What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?

[Kagemusha]

Let us not discuss if the war is illegal. Just why was it not declared. I may be a bit oldfashioned. But the US would have had no disadvantage. Everybody new they would attack. It was no surprise to Saddam.

I think its strance too.But far as i can remember there were not a formal peace treaty after the First Gulf War.or was there?

[Proletariat]

Tensions between Iraq and the US continued as ceasefire agreements were violated and UN weapons inspectors prevented from doing their job.

There was a ceasefire predicated on Iraq's obediance with the UN resolution.

link

[Kagemusha]

Yes.you are right.

[Proletariat]

Of course they went as far as firing upon US and I think maybe British planes, yet some still think this is an illegal war.

[Hurin_Rules]

I bet those slaves in the USA before the civil war had it great too. They got to work outside, smiling in the fields, pickin' cotton all day long, and they didn't have to worry about a single thing because their master took care of them. They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure, so everything must have been great for them. What a life! I wish I was a black slave in the early 1800's, that would be so great. I'm sure it was a dream, or, as Cheney said about the Gitmo detainees, 'they're living in the tropics' and have everthing a person could possibly want. So torture must be ok, since US soldiers live where there is worse weather and have a hard task at their voluntary basic training camps.

It all makes sense to me now.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So torture must be ok,

What torture?

They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure,

Only the name of the antagonist is different. Hey they didnt whip us in bootcamp. Trying to compare Gitmo with conditions on a slave plantation is as bad as Dick Durbin comparing it to a Soviet Gulag. Shame on you.

[Steppe Merc]

Actually, that's also a very old method of indoctrinating people. Treat them like dirt, force them to endure bad conditions, and then tell them how very tough and elite they are. Only the best can do what they've done, and now they're fine enough to stay in the best army there ever was. Everyone wants to feel special.

I suppose, especially since the soldiers don't have years of training. The best soldiers were ones that were forced into harshness by their enviornment, but years of training could also sufice, though not as well. But if you only have a certaint amount of time, it makes a bit of twisted sense to make it as harsh as possible.

I didnt volunter to be tortured but to serve my country. You dont imagine the stuff they do to you in basic or most wouldnt even go there. Besides that most peole were drafted when I was in. What do you say to those who were drafted then?

That is the government's fault, they are to blame for forcing people to go into the army, and it is their fault when those people suffer and die.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That is the government's fault, they are to blame for forcing people to go into the army, and it is their fault when those people suffer and die.

So what would you have done in WW2?

[Steppe Merc]

Perhaps it was necassary, I don' know enough about how many volenteers there were. But regardless, it is the government's responsibility and fault, even if it was neccassary.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Perhaps it was necassary, I don' know enough about how many volenteers there were. But regardless, it is the government's responsibility and fault, even if it was neccassary.

Obviously there werent enough. So what do you do if attacked then? Just let the otherside win?

[Steppe Merc]

I don't know. Hopefully people would volenteer if their own home was attacked. But whenever there is a draft, it is stil at the government's feet when one of the draftees is harmed. They forced them to be there, and it is still their responsibility, even if it was the lesser evil.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But whenever there is a draft, it is stil at the government's feet when one of the draftees is harmed. They forced them to be there, and it is still their responsibility, even if it was the lesser evil.

Fine and dandy but just like the democratic party you have no better alternative plan. You just complain.

[Redleg]

I think its strance too.But far as i can remember there were not a formal peace treaty after the First Gulf War.or was there?

No peace treaty - a cease fire that was signed by British and American Generals along with Iraq Generals. Along with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia representives.

I should know since I pulled security on the site where the cease fire was signed.

THe United Nations Resolution came after the cease fire signed by the three nations.

[Kagemusha]

No peace treaty - a cease fire that was signed by British and American Generals along with Iraq Generals. Along with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia representives.

I should know since I pulled security on the site where the cease fire was signed.

THe United Nations Resolution came after the cease fire signed by the three nations.

Thats what i call first hand information.

[PanzerJaeger]

I bet those slaves in the USA before the civil war had it great too. They got to work outside, smiling in the fields, pickin' cotton all day long, and they didn't have to worry about a single thing because their master took care of them. They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure, so everything must have been great for them. What a life! I wish I was a black slave in the early 1800's, that would be so great. I'm sure it was a dream, or, as Cheney said about the Gitmo detainees, 'they're living in the tropics' and have everthing a person could possibly want. So torture must be ok, since US soldiers live where there is worse weather and have a hard task at their voluntary basic training camps.

Wow - bringing up slavery to bash the US.. cheapness knows no bounds!

[Hurin_Rules]

Wow - bringing up slavery to bash the US.. cheapness knows no bounds!

Wow - comparing torture of prisoners to hazing at boot camp... the ludicrous analogies know no bounds!

[PanzerJaeger]

I know! The terrorists have it much easier.

[Goofball]

Okay, let's talk about the hardships of military training. In Canada, we do ten weeks of basic training and it's the same for everybody regardless of which branch of service or which trade the individual has chosen. Future airframe technicians, cooks, artillerymen, and musicians are all sent (at least when I did it) to scenic Cornwallis, Nova Scotia to learn how to salute, shine shoes, perform first aid, carry a rifle, and get yelled at a lot. I began my basic training in November, so I got to deal with a lovely Nova Scotia winter (alternately hail/sleet/snow on a daily basis). Our instructors used to think it was great fun to have us form up to be marched to breakfast without raingear, then make us stand at attention in the freezing rain for twenty minutes or so before they finally "remembered" we were outside.

After basic, individuals are separated out into their various trades and sent on for further training. For infantry (which I was doing), you were sent to one of three regimental battle schools for 16 weeks of fun. In my case, I was sent to lovely Wainwright, Alberta. I got the best of both worlds. Because my course started in late January and ran until May, I got to experience Wainwright in all its glory. First I got the winter wonderland version, with temperatures around -20 C, then we got late spring weather, where on some days it was 30C. Ah yes, fond memories: everything from bloody, frozen fingers trying to clear stoppages on the C6 machine gun, to actually going blind from dehydration for a short period at the end of a 5km endurance run through soft sand on a hot day carrying a full combat load.

Where am I going with this?

Silly as I am, I actually volunteered for all of that idiocy.

The Gitmo "customers" did not.

They have been given no due process, and are being held without evidence or charge.

You righties can accuse us lefties of coddling "terrorists" all you want, but until you offer any kind of proof (other than "they have brown skin, have read the Koran, and were in Afghanistan") that the Gitmo detainees are terrorists, you are only imprisoning innocent people.

[PanzerJaeger]

You righties can accuse us lefties of coddling "terrorists" all you want, but until you offer any kind of proof (other than "they have brown skin, have read the Koran, and were in Afghanistan") that the Gitmo detainees are terrorists, you are only imprisoning innocent people.

It is perfectly acceptable to hold enemy combatants during a time of war. Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial? The theater, the endless appeals, it would be a nightmare.

[Proletariat]

They have been given no due process, and are being held without evidence or charge.

CSI: Basra.

[Papewaio]

Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial?

Can you imagine the PR victory justice for all, all men are created equal regardless of race or creed would win if you actually walked the talk?

I thought the war in Afghanistan was won. I also thought the war in Iraq was done.

Another facet of justice is that it is timely and seen to be done. Picking and choosing when, who and how to apply justice is an oxymoron.

[Goofball]

CSI: Basra.

I'm trying to see any relevance of that comment to this thread. Wait! Got it:

None.

It is perfectly acceptable to hold enemy combatants during a time of war.

You haven't even proved that all of them are even enemy combatants, let alone terrorists. And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.

Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial? The theater, the endless appeals, it would be a nightmare.

Are you honestly suggesting that people should be held without trial forever because it would be "inconvenient" if they were put on trial?

Here's a newsflash for you:

The U.S. government is already losing the public relations battle vis-à-vis Gitmo quite badly. The best way for them to win it is to put these people on trial and prove their guilt in public.

[Proletariat]

I'm trying to see any relevance of that comment to this thread. Wait! Got it:

None.

Don't try to be cute. You aren't very good at it.

Are you implying these prisoners should all be treated to Criminal Trials?

[PanzerJaeger]

You haven't even proved that all of them are even enemy combatants, let alone terrorists.

How do you expect us to prove that? Should we have a CSI:Basra trapsing around Afghanistan trying to find prove that the people we picked up shooting at us were shooting at us?

You're putting civilian expectations on a military situation. The two do not equate.

And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.

Hehe, i love it. Anytime we on the right say something positive about Afghanistan you talk about how the Taliban is coming back and how the country isnt under the control of the government. Now when the argument is about giving these detainees the same rights as US citizens, the war is won!

Are you honestly suggesting that people should be held without trial forever because it would be "inconvenient" if they were put on trial?

Is that what I said?

The U.S. government is already losing the public relations battle vis-à-vis Gitmo quite badly.

Really? Have you seen any recent public opinion polls about Gitmo?

The best way for them to win it is to put these people on trial and prove their guilt in public.

That is where CSI: Basra comes into play. Do you expect us to pull valuable special forces off the line to testify? Do you expect us to have fingerprint analysis on their AKs? Do you expect us to fly Afghanis in to America to give expert opinions?

The reality is that our war with islamic extremists is far from over and a continuous string of show trials would do nothing but cause more trouble for America.

Do you honestly think the leftists and the anti-americans would give a fair spin on the trials? Do you think the ACLU would give the military the benefit of the doubt?

[Goofball]

Don't try to be cute. You aren't very good at it.

You've obviously never seen my Ricky Martin impersonation.

Are you implying these prisoners should all be treated to Criminal Trials?

Yes, if the U.S. government is implying they are criminals. What are they? Enemy combatants or terrorists? If they are enemy combatants, fine, you have to let the go now, because the war is over. If they are terrorists, then they are criminals, and should be put on trial. But just holding them forever is not an option, whether they are suspected enemy combatants or suspected terrorists.

How do you expect us to prove that? Should we have a CSI:Basra trapsing around Afghanistan trying to find prove that the people we picked up shooting at us were shooting at us?

You're putting civilian expectations on a military situation. The two do not equate.

Please see above.

And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.

Hehe, i love it. Anytime we on the right say something positive about Afghanistan you talk about how the Taliban is coming back and how the country isnt under the control of the government. Now when the argument is about giving these detainees the same rights as US citizens, the war is won!

Apparently quotation marks were not sufficient to point out the irony of the word "over" in my previous post. I guess I should have put one of these after it as well. It is the U.S. government that is trying to have its cake and eat it too on this one. You righties are always talking about how the war in Afghanistan (which I personally supported, for the record) has been won. If that is the case, then you must release the prisoners taken in that war.

So, which is it? Have you not really won the war yet, which means you are fibbing about how good things are over there but can justifiably hold the detainees at Gitmo for longer, or is the war really over and you are now holding these people illegally?

*starts humming theme to Jeopardy*

Well, which is it?

[Papewaio]

Can the US military legally hold non-POWs for an indefinite period without recourse to a trial?

If so no problem on a legal level.

The issue becomes that Gitmo as it is referred to is a PR blackeye and eats away at the value of the moral high ground. If anything it makes the moral high ground look like a marketing blurb and the fine print is 'Warranty not valid outside of the following areas: USA'.

Equal rights is only true when it is equally applied to friend and foe. Integrity is when action and word is one. To do otherwise is mere marketing.

If your laws will not give you the ability to hold them in your territories, change the law, don't make a special zone. Be upfront with what you are doing. If you are doing the right thing then do it in the open. From the PR side it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck.

[Proletariat]

Yes, if the U.S. government is implying they are criminals. What are they? Enemy combatants or terrorists?

You're implying they should recieve due process, not the US Gov.

If they are enemy combatants, fine, you have to let the go now, because the war is over. If they are terrorists, then they are criminals, and should be put on trial.

Huh? The war on terror is over? I must've slept through the parade.

And why should they be given an appeal through a civilian court? They are combatants, not criminal defendants.

I think you're confusing court martials with military tribunals. Hell, even the Geneva Conventions don't afford detainees the right to an appeal through civilian courts (not that these folks are afforded protection under the GC).

[Kagemusha]

Why wont US just give in and regognice the authority of the Military tribunate of Haque.Then we all could be happy about it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can the US military legally hold non-POWs for an indefinite period without recourse to a trial?

If so no problem on a legal level.

According to the Geneva convention the answer is yes. That about sums it up. All thats left is a humanitarian consideration. Again we could have killed them long ago and treat them better than they deserve.

[Papewaio]

According to the Geneva convention the answer is yes. That about sums it up. All thats left is a humanitarian consideration. Again we could have killed them long ago and treat them better than they deserve.

Considering a number have already been released, it seems that the people at Gitmo are not 100% worthy of this treatment and death.

Iff they are guilty it maybe better treatment then they deserve to live for them, it would be worse treatment to yourself to kill them.