You can throw grenades at Americans, but you can't take tinkling on yourself?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Please site where the SCOTUS has said unlawful combatants are entitled to the same protections as citizens.

You also ain't as bad as Saddam, which you can be proud of! Think about it, you could rip off their fingernails and stick hot irons up their ass, but you don't!

Instead you send them to places where the authorities will do that! Hold you head up in pride, Oerdin!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
What I find interesting is how America is attempting to justify this. "WELL, TECHNICALLY HE DOESNT GET ANY RIGHTS BY ANY TREATY OR DOCUMENT LOL!!!1".

Of course, if Americans were as gung-ho about freedom and justice as they pretend to be, then they would offer the protections anyway.

Tassador, I'd like to offer the same protections to terrorists as citizens but the truth is we are in an on going war and many of these people have provided intelligence which ahs lead to the capture of Al Qaeda terrorists. Would they be as willing to talk if they were lawyered up? Legally, we have furfilled the letter of the law and these terrorists have recieved far more favorable treatment then the Soviets gave Afghan "freedom fighters" (or terrorists if you please) or then the Russian government has given Chechens or the Chinese have given their muslim rebels.

Prison for the duration of hostilities is pretty generous compared to the other legal option of summary execution. Would you prefer they were simply shot?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Jaakko
You also ain't as bad as Saddam, which you can be proud of!

Saddam, as a former head of state is entitled to Prisoner of War status unlike unlawful combatants. Please site any example of prisoners have irons stuck up their ass if you can. Oh, I see you are once again full of ****. Silly me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason Cuban courts don't get a say is because the US doesn't recognize nor does it maintain diplomatic relations with the Communist government of Cuba. Granted military courts have always had rule there since the US military took charge of Gitmo but legally it is not the US nor even a US territory and instead is a Cuban territory which the US is authorised to use.

Isn't that pretty contradictory? We don't recognize the Communist goverment, but they Commies really own the land, and the US is just leasing it. Therefore, it isn't really US land? Also, I was incorrect, it is a PERPETUAL lease, and Cuba denies the legality of the lease, saying it violated the Law of Treaties, because it was procured by force.

If the Cubans retained soveriegnty, then they should be allowed to kick the tenants off and pay damages.

It is interesting, the US wrote it as the Cubans having soveriengty (although that seemingly means nothing), but the US having sole control and jurisdiction over the base.

A perpetual lease, with the US having sole control and jurisidction... hmmm... sounds like US soil to me.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Saddam, as a former head of state is entitled to Prisoner of War status unlike unlawful combatants. Please site any example of prisoners have irons stuck up their ass if you can. Oh, I see you are once again full of ****. Silly me.

Way to miss my point too. You're a true apologist.

[Dinner]

I disagree that the US is just slightly better the the USSR or Russia or China. The Soviets bombed who villages, executed who clans, and really did torture people (not the crap lefties are claim as torture in this case). China as well and the Russians really have just rounded up Chechens and shot everyone. The US hasn't done anything even remotely close to that.

Instead when we found certain obviously guilty people we've seporated them and sent them to prison as unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants have been turned over to the Afghan government.

There is nothing illegal or even remotely illegal about this and instead it fulfills the legal requirements of all international treaties governing warfare.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Way to miss my point too. You're a true apologist.

And you are a true idiot but we've known this for months. I doubt you could even site a case where Americans have riped out anyone's finger nails. You're just another exicted teenager talking out of your ass.

[Jaakko]

Yes, tell yourself that. Also, if you practice long enough, eventually you'll be able to put on a convincing show of "But I Didn't Know, How Could I Have Known".

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
che was responding to the claim Guantánamo isn't American soil.

Actually no. SCOTUS just recently said that the gits in Gitmo are entitled to legal protection under our constitution. We can't torture them or hold them indefinately and the have a right to a trial.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually no. SCOTUS just recently said that the gits in Gitmo are entitled to legal protection under our constitution. We can't torture them or hold them indefinately and the have a right to a trial.

I'm against all forms of torture and have been since the beginning though I want to make sure the definition of torture is exact enough that it doesn't cover everything under the sun. Can you please provide a link to the SCOTUS ruling as I'd like to read it further?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Yes, tell yourself that. Also, if you practice long enough, eventually you'll be able to put on a convincing show of "But I Didn't Know, How Could I Have Known".

I'm not really interested in reasoning with you. I've watched your posts for a while and they can only be described as pathologically anti-American. If the US said the sky way blue you'd argue that it was purple just out of spite. You would never give the US a fair shake in any case or under any circumstances. Therefore no one feels bad about your continuing bellyaching.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can you please provide a link to the SCOTUS ruling as I'd like to read it further?

Rasul v. Bush says Gitmo prisoners can challenge their standing. The Court, in its opinion, refered to the fact that US has complete jurisdiction and control over Gitmo and the prisioners have never been tried, not even in a foriegn court (distinguished from Eisentrager).

It was part of the series of cases which included the more famous Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Rasul dealt with those at Gitmo (Hamdi was in South Carolina, IIRC).

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I'm not really interested in reasoning with you. I've watched your posts for a while and they can only be described as pathologically anti-American. If the US said the sky way blue you'd argue that it was purple just out of spite. You would never give the US a fair shake in any case or under any circumstances. Therefore no one feels bad about your continuing bellyaching.

I know. I can dish it out but I couldn't handle being tinkled on!

[Imran Siddiqui]

though I want to make sure the definition of torture is exact enough that it doesn't cover everything under the sun

And what if the law of the US isn't 'exact enough'? Will you ignore the law?

[Flubber]

This one seems pretty simple-- If there is clearcut evidence, try him and hold him.


The more difficult scenario are the folks that you are "pretty sure" are terrorist but you don't have enough evidence for anywhere near "beyond reasonable doubt"-- Then you have competing interests of trying to protect your populace with the interest of not incarcerating innocent people for no reason.

In regular domestic situations we let the worst scummy gangbanger and drug lords go free if we don't have enough evidence. Sometimes I don't like that result but compared with the possibility of the state determining who to jail without any evidentary requirements I'll live with that result.

With terrorists, the result of making such a call could be hundreds or thousands dead . .. so jailing people without trial or hearing seems seductive, almost palatable. But it shouldn't be.

What all this highlights is the inadequacy of a court or criminal justice system to deal with what will likely be an ongoing, almost perpetual "state of war". These systems are not designed to deal with the likes of terrorism. I just don't know what model would work better