US releases 6 Guantanamo detainees to Uruguay

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.

**Bromsy**

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.

That was mean, cancel. I don't like captain Britain though, needs a beard.

**Dropbear Victim**

What I don't understand is how a "terrorist" doesn't count as a prisoner of war when the USA has the "War on Terror".

**Bromsy**

Dropbear Victim wrote:
What I don't understand is how a "terrorist" doesn't count as a prisoner of war when the USA has the "War on Terror".

For the same reason that a drug dealer doesn't count as a prisoner of war when the USA has a "War on Drugs". Colloquial naming conventions do not equal legal status.

**Peregrine**

Dropbear Victim wrote:
What I don't understand is how a "terrorist" doesn't count as a prisoner of war when the USA has the "War on Terror".

Because a war depends on having a declaration of war, something only congress can do. We've replaced this inconvenience with the much more efficient approach of having the president issue a "go bomb these people, but don't explicitly call it a war" executive order.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlexHolker wrote:
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".

This isn't really accurate. There are a lot of people that the US constitution doesn't apply to. For example, if you commit a crime in your home country (which, according to your flag, is not the US) you can't claim your 5th amendment right to remain silent. The issue here isn't that there are people that don't get any of the benefits of the US constitution and legal system, it's that we've placed certain people under our jurisdiction (holding them in US prisons, allowing the US government to decide their fate, etc) but simultaneously claim that they aren't part of our system. In normal criminal cases we would have a choice between trying the accused under the US legal system or deporting them and letting their home country deal with them. But if we say the magic "t" word we're apparently allowed to create a third status, where we get to do whatever we feel like with them and no laws apply.

**Ouze**

I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.

And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.

**Talon of Anathrax**

streamdragon wrote:
Talon of Anathrax wrote:
Yeah I would fight them too... In the media and the courts.
The situation in guantanamo is an outrage (and should be for a nation like the US that likes to pretend it has the moral high ground).
Anyway, the main problem with your point is the fact that if the US government hadn't made Guantanamo in the first place this would not be a problem (and terrorism wouldn't be one either.)

@bolded: you are surely not suggesting that terrorism came about because of Gitmo? I mean, that would require literal amounts of willful ignorance. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you?

As to the article, Gitmo's mere existence should be offensive to Americans. If these people are criminals, prove it and be done with them. If they're not, there's no reason to hold them. We shouldn't be holding people for a decade or more with on charges, no rights and no repercussions. It's grotesque.

Yes, you are.
I was suggesting that the main reason to the amblitude of terrorism against the US is the US government's foreign policy.

But I totally agree with your next point!

**AlexHolker**

Peregrine wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:
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".

This isn't really accurate. There are a lot of people that the US constitution doesn't apply to. For example, if you commit a crime in your home country (which, according to your flag, is not the US) you can't claim your 5th amendment right to remain silent. The issue here isn't that there are people that don't get any of the benefits of the US constitution and legal system, it's that we've placed certain people under our jurisdiction (holding them in US prisons, allowing the US government to decide their fate, etc) but simultaneously claim that they aren't part of our system. In normal criminal cases we would have a choice between trying the accused under the US legal system or deporting them and letting their home country deal with them. But if we say the magic "t" word we're apparently allowed to create a third status, where we get to do whatever we feel like with them and no laws apply.

To be precise, the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, but are not binding against every government. If I commit a crime in Australia I am guaranteed the protections of the United States Constitution, but only against the various governments of the United States. The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.

**Ketara**

AlexHolker wrote:
The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.

Unless you live in Pakistan. Or Syria. Or any other country that America doesn't like or respect much.Then all bets are off.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

d-usa wrote:
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.

Exactly. Next time I'm on holiday in the USA, I'm going on a crime spree, and when the police come for me, I'll laugh and say, I'm not American, your laws don't apply to me!

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.

And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.

You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:
The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.

Unless you live in Pakistan. Or Syria. Or any other country that America doesn't like or respect much.Then all bets are off.

Except for New Zealand. All you have to do is get there, touch the ground and shout "SAFE!" Hey I don't make the rules, I just play the game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
d-usa wrote:
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.

Exactly. Next time I'm on holiday in the USA, I'm going on a crime spree, and when the police come for me, I'll laugh and say, I'm not American, your laws don't apply to me!

I suggest you go all out. Wear a redcoat uniform. When the police come demand inform them that Her Majesty has sent you...

**MeanGreenStompa**

Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.

And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.

You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.

Psst...

Letting people stay in the country does not equate to setting up internment camps where internationally condemned torture is being carried out...

Sorry, I meant 'does not equate' for rational people, some might have a partisan (or other) agenda so strong they can actually delude themselves it's the same thing.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.

And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.

You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.

Although I'm aware I am now playing a rousing game of off-topic #whataboutism at this point, I nonetheless would love to see a citation for where I allegedly "supported Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration".

AlexHolker wrote:
To be precise, the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, but are not binding against every government. If I commit a crime in Australia I am guaranteed the protections of the United States Constitution, but only against the various governments of the United States. The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.

President Obama has argued, and done, exactly that several times.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.

Obama's EO didn't violate any Federal law. Greg Abbott wants that to be the case, but it didn't and it shows because he had to make a vague appeal to the "Do what I want you to do!" clause of the Constituion.

AlexHolker wrote:

To be precise, the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, but are not binding against every government. If I commit a crime in Australia I am guaranteed the protections of the United States Constitution, but only against the various governments of the United States. The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.

The protections of the US Constitution apply only to US citizens and people residing in the US, or its protectorates. If you, as an Australian citizen, commit a crime in Australia the US Constitution doesn't apply to you. It may apply to US action against you, but that's a matter of international law, international relations, and your identity.

**AlexHolker**

dogma wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:

To be precise, the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, but are not binding against every government. If I commit a crime in Australia I am guaranteed the protections of the United States Constitution, but only against the various governments of the United States. The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.

The protections of the US Constitution apply only to US citizens and people residing in the US, or its protectorates. If you, as an Australian citizen, commit a crime in Australia the US Constitution doesn't apply to you. It may apply to US action against you, but that's a matter of international law, international relations, and your identity.

Wrong. The US Constitution is a set of rules binding the governments of the United States: it tells them what they must do, and what they must not do. When it says that they must not do X against people, that's what it means: any people, with no room to weasel out by saying that some subset of "people" (such as foreigners or the fiction of unlawful combatants) are exempt.

**dogma**

AlexHolker wrote:

Wrong. The US Constitution is a set of rules binding the governments of the United States: it tells them what they must do, and what they must not do.

Binding the Federal Government of the US. Whether or not it binds the State and local governments of the US is up for debate.

AlexHolker wrote:

When it says that they must not do X against people, that's what it means: any people, with no room to weasel out by saying that some subset of "people" (such as foreigners or the fiction of unlawful combatants) are exempt.

If you commit a crime in Australia the US Federal Government has no responsibility to protect your self-assumed or acknowledged rights, and the US Constitution does not enshrine them absent the qualities I laid out. Natural rights follow from being a human, not from being a citizen of a particular State. This presents many problems for US detention practices, but not the one you have outlined.

**AlexHolker**

dogma wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:
Wrong. The US Constitution is a set of rules binding the governments of the United States: it tells them what they must do, and what they must not do.

Binding the Federal Government of the US. Whether or not it binds the State and local governments of the US is up for debate.

No, it is not up for debate. The Fourteenth Amendment even explicitly states that it binds them.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.

And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.

BENGHAZI IS A REAL FETHING SCANDAL!

There... better?

Anyways... we do have to be careful here guys/gals... the CIA and other intelligence operatives live in the legal grey area... and needs to in order to function. However, I will also say that there needs to be a limit and it is asinine to have indefinite detention.

**Da Boss**

Gitmo is a much, much greater scandal than Benghazi.

I doubt history will look kindly on America's extra-legal prison camps.

**dogma**

AlexHolker wrote:

No, it is not up for debate. The Fourteenth Amendment even explicitly states that it binds them.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly states that no State shall make or enforce a law which abridges the rights and privileges of US citizens. It does not explicitly state that US States are bound to the authority of the document, that only came about due to the doctrine of incorporation.

**Chongara**

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

Can you prove you aren't? Prove it to me right now.

**Psienesis**

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

Then why the feth are they sitting in a US-owned prison?

**Frazzled**

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

Then why the feth are they sitting in a US-owned prison?

sh...we prefer to call it a nonvoluntary beachfront community in the beautiful tropical paradise that is Cuba.

**Ouze**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.

Although I'm aware I am now playing a rousing game of off-topic #whataboutism at this point, I nonetheless would love to see a citation for where I allegedly "supported Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration"..

Still waiting on that cite, bruh

Alternately, you could admit you confused me with someone else in that Executive Order thread since in fact I actually agreed with you, opined that Bulldogs were great, and SNL isn't funny, and that's it.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.

Although I'm aware I am now playing a rousing game of off-topic #whataboutism at this point, I nonetheless would love to see a citation for where I allegedly "supported Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration"..

Still waiting on that cite, bruh

Alternately, you could admit you confused me with someone else in that Executive Order thread since in fact I actually agreed with you, opined that Bulldogs were great, and SNL isn't funny, and that's it.

Here ye here ye,

Know ye all that on this Day of our Lord, the 9th day of December, that Frazzled – Cheuffeur of the Great Wienie-didst institute and install this Writ of…Apologee to the Right and Honorable Sir Ouze, for questioning him on the point of Honor concerning the one named Obama.

Be warned all that this Writ of Apologee does not excuse either party from the field of battle should Honor be not sufficiently clarified, with whippy stick in hand until satisfaction is dealt by Sweet Fate herself.

**Jihadin**

US Drone operators applauds this release.

**Ouze**

The urge to print that post out on some fancy paper and frame it on my wall is enormous.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
The urge to print that post out on some fancy paper and frame it on my wall is enormous.

To add some zest imagine some British town crier ringing a bell in the public square, shouting it out, and hammering it on the door of the nearest church.

If you're going to apologize, do it right I say.

**Jihadin**

Last fiver that were release for Bergdahl

BAGRAM AIRFIELD — Following the release of five high-ranking Taliban operatives in exchange for American prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl two weeks ago, Air Force drone pilots have since been collectively champing at the bit, and according to several sources, are only “two Monsters and a Doritos binge” shy of working themselves into a “click-and-kill” frenzy.

With the drawdown in Afghanistan and surgical airstrikes fewer and further between, numerous drone pilots told reporters they enthusiastically approve of the Taliban detainee release. Many have lamented the lull in action and expressed a desire to return to the “good ol’ days downrange.”

“Nyah, listen here, nyah,” said Capt. Jeb Jacobs, slurping a glistening, six-inch string of drool back into his mouth, “I didn’t join up just to sit around in some chair all day!”

Jacobs, a Level 86 Blood Elf, then excused himself to resume a particularly arduous quest, explaining the importance of “stretching the legs and getting out and about in the World [of Warcraft].”

Sources at Bagram confirmed that upon news of the controversial prisoner exchange, drone pilots flooded the local MWR office in droves, seeking to purchase hunting tags in advance of Taliban season, a limited window of opportunity decreed only by the Commander-in-Chief. A dedicated 4chan forum has provided a haven where pilots aspiring to claim one of the coveted high-value targets can dispel rumors, swap embellished anecdotes, troll and Rickroll one another.

“You daggone right we ain’t gonna just sit around!” whooped Capt. Leroy Schaffer, barging in and knocking over his brimming spitter, excitedly waving a pair of red hunting tags. “We’s a gonna hunt us some Tal-EE-ban! Yee-yee!”

“YEE-YEE!”

“YEEEEEEEE-YEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

“YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

After several minutes of authentic backwoods gibberish and intermittent whoops and hollers, Jacobs and Schaffer broke out celebratory Monsters and shotgunned the energy drinks in each other’s faces.

“I’ve got a ragin’ freedom boner,” declared Jacobs.

“Me, too,” concurred Schaffer. “Let’s go wait for the Warden [Obama] to call.”

**Frazzled**

Thats choice.,

**Psienesis**

Just going to post this here. Though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Sen. McCain on, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the entire situation, and far more eloquently than I am ever likely to be.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1a15e343-66b0-473f-b0c1-a58f984db996