Your American. Your going to killed because your an American. Difference between me and you on being killed by the terrorists/insurgents. They won't advertise my killing on video

 Kanluwen wrote:
That will not change. The only change if Guantanamo Bay is closed is what the rallying cry will be.

I agree with the latter element of your post, but don't see that as a reason to keep it open. "Well, they're gonna hate us anyway, right?"

I also don't agree with the idea that we need to keep them, forever, without ever giving them a chance to contest their charges, because plane tickets are expensive. Even in a world without Skype, videoconferencing (or, presumably, there is some US government app that works half as well and cost the taxpayers $500 million a year) I don't buy the argument it's OK to keep doing the wrong thing because the right thing is inconvenient.

So far as trial vs UCMJ, I used to get really upset about tribunals but have come to think they might be the best possible of poor options for these types of combatants. But, jesus, guys, we gave the Nazis trials.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
That 14 year old frag a US Soldier deader then Hell. Think the same 14 year old was brought in last thread about this to.

and that makes him some sort of super villain incapable of being tried, sentenced, and shot?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished like DJ wants to think, I'm just saying they should be processed. Sure, one guy got killed, thats sad, but the other side continues to use our internationally illegal prison camp as a rallying cry to kill more, thats measurably worse.

I love all these words your throwing around like they mean something. "Internationall illegal prison camp" That's a good one.

Illegal internaitonal prison camp - someone has finally identified Liechtenstein!

 Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
That will not change. The only change if Guantanamo Bay is closed is what the rallying cry will be.

I agree with the latter element of your post, but don't see that as a reason to keep it open. "Well, they're gonna hate us anyway, right?"

I also don't agree with the idea that we need to keep them, forever, without ever giving them a chance to contest their charges, because plane tickets are expensive. Even in a world without Skype, videoconferencing (or, presumably, there is some US government app that works half as well and cost the taxpayers $500 million a year) I don't buy the argument it's OK to keep doing the wrong thing because the right thing is inconvenient.

So far as trial vs UCMJ, I used to get really upset about tribunals but have come to think they might be the best possible of poor options for these types of combatants. But, jesus, guys, we gave the Nazis trials.

The Nazi's were uniformed soldiers of an internationally recognized country, as such afforded those protections.

These guys aren't. Quite frankly, I'd have been content with just putting a round in their head as opposed to wasting all of this money.

 djones520 wrote:
The Nazi's were uniformed soldiers of an internationally recognized country, as such afforded those protections.

And the ones that weren't such still got such protections. I'm sure you're familiar with this.

Can't shoot them in the back of the head. Bullets are hitting over a dollar. 550 cord no more then four foot in length. Hang them. Cheaper due to budget cuts and can cut the four foot 550 cord into two four foot pieces to bind their hands and ankles together to keep from flopping around. Let the sharks have a "Feast" day since the wild life has to eat to.

Edit
Not going to click on that link yet. I want to guess. We talking about the guy that ran the German industries during the war?

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The Nazi's were uniformed soldiers of an internationally recognized country, as such afforded those protections.

And the ones that weren't such still got such protections. I'm sure you're familiar with this.

You mean the spies???

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The Nazi's were uniformed soldiers of an internationally recognized country, as such afforded those protections.

And the ones that weren't such still got such protections. I'm sure you're familiar with this.

Arrested by US Law Enforecement on US soil. Not at all similar situation. This is more like the underwear bomber. Look what happened to him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Can't shoot them in the back of the head. Bullets are hitting over a dollar. 550 cord no more then four foot in length. Hang them. Cheaper due to budget cuts and can cut the four foot 550 cord into two four foot pieces to bind their hands and ankles together to keep from flopping around. Let the sharks have a "Feast" day since the wild life has to eat to.

Edit
Not going to click on that link yet. I want to guess. We talking about the guy that ran the German industries during the war?

Nope, the 8 germans dropped off by sub in the US to sabatoge our industry.

 djones520 wrote:
Arrested by US Law Enforecement on US soil. Not at all similar situation.

They were also classified as "enemy combatants". They did not go before a civilian court. Maybe you should read the link after all.

I will but wanted to guess first lol

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The Nazi's were uniformed soldiers of an internationally recognized country, as such afforded those protections.

And the ones that weren't such still got such protections. I'm sure you're familiar with this.

They weren't scary Muslims though, so it is totally different.