Guantanamo Inmates / Geneva Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]makkun wrote:
Zap Branigan,

Zap Branigan wrote:

[…]

Makes me wonder how many of the ones with no clear connection are still connected.

Let’s give them fair trials and find out! I’m fully on your side here.

Makkun[/quote]

Not in US courts. These cases do not belong in US courts. These people are not US citizens and their crimes occured outside the US. US courts are clearly the wrong venue.

Give them tribunals and I will be happy. Unfortunately the USSC in trying to protect it’s turf has deemed this unconstitutional so these people are stuck in limbo.

62

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:

The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.

People tend to forget that!

No-one forgot it. It’s just unacceptable.

Not to the people they were terrorizing and fighting against them.

You seem to give absolutely zero thought to what those people are going through. You only, singular concern is the US troops. They didn’t have to go in. The people of Iraq had no say in the matter of the invasion.
[/quote]

If you are saying I don’t care what the terrorists are going through you are correct. I wish them all a painful death.

I feel bad for the 41 killed in Iraq today and the many victims of the train bombings in Bombay.

Why do you always seem to take the side of murderous scum?

63

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
makkun wrote:
Zap Branigan,

Zap Branigan wrote:

[…]

Makes me wonder how many of the ones with no clear connection are still connected.

Let’s give them fair trials and find out! I’m fully on your side here.

Makkun

Ditto… If you have faith in your legal system then it shouldn’t be a problem.

[/quote]

The same courts that found Robert Blake and OJ Simpson not guilty?

I don’t think so.

64

Zap Branigan,

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

[…]

Not in US courts. These cases do not belong in US courts. These people are not US citizens and their crimes occured outside the US. US courts are clearly the wrong venue.[/quote]

They are in US costudy, so they are the US’s responsibility. And the US seems to be very interested in getting foreign citizens who have not committed a crime in the US into their courts:

"Three former NatWest employees have been extradited to the United States to face fraud charges.

The case pertains to the collapse of America energy company Enron, but those involved say the allegations relate to events that took place in the UK."

Equal rights for all: Either detain people caught on foreign shores and try them, or don’t detain them. The US government has chosen - so the US should give that treatment to all.

You would perhaps have a basis for that argument if we were talking 2 years (with proper representation). These people have been in limbo for 4 years - what’s with a timely trial? Or the guy that committed suicide that hadn’t been told he was supposed to be let go? Seeing your lawyer only 4 times in 4 years (if at all) is in limbo. And, yes those 14 military tribunals were really working fast, hm?

The legal tools exist, have for decades. I would argue it’s the US government’s fault that their kangaroo courts didn’t work out. It’s thanks to human rights activists and lawyers, NGOs and allied governments that finally there is some movement. The Bush government built that problem themselves - now they have to live with the consequences.

Makkun

65

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:

The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.

People tend to forget that!

No-one forgot it. It’s just unacceptable.

Not to the people they were terrorizing and fighting against them.

You seem to give absolutely zero thought to what those people are going through. You only, singular concern is the US troops. They didn’t have to go in. The people of Iraq had no say in the matter of the invasion.

If you are saying I don’t care what the terrorists are going through you are correct. I wish them all a painful death.

I feel bad for the 41 killed in Iraq today and the many victims of the train bombings in Bombay.

Why do you always seem to take the side of murderous scum?[/quote]

I was actually replying to Hedo, and was talking about the Iraqi people. Remember them? The ones we were supposed to liberate?

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did NOT mean to refer to them as murderous scum.

I take the side of the Iraqi people, who I feel we have wronged and now owe a duty to put things right.

I take the side of people who have not been charged with any crime but are subjected to torture and not afforded the human rights this war in Iraq was supposed to bestow upon them.

This is almost a seperate issue from the larger war.

Serious mistakes have been made with regards to paying people to shop people to the US security agencies. Why is so hard to accept that without feeling your are compromising your love of your country, or your belief in the ‘rightness’ of the war?

I have the feeling the media over there has you people absolutely terrified, whereas you’re far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver.

And before you start about terrorist attacks, I grew up in London having to deal with the (mostly US funded) IRA blowing the shit out of everything every year, and as I mentioned in other threads, I was caught up in the July 7th bombings. It’s as though people have been trying to blow me up my entire life… :wink:

You just dust youself off and get back on the horse.

The people who did those things were wankers. Just as the perpetrators of the various allied war crimes we’ve heard about were wankers. Doesn’t change the reality that these people are the minority in their respective groups and you can’t blame the entire group for the crimes of the few - Or consider everyone of the group guilty until proved otherwise…

66

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

The same courts that found Robert Blake and OJ Simpson not guilty?

I don’t think so.[/quote]

Ha ha… I stand corrected.

67

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:

The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.

People tend to forget that!

No-one forgot it. It’s just unacceptable.

Not to the people they were terrorizing and fighting against them.

You seem to give absolutely zero thought to what those people are going through. You only, singular concern is the US troops. They didn’t have to go in. The people of Iraq had no say in the matter of the invasion.
[/quote]

Do you seriously believe they were better off under Sadaam?

I’m concerned about US troops. You aren’t. Doesn’t sound like you like any soldiers very much.

War isn’t about an even playing field. It’s not about being fair to terrorists. It’s about defeating them so that innocent people don’t die for their casue.

68

[quote]hedo wrote:
Do you seriously believe they were better off under Sadaam?

I’m concerned about US troops. You aren’t. Doesn’t sound like you like any soldiers very much.

War isn’t about an even playing field. It’s not about being fair to terrorists. It’s about defeating them so that innocent people don’t die for their casue.
[/quote]

A soldier’s job is to fight. Soldiers dying in combat is kinda part of the process of starting a war.

I respect the job that soldiers have to do, and having spent time with the Royal Marine Commandos I am in awe of what they are capable of.

I have also said on this thread that whilst I was opposed to the action in the first place, I was not in favour of the troops pulling out now until we have restored some semblance of order to the region.

However…

How many Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion? You can’t protect someone by killing them.

Were they better off under Saddam? Regardless of what I, and pretty much everyone else thinks of him… Well they might be alive so that would be a start…

Going back to my IRA comment either. That situation is proof positive that military conflict DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM. Diplomacy does.

That said, if history has taught us one thing, it is that military conflict DOES win elections.

69

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:

The incidents mentioned were the exception and many were not proved. The majority were terrorists. The ones that were released quickly found their way back to the battlefield.

People tend to forget that!

No-one forgot it. It’s just unacceptable.

Yes. It is absolutely unacceptable that some of the people we let go because we could not prove they were terrorists indeed turned out to be terrorists.

I am glad we agree.

Makes me wonder how many of the ones with no clear connection are still connected.
[/quote]

Maybe some of those released will go visit some of the fine folk on here who prattle on about terrorist rights. Just before one of 'em reaches inside their jacket, maybe you libs will figure out what the fuck we’re trying to do.

Interesting phenomenon…lick the hand of their destroyers while spitting on their defenders. Ah, you libs…

HH

70

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
Do you seriously believe they were better off under Sadaam?

I’m concerned about US troops. You aren’t. Doesn’t sound like you like any soldiers very much.

War isn’t about an even playing field. It’s not about being fair to terrorists. It’s about defeating them so that innocent people don’t die for their casue.

A soldier’s job is to fight. Soldiers dying in combat is kinda part of the process of starting a war.

I respect the job that soldiers have to do, and having spent time with the Royal Marine Commandos I am in awe of what they are capable of.

I have also said on this thread that whilst I was opposed to the action in the first place, I was not in favour of the troops pulling out now until we have restored some semblance of order to the region.

However…

How many Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion? You can’t protect someone by killing them.

Were they better off under Saddam? Regardless of what I, and pretty much everyone else thinks of him… Well they might be alive so that would be a start…

Going back to my IRA comment either. That situation is proof positive that military conflict DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM. Diplomacy does.

That said, if history has taught us one thing, it is that military conflict DOES win elections.
[/quote]

Diplomacy stops terrorism…really. How quaint and idealistic.

So you favor negotiating with terrorists?

Does “spending time” with the Marines mean you were one or you hung around with them?

71

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Going back to my IRA comment either. That situation is proof positive that military conflict DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM. Diplomacy does.
[/quote]

Hmmm… gonna have to bust you on this one. Apples and oranges, man.

Diplomacy is not gonna do shit in the ME until there is a desire for it. What do the terrorists want? World domination? That’s hardly a viable position to take in negotiations.

Make sense? There’s no talking to these guys. They’re butchers. The only thing you can do is butch 'em right back. I wish there was some other way… maybe they’ll come to their senses when enough of them have perished? Who knows.

72

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Going back to my IRA comment either. That situation is proof positive that military conflict DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM. Diplomacy does. [/quote]

[quote]Hmmm… gonna have to bust you on this one. Apples and oranges, man.

Diplomacy is not gonna do shit in the ME until there is a desire for it. What do the terrorists want? World domination? That’s hardly a viable position to take in negotiations.

Make sense? There’s no talking to these guys. They’re butchers. The only thing you can do is butch 'em right back. I wish there was some other way… maybe they’ll come to their senses when enough of them have perished? Who knows.[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more. Technically, you could call the IRA terrorists but they were a completely different breed. They did want something negotiable. These guys don’t want something negotiable at all - world domination, the spread of a cruel theocratic system of government, and the complete eradication of Judaism and, if possible, Christianity and the entire Western way of life. Where do you start negotiations with that? What we’ve been doing the last couple decades wasn’t negotiation, it was appeasement - we’re seeing now how misguided that idea is!

73

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
However, it doesn’t matter whether those who committed those acts signed up to the Geneva Convention or not. It matters that the self-appointed champions of democracy and the free-world lead by example.

And part one of that is respecting and obeying both the letter AND the spirit of the aforementioned convention. Which they have not done.

If you’re going to write insanity like this, then don’t complain when I flame you for it.

“Self-appointed”? You came and got us, twice, Winston.

Hello? The people at Club Gitmo were not uniformed members of an army. They were roving bands of thugs and killers. After getting all the info we can out of them, a military tribunal should judge each one and shoot 'em if found guilty. The USA is giving them GC rights as a gift, because the insane lib media here bitches if our guys touch a Koran without putting on gloves first and other such stupid shit. “Oh, excuse me, sir, is the AC not working in your suite? How terrible!!”

HH

Nothing to say to you HH that I haven’t already said before.
[/quote]

Translation: I don’t have an answer, so you must be a bigot, racist, and blah, blah, blah…

Stay in London, boy, while the real men protect you.

HH

74

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Going back to my IRA comment either. That situation is proof positive that military conflict DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM. Diplomacy does.

Hmmm… gonna have to bust you on this one. Apples and oranges, man.

Diplomacy is not gonna do shit in the ME until there is a desire for it. What do the terrorists want? World domination? That’s hardly a viable position to take in negotiations.

Make sense? There’s no talking to these guys. They’re butchers. The only thing you can do is butch 'em right back. I wish there was some other way… maybe they’ll come to their senses when enough of them have perished? Who knows.[/quote]

You cannot kill all the terrorists. It’s as simple as that. Every time you kill one another will spring up in their place.

If you think differently then you have an extremely warped view, my friend. The only way in which they differ from the IRA is that they will use themselves as a bomb.

How do you know there is no talking to them? When did we try? It’s not necessarily about negotiating with them per se, but rather looking at the underlying causes that have led to them starting this jihad in the first place.

However the polititians and media spin it, I truly don’t think Islamic terrorists want world domination. I think for starters they would be happy enough if we fucked off out of their business and stopped (in their eyes) murdering their women and children. But we have interests there so it becomes difficult.

Oh, and remember Iraq was apparently about WMD, until it wasn’t - at which point it was about liberating the people. It was Afghanistan which was where all the terrorists were. Until the Iraq war when we gave plenty of reason for Iraq to become the new terrorist holiday destination and training centre.

75

[quote]clovely wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Going back to my IRA comment either. That situation is proof positive that military conflict DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM. Diplomacy does.

Hmmm… gonna have to bust you on this one. Apples and oranges, man.

Diplomacy is not gonna do shit in the ME until there is a desire for it. What do the terrorists want? World domination? That’s hardly a viable position to take in negotiations.

Make sense? There’s no talking to these guys. They’re butchers. The only thing you can do is butch 'em right back. I wish there was some other way… maybe they’ll come to their senses when enough of them have perished? Who knows.

I couldn’t agree more. Technically, you could call the IRA terrorists but they were a completely different breed. They did want something negotiable. These guys don’t want something negotiable at all - world domination, the spread of a cruel theocratic system of government, and the complete eradication of Judaism and, if possible, Christianity and the entire Western way of life. Where do you start negotiations with that? What we’ve been doing the last couple decades wasn’t negotiation, it was appeasement - we’re seeing now how misguided that idea is![/quote]

I’m not sure how much of that is true and how much is scaremongering by the powers that be both in the US and UK to keep us terrified and FOR the war effort, but it’s kind of a chicken and egg situation, no?

They didn’t always want to wipe us of the earth, did they. So what did we do? Well obviously Bin Laden had personal gripes when he was US backed (as a terrorist, sorry FREEDOM FIGHTER) against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and Bush was happy to do oil deals with his family and then suddenly a few years down the line he wasn’t of use to America and was declared a terrorist.

I think much of the middle-east has similar feelings of being betrayed by the west, whether it is true or not. We need to address those issues. Those underlying causes.

76

london: Let’s say we sit down with Al-Qaeda and ask them what they want, realistically. What are they going to demand? Is it going to be even remotely realistic or doable?

The complete eradication of Israel, and the deaths or conversions of all Jews, Christians, and other infidels… ring a bell?

This is why there is no talking to them. It’s not because I’m bloodthirsty… it’s because THEY are.

77

[quote]clovely wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Going back to my IRA comment either. That situation is proof positive that military conflict DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM. Diplomacy does.

Hmmm… gonna have to bust you on this one. Apples and oranges, man.

Diplomacy is not gonna do shit in the ME until there is a desire for it. What do the terrorists want? World domination? That’s hardly a viable position to take in negotiations.

Make sense? There’s no talking to these guys. They’re butchers. The only thing you can do is butch 'em right back. I wish there was some other way… maybe they’ll come to their senses when enough of them have perished? Who knows.

I couldn’t agree more. Technically, you could call the IRA terrorists but they were a completely different breed. They did want something negotiable. These guys don’t want something negotiable at all - world domination, the spread of a cruel theocratic system of government, and the complete eradication of Judaism and, if possible, Christianity and the entire Western way of life. Where do you start negotiations with that? What we’ve been doing the last couple decades wasn’t negotiation, it was appeasement - we’re seeing now how misguided that idea is![/quote]

I’m sorry, but as someone who grew up fearing every time I went into London over the course of two decades and lost friends in bomb blasts, I’m not going to listen to someone else tell me ‘technically they were terrorists but a different breed’ as though they JUST qualify or something.

No. They were murdering bastards, intent on causing as much damage and devastation to English civilians as possible. They also went to Libya and the Middle-East and trained other terrorists. But for some reason they weren’t seen as such bad guys by the US, who provided something like over 90% of their funding. Strange how now you’ve had a terrorist attack of your own, you don’t hear so much about that…

I’ve heard calls from Al’queada for a ceasefire and negotiations on Al Jazeera but no-one is interested in listening.

We did it with the IRA and now at least the Irish aren’t trying to kill me. This week anyway…

78

[quote]hedo wrote:
Diplomacy stops terrorism…really. How quaint and idealistic.

So you favor negotiating with terrorists?

Does “spending time” with the Marines mean you were one or you hung around with them?

[/quote]

I loved that you didn’t address any of the main points in what I wrote and went straight for the cheap shots.

For a country that spent most of the last century funding terrorism elsewhere in the world, rather than facing it themselves, forgive me if I don’t take your views on diplomacy as a valuable tool in the fight against terrorism as being particularly erudite.

As for the last comment: I spent time making a documentary about the Royal Marine Commandos, if that clears things up for you.

79

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
london: Let’s say we sit down with Al-Qaeda and ask them what they want, realistically. What are they going to demand? Is it going to be even remotely realistic or doable?

The complete eradication of Israel, and the deaths or conversions of all Jews, Christians, and other infidels… ring a bell?

This is why there is no talking to them. It’s not because I’m bloodthirsty… it’s because THEY are.[/quote]

I take your point, but you need to let them say that inside that forum. Not the media on a platform of selling airtime or newspapers.

The Irish wanted the English out of Northern Ireland. We’re still there but we have a ceasefire, we’ve had a decommisioning of weapons. It’s all going well so far despite some hiccups along the way.

It CAN be done.

80

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Translation: I don’t have an answer, so you must be a bigot, racist, and blah, blah, blah…

Stay in London, boy, while the real men protect you.

HH

[/quote]

Was actually trying to honour our agreement to not respond to each other’s posts. Remember that? The agreement you broke because you couldn’t stand being ignored? Oh, yeah, now it’s coming back to you. Takes a little while to get through the butter-clogged arteries, eh?

I’m not going to listen to a fat fifty year old hick who is the laughing stock of this entire forum. You gonna tell me how big you are again and how long you’ve been doing TKD to prove how much of a man you are? Yawn…

Piss off fatty. Leave me alone.