US: Obama to sign order to close Guantanamo within 1 year [Archive]

Archetype

01-21-2009, 09:36 PM

I don't know how absolute this is yet, so P&C it is.

Obama to sign order to close Guantanamo within 1 year: aide

U.S. President Barack Obama will sign an executive order Thursday to shut down the infamous U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay within a year.
A draft of the order was obtained Wednesday by the Associated Press. While the draft was not dated, a senior Obama aide said the president intends to sign the order on Thursday.

"In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of the facility would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice," the draft order said.

Between 60 and 120 prisoners at the prison camp, which currently houses 245 detainees, may be deemed low-threat and transferred to other countries for rehabilitation or release, an administration official said Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, a 120-day adjournment was granted for all war-crimes cases before the military commission, including that of Canadian Omar Khadr.

A closure of the prison facility would pave the way for Khadr, 22, to be repatriated to Canada, potentially to undergo judicial process here. The Prime Minister's Office, however, downplayed suggestions that it is re-considering the government's long-held position not to intervene in the case.

The Conservative government's position on the Khadr case hasn't changed from that of previous Liberal governments that were in power when Khadr was first detained in 2002, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Kory Teneycke, said Wednesday.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/21/khadr-adjournment.html

Obama plans executive order to close Guantanamo Bay

President Barack Obama is planning to issue three executive orders Thursday, including one demanding the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay be closed within a year, according to a senior administration official and a congressional aide.
A second executive order will formally ban torture by requiring the Army field manual be used as the guide for terror interrogations, essentially ending the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

A third executive order, according to the officials, will order a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

The officials said new White House Counsel Greg Craig was briefing congressional Republicans Wednesday afternoon about the three executive orders.

"We've always said the process would include consultation," the senior administration official said of the closed-door meeting informing Republicans of the moves.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html

Pax Britannia

01-21-2009, 09:37 PM

The first US soldier that dies as a result of this has Obama to thank.

Stax

01-21-2009, 09:38 PM

The first US soldier that dies as a result of this has Obama to thank.

From not violating the Constitution? I guess we should go indict every living president other than Bush for... Doing their job?

BIG PIZZLE

01-21-2009, 09:43 PM

The first US soldier that dies as a result of this has Obama to thank.

Who do the 4000 that are already dead thank?

Pax Britannia

01-21-2009, 09:44 PM

From not violating the Constitution? I guess we should go indict every living president other than Bush for... Doing their job?

By releasing terrorists who have nowhere to go other than back to their terrorist cells he is simply adding more footsoldiers to the Jihadist cause. If one of the men released plants an IED that gets a marine killed then I personally think Obama will have blood on his hands.

Who do the 4000 that are already dead thank?

Looks like we have another American President recklessly endangering soldiers lives?

BIG PIZZLE

01-21-2009, 09:48 PM

That is yet to be seen.

mongo

01-21-2009, 09:48 PM

I <3 pax. So fucking old school!

Pax Britannia

01-21-2009, 09:49 PM

That is yet to be seen.

I think releasing terrorists back into the world qualifies as recklessly endangering the lives of American soldiers.

nuclearjew

01-21-2009, 09:49 PM

Looks like we have another American President recklessly endangering soldiers lives?
We should just lock up every person on the planet, then that way no one gets a scrape!

Pax Britannia

01-21-2009, 09:50 PM

We should just lock up every person on the planet, then that way no one gets a scrape!

Or send them to Australia like we did. Thats punishment enough.

Genius

01-21-2009, 09:51 PM

BIG PIZZLE

01-21-2009, 09:52 PM

I think releasing terrorists back into the world qualifies as recklessly endangering the lives of American soldiers.

Nobody says they will be released and nobody says they are terrorists.

Pax Britannia

01-21-2009, 09:52 PM

I suppose you blame the doctor every time a cancer patient dies, too.

In this scenerio the doctor would have removed the cancer from the patient, held it for a couple of years to let it fester and mature and then put it back in the patients body.

So yeah i'd blame that doctor.

mongo

01-21-2009, 09:53 PM

I suppose you blame the doctor every time a cancer patient dies, too.

Fuck you pizz!

Pax Britannia

01-21-2009, 09:56 PM

Nobody says they will be released and nobody says they are terrorists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4230850/Released-Guantnamo-Bay-detainees-return-to-terrorism.html

The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees were believed to have returned to terrorism since their release from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a big increase from its last count.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, used the new numbers to highlight the challenges of quickly closing the prison despite reports that President-Elect Barack Obama will move immediately to direct its closure.

"There, clearly, are people who are being held at Guantánamo who are still bent on doing harm to America – Americans and our allies. So there will have to be some solution for the likes of them," he said.

Hoser

01-21-2009, 10:01 PM

Or send them to Australia like we did. Thats punishment enough.

Australia >> All other countries

This is a situation where he is screwed no matter what he does. The morally right thing to do is shut it down. But if he does like Pax says there could be many more attacks as a result.

On the other hand I am sure there are many planned attacks as a result of people being held and seeing America as the bad guy, as trying to be the world police.

My opinion, move them. Shut it down and move them somewhere else until a proper plan can be implemented. It will make some of the anti gitmo people a bit happier and it will not let the people who are going to cause harm back out there.

Genius

01-21-2009, 10:06 PM

nuclearjew

01-21-2009, 10:07 PM

Awesome, tockit is about to post some retarded bullshit. Lemme go put some popcorn in the microwave.

tockit

01-21-2009, 10:17 PM

Nobody says they will be released and nobody says they are terrorists.
Nobody says they are terrorists???

Are you serious???

What, do you think they are down there for, skimming money off their boyscout cookie sales?

Geez, some of you people need to wake up!!!

These wacko's hate us and want to destroy us! I don't care who the current president is, or what we do or don't do to them. They will always hate us!

Maybe they can set them up in a prison close to your house, while their lawyers appeal their cases, and tie this stuff up in the court systems for years, all at the taxpayers expense!

I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and support him, since he is our new President.

I support his decision today, to freeze his aides pay making over 100k a year, but I think he is totally wrong on this one!

Archetype

01-21-2009, 10:18 PM

Nobody says they will be released and nobody says they are terrorists.
I'm not totally sure of the specifics, but it sounds like they'll be "released" to the US's judicial system. I could easily be wrong.

nuclearjew

01-21-2009, 10:21 PM

Archetype

01-21-2009, 10:29 PM

From not violating the Constitution? I guess we should go indict every living president other than Bush for... Doing their job?

The first article says there's only one remaining Westerner in Guantanamo, don't the relative parts of the Constitution apply to citizens, not war criminals and the like?

Rover

01-22-2009, 03:06 PM

The first article says there's only one remaining Westerner in Guantanamo, don't the relative parts of the Constitution apply to citizens, not war criminals and the like?The Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution applies to everyone who is in the United States. Guantanamo has a legal ambiguity that allows terrorists to be held for indefinite periods of time. If the terrorists are brought to the US, they would have to be put on trial or released. But the countries they were taken from won't accept them back, and other countries, like the EU, don't want a jihadist fundamentalist with an expert bomb making background running around their streets. So, they'll probably have to be released onto the streets of America, unless, Obama comes up with a nifty plan to skirt the legal issues resulting from bringing terrorists who want to blow shit up to San Diego.

Or Obama could pull an FDR and lock them up for indefinite periods of time in the Utah desert.

FDR locks up 100,000+ individual people; 50,000+ citizens and he's doing it for the war effort. W locks up 200+ terrorists captured on the battlefield and it's an affront to human rights.

Yelram

01-22-2009, 03:31 PM

The first article says there's only one remaining Westerner in Guantanamo, don't the relative parts of the Constitution apply to citizens, not war criminals and the like?

Dont try talking basic logic, and reading skills with Stax. He still thinks Bush only cut taxes for the rich. Last time I checked, the people who drafted the constitution broke every "rule of warfare" there was at the time. This is just like the whole "torture" issue. If you can call sleep deprivation, water-boarding, and temperature changes torture, you can call anything torture.

vasili denisov

01-22-2009, 04:04 PM

By releasing terrorists who have nowhere to go other than back to their terrorist cells he is simply adding more footsoldiers to the Jihadist cause. If one of the men released plants an IED that gets a marine killed then I personally think Obama will have blood on his hands.

Well, right now having a prison in which we torture men and hold them without trial makes it extraordinarily difficult to represent ourselves as a counterpoint to a antidemocratic jihadists. It makes work in Iraq and Afghanistan that much more difficult, so having that prison has already cost lives without any tangible benefit.
The first article says there's only one remaining Westerner in Guantanamo, don't the relative parts of the Constitution apply to citizens, not war criminals and the like?
Even if the constitution does not protect them, the Geneva convention does. Torture and internment without trial both violate it.

Or Obama could pull an FDR and lock them up for indefinite periods of time in the Utah desert.

FDR locks up 100,000+ individual people; 50,000+ citizens and he's doing it for the war effort. W locks up 200+ terrorists captured on the battlefield and it's an affront to human rights.
If you're speaking about the internment of the japanese, that's considered a massive scar in the history of the nation, and in violation of the constitution, which led to financial reparations for unjust imprisonment. The "sticking them in the desert without trial" solution would be in violation of Geneva.
Last time I checked, the people who drafted the constitution broke every "rule of warfare" there was at the time. This is just like the whole "torture" issue. If you can call sleep deprivation, water-boarding, and temperature changes torture, you can call anything torture.
I don't know specifically you're referring to as "every rule of warfare". However, you don't get to cite past conduct that would violate current rules as justification for current conduct. The use of poison gas by Britain during World War I, which would be a treaty violation and a war crime now, does not give them license to use such poisons in any contemporary conflict.

Well, those measures have always been considered torture. They were labeled torture when they were employed against dissidents in the Soviet Union and prisoners of war in Viet Nam.

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 04:13 PM

Nobody says they are terrorists???

Are you serious???

What, do you think they are down there for, skimming money off their boyscout cookie sales?

Geez, some of you people need to wake up!!!

These wacko's hate us and want to destroy us! I don't care who the current president is, or what we do or don't do to them. They will always hate us!

Maybe they can set them up in a prison close to your house, while their lawyers appeal their cases, and tie this stuff up in the court systems for years, all at the taxpayers expense!

I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and support him, since he is our new President.

I support his decision today, to freeze his aides pay making over 100k a year, but I think he is totally wrong on this one!

As far as I can tell, the only people who determined these guys are terrorists are the same people who brought us the "intelligence" which resulted in the invasion of Iraq. Did you forget those lies or are you the only person in the world who still believes them? I'm not saying that they arent terrorists, but there needs to be some independent evaluation. A court perhaps?

And thanks for playing the fear card like a good little Bush nuthugger. You know what scares me more than a prison close to my house stuffed with "terrorists"? An ignorant and tyrannical government who puts people in foreign prisons indefinitely and with impunity.

Do you ever think about why "they hate us!!!"? It's not because we have "freedom" and MTV. You're a tool.

Yelram

01-22-2009, 04:17 PM

Well, right now having a prison in which we torture men and hold them without trial makes it extraordinarily difficult to represent ourselves as a counterpoint to a antidemocratic jihadists. It makes work in Iraq and Afghanistan that much more difficult, so having that prison has already cost lives without any tangible benefit.

Even if the constitution does not protect them, the Geneva convention does. Torture and internment without trial both violate it.

If you're speaking about the internment of the japanese, that's considered a massive scar in the history of the nation, and in violation of the constitution, which led to financial reparations for unjust imprisonment. The "sticking them in the desert without trial" solution would be in violation of Geneva.

I don't know specifically you're referring to as "every rule of warfare". However, you don't get to cite past conduct that would violate current rules as justification for current conduct. The use of poison gas by Britain during World War I, which would be a treaty violation and a war crime now, does not give them license to use such poisons in any contemporary conflict.

Well, those measures have always been considered torture. They were labeled torture when they were employed against dissidents in the Soviet Union and prisoners of war in Viet Nam.

Where exactly do you purchase your bullshit from? You must have some sort of bulk supplier. Do you have a wholesale license or what?

I dont know where to start, but that little doozy at the beginning, where you blame deaths in Iraq, and Afghanistan on Guantanamo. Seriously, think about that. Taking people off the battlefield who are a threat, and securing, and interrogating them somewhere, is somehow causing deaths? ARE YOU A FUCKING MORON? If you really think that the jihadists are going to go "Oh yeah, guess what, they closed Guantanamo, I think i've decided against strapping on a bomb vest", you are severely deluded. You fucking people somehow think that if you play nice, that the whole "hatred of the west" thing will go away. GUESS FUCKING WHAT EINSTEIN, these people are fighting to PROTECT LAWS that are far worse than anything we have. So how could us taking it easier on them, or giving every fucking person caught on a battlefield a trial with endless appeals, benefit anyone? It makes you feel warm and cuddly at night when you tuck yourself into bed. There has never been a time when the current interrogation techniques you listed WERENT used by the US. It has even been so entrenched into training, that EVERY INTERROGATION OFFICER THAT IS ABLE TO USE WATERBOARDING HAS BEEN WATERBOARDED BEFORE. So not only do we torture "terrorists" we apparently "torture" anyone who is allowed to "torture"

Again, the Geneva convention applies to conventional warfare. If they are not part of an army, they are not protected by it. If we play by those rules, against this enemy, we will lose. And all your high faluting morality will be lost under the iron fist of an one world islamic caliphate. I fucking hate little twits like you.

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 04:21 PM

The problem is that some of these people are taken from their homes at night, bindfolded and shipped to gitmo. "Battlefield" my ass. Plus I would rather get waterboarded by one of my buddies knowing that once it's over we're gonna go grab a beer than waterboarded for real. What's the point of simulated drowning when you know that there's no chance you're gonna die. You dont think there's a difference? So to defeat teh bad guy, we have to become the bad guy? That seems right.

Yelram

01-22-2009, 04:24 PM

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 04:25 PM

Yeah, there's no point discussing anything with you. Have you shaved your ladybeard yet?

Hoser

01-22-2009, 04:28 PM

You catch someone on a foreign battlefield who is armed, and they are shooting at you, then they are fucking terrorists.

Not saying that I believe this, but if that were how you determine who a terrorist was, the US would have a shit load of terrorists over in other countries right now.

Yelram

01-22-2009, 04:32 PM

Yeah, there's no point discussing anything with you. Have you shaved your ladybeard yet?

There have been 225 prisoners released from GB. 50 of those were found, by dna tracking, dead on the battlefield. And those were the ones we let go. Ladybeard? Thats an oxymoron Like peaceful muslim, or honest lawyer. I have a manbeard, and manhair, unlike your haircut that you stole from the big boy.

http://bigboyflorida.com/db3/00280/bigboyflorida.com/_uimages/BigBoyLogo.bmp

Sorry I didnt include the black lines over the eyes, you arent worth that much time investment.

Yelram

01-22-2009, 04:33 PM

Not saying that I believe this, but if that were how you determine who a terrorist was, the US would have a shit load of terrorists over in other countries right now.

I cant even begin to decode your babble. Speak English, not Canadianese.

Hoser

01-22-2009, 04:41 PM

According to you the way we decided who a terrorist is, is when,

You catch someone on a foreign battlefield who is armed, and they are shooting at you, then they are fucking terrorists.

If that were the case all of the people in the US Army who are shooting at people would also be considered terrorists.

Is that clear enough for you???

Hoser

01-22-2009, 04:43 PM

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 04:43 PM

There have been 225 prisoners released from GB. 50 of those were found, by dna tracking, dead on the battlefield. And those were the ones we let go. Ladybeard? Thats an oxymoron Like peaceful muslim, or honest lawyer. I have a manbeard, and manhair, unlike your haircut that you stole from the big boy.

http://bigboyflorida.com/db3/00280/bigboyflorida.com/_uimages/BigBoyLogo.bmp

Sorry I didnt include the black lines over the eyes, you arent worth that much time investment.

Were thous 225 prisoners given trials to determine if they were "terrorists"? Or were they released by the same masterminds who detained them in the first place? Because if they werent given trials, chances are those trials could have helped keep the 50 behind bars who were actually bad guys. Giving detanees trials is not the same as unilaterally releasing them you moron.

And even if they werent bad guys to begin with, if I was unjustly kidnapped and tortured, I would want to join in the fight against my captors too. I mean, how many people were dumb enough to join the army after 9/11?

Also, the first time I ever saw your picture, I honestly thought you were a bearded lady. Swear to god.

Yelram

01-22-2009, 04:51 PM

Were thous 225 prisoners given trials to determine if they were "terrorists"? Or were they released by the same masterminds who detained them in the first place? Because if they werent given trials, chances are those trials could have helped keep the 50 behind bars who were actually bad guys. Giving detanees trials is not the same as unilaterally releasing them you moron.

And even if they werent bad guys to begin with, if I was unjustly kidnapped and tortured, I would want to join in the fight against my captors too. I mean, how many people were dumb enough to join the army after 9/11?

Also, the first time I ever saw your picture, I honestly thought you were a bearded lady. Swear to god.

Oh god, what, you think every infantry guy is fucking CSI now? Are we supposed to collect evidence when we are in a firefight in hostile areas of a war-torn country. Its not the same as releasing them, but it might as well be. If there is no solid evidence, and it all comes down to hearsay, what are you supposed to do? Say well, theres no real solid evidence, but...............

Thats only because you were attracted to me, cuz you're a queer.

Hoser

01-22-2009, 04:52 PM

Yelram how would you feel if they kept American soldiers in a jail for an indefinite period of time?

Yelram

01-22-2009, 04:54 PM

According to you the way we decided who a terrorist is, is when,

If that were the case all of the people in the US Army who are shooting at people would also be considered terrorists.

Is that clear enough for you???

Its clear enough that you have the intelligence of a very dumb housefly. I feel bad for you honestly. It must be hard making friends when you can only babble incoherently. But I guess you dont need to make friends, since you live in Canada.

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 04:54 PM

Oh god, what, you think every infantry guy is fucking CSI now? Are we supposed to collect evidence when we are in a firefight in hostile areas of a war-torn country. Its not the same as releasing them, but it might as well be. If there is no solid evidence, and it all comes down to hearsay, what are you supposed to do? Say well, theres no real solid evidence, but...............

Thats only because you were attracted to me, cuz you're a queer.

No it's because you look like a bearded lady. So we should just throw people in prison indefinitely because it's more convenient. Seems like the american way. Maybe we could have drive thru prisons or prison delivery.

Yelram

01-22-2009, 04:58 PM

Yelram how would you feel if they kept American soldiers in a jail for an indefinite period of time?

Who is they? If you mean terrorists, I imagine it would be far better to be detained indefinitely, than to be executed by beheading.

fB8uNwcQB_0

Yelram

01-22-2009, 05:03 PM

No it's because you look like a bearded lady. So we should just throw people in prison indefinitely because it's more convenient. Seems like the american way. Maybe we could have drive thru prisons or prison delivery.

Dude, if you think people on a battlefield, and civilians at home should be given the exact same treatment, you are a fucking total and complete baboon. You do know most of these people could have been shot on site right? And noone would have been the wiser. These people were captured, because they were believed to have specific knowledge. Thats the only reason they are still alive. Anything we do to them there, is far far far less of a "human rights" violation as killing them would have been. Where exactly, under your ingenious scenario, do you take these people? Bring em to the US? Send em to Egypt where they will ACTUALLY torture them, not just fuck with the temperature, and not let them sleep.

TylerDurden

01-22-2009, 05:08 PM

FUCKING EH, you guys make me so fucking mad.

and what? no one fucking cares. you stalk around these forums all the time throwing shit out, acting like you know a thing or two. the only thing you know is how to be a posturing, self-righteous douche. at least redsox and taters occasionally contribute useful information along with their rants, and every response doesn't sound like timmy tuffnuts wanting to get one broke off in him. shut the fuck up.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE TERRORISTS!!!!! You fucking dolt. Check their fucking label? You catch someone on a foreign battlefield who is armed, and they are shooting at you, then they are fucking terrorists.

i'm sure i don't even have to bother mentioning the idiocy of this comment. although judging by your lack of a quick and hasty edit, i don't think you actually understand the idiocy of your own words. obviously in your mad rage you failed to remember the wars we've had with sovereign nations. so far as i, or anyone with half a fucking brain, can remember they weren't called terrorists.

it would be an entirely different story if a) every prisoner we captured was from a battlefield, b) every prisoner we captured was caught supporting al-qaeda red-handed, c) we actually lived and led by example with the very rules and ways of life we're sacrificing lives to protect.

It doesnt need to be put up to a court of law. It doesnt need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These are privileges that come with being a US citizen. Why the fuck should we give the enemy the advantages of our form of government?

actually it does. so they're not u.s. citizens. they get the benefit because we believe that everyone should have the benefit. what is it we're trying to install in iraq? afghanistan? we lead by fucking example. it pretty much demeans what we're doing overseas if we're blatantly disregarding commonly accepted rules of warfare and not even attempting to hide the fact that we're torturing people that we don't even know did any wrong. the rest of the world views us as irresponsible hypocrites, because of attitudes just like yours.

Why dont we just put it up to a vote. "Okay Guantanamo detainees, we're going to vote today, first for president, and then we'll have a vote so we can decide if we're going to keep you guys in here or send you home"..... I mean if we didnt give them the right to vote, it would go against the constitution!!! And we better make sure we arent quartering any troops. And shit, dont forget they have the right to bear arms.

you remind me of a ten-year-old child whose logic has run out and all he has left is name-calling and irrelevant, non-witty sarcasm that holds no relevance and only serves to heighten the disdain with which everyone else looks down on him with. unfortunately, just like a child, you haven't figured it out yet. i've personally seen you get your ass handed to you in multiple conversations, and once you fall everyone jumps in for some rape action. if you don't like it, go throw your temper tantrum in a dark, pathetic corner somewhere else.

Fucking morons. I hope your mothers all get raped by a pack of jihadists.

first-hand experience on the receiving end, eh?

Hoser

01-22-2009, 05:08 PM

Its clear enough that you have the intelligence of a very dumb housefly. I feel bad for you honestly. It must be hard making friends when you can only babble incoherently. But I guess you dont need to make friends, since you live in Canada.

Yes, quoting you, questioning you and then you not having an answer is me babbling.

You were wrong, it is ok to admit when you are wrong.

Hoser

01-22-2009, 05:10 PM

Who is they? If you mean terrorists, I imagine it would be far better to be detained indefinitely, than to be executed by beheading.

fB8uNwcQB_0

No shit.

But that wasn't what I asked. How would you feel if they just took American Soldiers and imprisoned them? I bet you wouldn't be to happy about it. I wouldn't expect anyone ot be happy about it.

I am not saying I don't agree with people being detained for war crimes, but it goes both ways.

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 05:11 PM

http://www.myramcwethy.com/BeardedLady04.jpg

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 05:12 PM

http://www.threeringrecords.com/windjammers/thebeardedlady-frame.gif

Hoser

01-22-2009, 05:13 PM

Yelrams family album???

Le Goat

01-22-2009, 05:15 PM

Yelram how would you feel if they kept American soldiers in a jail for an indefinite period of time?

Don't pick up a gun against someone not trying to hurt you.

Don't harbor those we are trying to find.

Seems like some pretty god damn easy rules to follow now doesn't it? Most (I can't say all, no one can) are guilty of at least what warranted them to be at Gitmo in the first place.

Hoser

01-22-2009, 05:17 PM

I am not saying that they shouldn't be held in a prison. I was just stating that if it were the other way around people here would be pissed, as people over there are about this.

Anyone who does either of those, no matter where they are from, should be in prison.

Le Goat

01-22-2009, 05:19 PM

now let's post pizz...

http://iwanovitsj.web-log.nl/Achmed_the_Dead_Terrorist.JPG

http://goregirl.net/images/deadterrorist2.jpg

http://theync.com/thumbs/2083-dead-terrorist-compilation.jpg

Archangel

01-22-2009, 05:21 PM

It's good to know that a discussion thread can turn to total and utter shit even without tater being involved.

Le Goat

01-22-2009, 05:23 PM

It's good to know that a discussion thread can turn to total and utter shit even without tater being involved.

glad you're humble enough to admit that

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 05:24 PM

Those dont look like me at all.

redsox39

01-22-2009, 05:39 PM

Nobody says they will be released and nobody says they are terrorists.

To be fair, I say they are terrorists...just saying...

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 05:42 PM

To be fair, I say they are terrorists...just saying...

All you know about them is that the Bush administration has told you they are terrorists.

Edit:
Seriously. If france told you these guys were terrorists would you believe them? Probably not. So why would you believe an organization that has been so wrong in the past? I'm not saying that the Bush administration is lying all I'm saying is that they have a pretty horrible track record and it should be verified. Not only because bush is a fucking moron but because these people are being imprisoned and tortured.

TylerDurden

01-22-2009, 05:44 PM

All you know about them is that the Bush administration has told you they are terrorists.

/thread

Trident

01-22-2009, 05:48 PM

Claydon

01-22-2009, 05:50 PM

So obama signed the order....great now what?

Oh and he banned water boarding....fab.

Actually the banning of these enhanced techniques annoys me more than the closing down of gitmo. We can take these fools elsewhere.... I understand that Bagrham is lovely this time of year.

I do not want the military using enhanced techniques, however if the military hands people over to say....the CIA and they water board or make them listen to britney spears.... so be it.

actually the use of spears i think should be considered a crime against humanity.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 05:52 PM

Congratulations to Obama for sticking to his word so far.

The reason why they had not released these people to the US courts is that evidence obtained under duress or torture is inadmissible, that's why the military wanted to be jailer, judge and jury.

This was another example of the Bush administration looking to wreak revenge for 9/11. It serves no function, except to garner further worldwide condemnation of their foreign policy; something which Obama is fixing rather nicely.

Also, is a terrorist anybody who fires a gun at a US soldier?

However, he also needs to close the various black sites and stop all extraordinary rendition.

There is talk of doing a slight tweek to the military court martial system wherein a unlawful combatant could be tried by a military court, and information obtained via enhanced techniques can be used against them. Look, SKM is a bad dude, and should not be released....period.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 05:58 PM

of course we could always keep them on a naval ship in international waters as well.

Hanover Fist

01-22-2009, 06:04 PM

Hopefully Obama is smart enough and pragmatic enough to know this isn't publicly approved and it goes back to being covert where it should be and kept out of public knowledge.
Sure, close Gitmo and say all the right things to the public and the world as long as the CIA can hold and torture the fuck out of these guys when the need arises in some deep dark cell somewhere in the world.
Once they get all the useful information out of them take them out to sea about 50 miles and drop them in the ocean from a few hundred feet and deny you ever saw/held them.

Archangel

01-22-2009, 06:36 PM

The fact that people who ostensibly support democracy and liberty can actually want their government to "torture the fuck out of" people, without a shred of evidence, let alone a trial, is some of the scariest shit I've witnessed in my life.

Look, it's quite simple. Civilised nations don't torture people. Barbarians do. Full stop. It's pretty much THE big difference between the two.
If you want your country to join Iran and North Korea in the eyes of the civilised world, fine. I just hope to God that the majority of your countrymen is just as appalled at that notion as I am.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 06:39 PM

Hodge

01-22-2009, 06:50 PM

I'm not totally sure of the specifics, but it sounds like they'll be "released" to the US's judicial system. I could easily be wrong.
I've read a few articles on this today.
The decision pretty much comes down to continually detaining elsewhere, releasing people back to their own countries, and releasing people.

A lot of the people at Gitmo have been there for years and still have no charges or conclusive evidence against them. Those that are clearly going to continue to do acts of terrorism won't be going too far.

For the sake of argument Omar Khadr, a Canadian, won't be going anywhere near maple syrup anytime soon. The Canadian government has acknowledged this and won't be trying to get him deported back to Canada. They have pretty much dropped his case.

I'd be surprised if anymore than 10 people are actually released. Despite the clusterfuck that the world views Gitmo as I find it hard to believe they would hold so many people for so long without a shred of evidence on them.

I'd be more concerned for those that operate Guatanamo and the new jobs/redeployments they will face. Never mind that I wouldn't feel safe in the same room with people who subject that kind of torture on others.

Pax Britannia

01-22-2009, 07:13 PM

Archangel

01-22-2009, 07:29 PM

i'm not advocating putting needles in their testicles or tearing out their finger nails.

depriving them sleep, lacing their food with caffeine and laxatives, water boarding, keeping them in a high stress position to make them talk...yes.

There's no grey area, no middle ground here. Either you treat prisoners according to the treaties drawn up and signed by civilised nations, or you don't.
If you don't, you're no better than Hussein's thugs who, through torture, made captured US servicemen say those things on camera; they thought they were pursuing a national security goal, too, you know.

And you sir watch 24.

I'm also a huge fan of Batman; doesn't mean I condone billionaire playboy vigilantism.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 07:32 PM

There's no grey area, no middle ground here. Either you treat prisoners according to the treaties drawn up and signed by civilised nations, or you don't.
If you don't, you're no better than Hussein's thugs who, through torture, made captured US servicemen say those things on camera; they thought they were pursuing a national security goal, too, you know.

how do you propose to get these people to talk. As religious zealots they are not going to break easily and you know this all too well.

I'm also a huge fan of Batman; doesn't mean I condone billionaire playboy vigilantism.

thats bullshit, if you had billions you would so be out there, except you would do it in some kind of mercedes, and with air jordans.

Pax Britannia

01-22-2009, 07:32 PM

I'll do anything to defend Britain's freedom. My soul be damned.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 07:34 PM

something tells me if 2 110 story buildings came crashing down, and the military nerve center of the most powerful military on earth was nailed on the obama watch....obama would change his mind on 'torture'.

Archetype

01-22-2009, 07:36 PM

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 07:39 PM

Something tells me that arguments based on conjecture do not vitiate.

Hodge

01-22-2009, 07:44 PM

Something tells me that arguments based on conjecture do not vitiate.
Stop using your fancy lawyer-astronaut words!

Archangel

01-22-2009, 07:46 PM

how do you propose to get these people to talk. As religious zealots they are not going to break easily and you know this all too well.

I am aware of that; that's the rub, innit. Anybody who reads my stuff on these boards (yeah, both of you) knows that I'm no friend of Islamic extremism. And I do realise that the rules of civilised nations cannot be allowed to become a suicide pact. But, civilisation isn't negotiable.

So the only thing to do is for those nations to sit down and hammer out some new rules governing asymmetric warfare, since the old ones are woefully inadequate - seeing as how they were drawn up with a totally different kind of warfare in mind, among people whose fighting men had a proper sense of honour. But as long as there are no such laws, the principle of nulla poena sine lege praevia should apply.

thats bullshit, if you had billions you would so be out there, except you would do it in some kind of mercedes, and with air jordans.

If I had billions, I'd be stark naked on my yacht in the Gulf of Naples, getting my johnson slobbed by two supermodels. I'd definitely not waste my nights running around getting my hands dirty with beating up thieves and drugs dealers.

I'll do anything to defend Britain's freedom. My soul be damned.

Same for me and Germany; but I'm a private person. My government should be held to a higher moral standard than that.

BIG PIZZLE

01-22-2009, 07:48 PM

Stop using your fancy lawyer-astronaut words!

I was actually going to make it fancier but I got a phone call.

Pax Britannia

01-22-2009, 07:48 PM

Same for me and Germany; but I'm a private person. My government should be held to a higher moral standard than that.

Thats why me and you are the EU equivalents of Jack Bauer.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 07:50 PM

Morfin

01-22-2009, 07:58 PM

how do you propose to get these people to talk. As religious zealots they are not going to break easily and you know this all too well.

As long as there are treaties and the Geneva Conventions, then the U.S. as the self-proclaimed leader of the Free World needs to follow them. That is the way it has to be. Plus, there is always a debate on the credibility of information obtained under torture -- people saying what they believe the torturers want to hear in order to make it stop.

Yes, by not using torture, we may not get all the possible information -- but that is the price we pay for being the Leader of the Free World. It is no different than the 4th and 5th Amendments in regard to criminal investigations and prosecutions. Yes, some guilty people go free, but, in the bigger picture, the innocents are protected and society is better for it -- more civilized.

Pax Britannia

01-22-2009, 08:00 PM

Archangel

01-22-2009, 08:02 PM

Do you honestly see the EU allowing for the enhanced interrogation of unlawful combatants? German Negro puhleeeeze.

The french would to give them a hug, the germans would abstain from anything of the like for fear of being called murders, and the british would worry about upsetting their fundamentalist islamic population.

Then maybe, the US could use their newfound respect in that area, as well as their renewed commitment to diplomacy, to nudge their allies in the right direction?

Let's say it went like this: "Listen, we all know you hated my predecessor's guts. I understand. Not too much of a fan myself. But help me make things better. You know that we have a shitload of really dangerous fucks on our hands, and while I have to respect the rule of law which says that we can't keep them where they are, none of us want these people running around freely.
"So, we need to sit our arses down and figure out a way for civilised nations such as yours and mine to deal with their kind in a stern, robust, but civilised manner. We can only do this together, as the sum total of civilised countries in the world; if we get it right, the international community will have to respect it, and respect us for putting our money where our mouths are and obeying the word of law. It's gonna be tough, no doubt, but it's the only way we can safeguard the lives of our citizenry without jeopardising all that we stand for."

We couldn't afford not to listen. Also, it would be a great way of reaching out to Russia and China, since they both have their own troubles with jihadists; by binding them to one set of rules which both makes the war on terror easier AND respects human rights, you might get both to see that accepting human rights in their entirety isn't a bad idea...

But hey, that's just me.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 08:05 PM

Then maybe, the US could use their newfound respect in that area, as well as their renewed commitment to democracy, to nudge her allies in the right direction?

Let's say it went like this: "Listen, we all know you hated my predecessor's guts. I understand. Not too much of a fan myself. But help me make things better. You know that we have a shitload of really dangerous fucks on our hands, and while I have to respect the rule of law which says that we can't keep them where they are, none of us want these people running around freely.
"So, we need to sit our arses down and figure out a way for civilised nations such as yours and mine to deal with their kind in a stern, robust, but civilised manner. We can only do this together, as the sum total of civilised countries in the world; if we get it right, the international community will have to respect it, and respect us for putting our money where our mouths are and obeying the word of law. It's gonna be tough, no doubt, but it's the only way we can safeguard the lives of our citizenry without jeopardising all that we stand for."

We couldn't afford not to listen. Also, it would be a great way of reaching out to Russia and China, since they both have their own troubles with jihadists; by binding them to one set of rules which both makes the war on terror easier AND respects human rights, you might get both to see that accepting human rights in their entirety isn't a bad idea...

But hey, that's just me.

i am all for working with the allies, we defeated communisim together, but we were facing a an enemy that was at least part of the concept of humanism, the enlightenment, and the list goes on. The 'islamic world' isn't even close to a reformation, let alone any concept of civility.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 08:08 PM

You obviously know nothing of how long potential terrorists can be held by the police in Britain. It's caused quite a stir.

Yes, I am aware of this, however, wasn't labour caving in by easing the law with regards to holding such people?

Archangel

01-22-2009, 08:09 PM

Oh, sorry. That speech was supposed to be directed at the leaders of the civilised world, not the jihadists. Fuck them. If we could come up with a set of laws and treaties called "nuke the fuckers", I'd be all for it. But it has to be by the book.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 08:10 PM

As long as there are treaties and the Geneva Conventions, then the U.S. as the self-proclaimed leader of the Free World needs to follow them. That is the way it has to be. Plus, there is always a debate on the credibility of information obtained under torture -- people saying what they believe the torturers want to hear in order to make it stop.

Yes, by not using torture, we may not get all the possible information -- but that is the price we pay for being the Leader of the Free World. It is no different than the 4th and 5th Amendments in regard to criminal investigations and prosecutions. Yes, some guilty people go free, but, in the bigger picture, the innocents are protected and society is better for it -- more civilized.

And that 'civility' should come at the price of 3000 civilians being killed when commercial airliners are used as missiles with 20,000 pounds of jet fuel?

Pax Britannia

01-22-2009, 08:11 PM

Yes, I am aware of this, however, wasn't labour caving in by easing the law with regards to holding such people?

It did face stiff opposition however the police can now hold terror suspects for 42 days.

Archangel

01-22-2009, 08:12 PM

And that 'civility' should come at the price of 3000 civilians being killed when commercial airliners are used as missiles with 20,000 pounds of jet fuel?

Didn't the coalition get a shitload more Iraqis killed in return? Just saying.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 08:13 PM

Didn't the coalition get a shitload more Iraqis killed in return? Just saying.

so your answer is yes?

Archangel

01-22-2009, 08:16 PM

so your answer is yes?

I'd rather be dead and civilised than alive and a barbarian, any fucking day of the week.

So yes. No way I'm renouncing the sum total of mankind's greatest achievements for anything.

wonderllama

01-22-2009, 08:16 PM

blah blah....China, since they both have their own troubles with jihadists; by binding them to one set of rules which both makes the war on terror easier AND respects human rights, you might get both to see that accepting human rights in their entirety isn't a bad idea...

But hey, that's just me.

...you had me until the word China.

Morfin

01-22-2009, 08:17 PM

And that 'civility' should come at the price of 3000 civilians being killed when commercial airliners are used as missiles with 20,000 pounds of jet fuel?

Whether torture should or should not be used is something that arose after 9/11. And the answer is "Yes." I agree that it is difficult, emotionally, because we all want to stop terrorism, but, no, it is not worth the cost.

And, I feel the same way about the PATRIOT Act. I do not believe that we should sacrifice our privacy and constitutional rights under the guise of stopping terrorism.

Pax Britannia

01-22-2009, 08:17 PM

I'd rather be dead and civilised than alive and a barbarian, any fucking day of the week.

You realise that the EU will end this way dont you?

vasili denisov

01-22-2009, 08:17 PM

I dont know where to start, but that little doozy at the beginning, where you blame deaths in Iraq, and Afghanistan on Guantanamo. Seriously, think about that. Taking people off the battlefield who are a threat, and securing, and interrogating them somewhere, is somehow causing deaths? ARE YOU A FUCKING MORON? If you really think that the jihadists are going to go "Oh yeah, guess what, they closed Guantanamo, I think i've decided against strapping on a bomb vest", you are severely deluded.
Could you avoid the name calling? You seem to consider me mentally handicapped on the basis of my position, rather than any arguments I might make for it. If I am mentally handicapped, your insults shouldn't be necessary; my stupidity should well be obvious in my poor thinking and expression.

As for Guantanamo hurting US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, I stand by that statement. I've no interest whether it affects a jihadist mind-set. It does, however, make it much more difficult when trying to persuade locals that you're a friend and ally, to get information about the surrounding area and community. Great emphasis is placed on the information extracted from people thousands of miles away from a battlefield; I'd say the information that can be gotten from the people of a small village about the clans, warlords, and islamist groups is equally or more valuable in saving american lives.

It's that much more difficult to obtain the trust that will get you that information when all the locals are familiar with this place called Guanatanamo where you can be held and tortured even if you're guilty of nothing. Abu Ghraib was a powerful symbol of Saddam's contempt of his people, as a bastion of torture and cruelty. To place something there expressing american ideals of justice and fairness was extraordinarily important; the subsequent events (which were not some rogue incident) destroyed all possibility of that, cost us friends in Iraq, which in turn cost american lives.

Again, the Geneva convention applies to conventional warfare. If they are not part of an army, they are not protected by it. If we play by those rules, against this enemy, we will lose. And all your high faluting morality will be lost under the iron fist of an one world islamic caliphate. I fucking hate little twits like you.
We're going over the same points in the same threads. All combatants, let me repeat, ALL, combatants, captured on the battlefield fall under international law. That's absolutely crystal clear in Geneva. Were we to employ your misinterpretation of international law, then partisans unaffiliated to a state's army (including french and german partisans during the second world war) could be tortured with immunity, while Nazi troops could not.

Claydon

01-22-2009, 08:18 PM

I'd rather be dead and civilised than alive and a barbarian, any fucking day of the week.

So yes. No way I'm renouncing the sum total of mankind's greatest achievements for anything.

hence the turkish invasion of germany, and the complete inability of the european nations immigrants to assimilate. roll over rather than deal with the problems at hand?

vasili denisov

01-22-2009, 08:29 PM

Hopefully Obama is smart enough and pragmatic enough to know this isn't publicly approved and it goes back to being covert where it should be and kept out of public knowledge.

I'd say two principles that are the bedrock of conservatism are that the law is sancrosanct, and can only be violated in the most extreme conditions; and that any part of the state can be deeply wrong, and should be checked as much as possible by the people and other elements of the state. Your belief violates both principles. If someone decides not to pay taxes because the state is a bad filthy thing, or welched on a contract because he considered the business a greedy, corrupt institution, we'd consider this a laughable justification.

Contracts and laws must be respected, even if you think you have pragmatic righteous reasons for flouting them. The very adherence to such laws is crucial for the smooth functioning of a civil society. Yet here you believe that a state should simply ignore the law because it feels like it, then should keep from being checked from exercising its most tyrannical powers by cloaking the information like any third rate despot.

Archangel

01-22-2009, 08:36 PM

...you had me until the word China.
Hey, baby steps, mate. Baby steps.
You realise that the EU will end this way dont you?
A new generation is coming, one whose memories aren't tainted by the horrors of nazism, and one who can finally call a spade a bloody spade. I give the current situation another 15 years, max (and pray to God that it won't be too late by then); a shift to the right is already visible.
hence the turkish invasion of germany, and the complete inability of the european nations immigrants to assimilate. roll over rather than deal with the problems at hand?
As I said, the current generation in power is only one generation removed from WWII. As long as they run shit, very little will get done.

Stax

01-22-2009, 09:38 PM

And that 'civility' should come at the price of 3000 civilians being killed when commercial airliners are used as missiles with 20,000 pounds of jet fuel?

Since we had intel on the attacks but our own beauracracy screwed us, I'd say that's a shitty, false, and incredibly cheap way to use the deaths of thousands to justify the violation of international law.

Debo

01-22-2009, 11:14 PM

A - George Bush released those people.

B - I'd like to know how they determined if someone "returned to terrorism".

C - If the American people wanted Gitmo to stay open, they could have voted for McCain. It isn't like Obama hid that he wanted to shut it down, it was part of his platform. So if any blood is on anyone's hands, it's the American people that voted for him. I'm ok with that. The prison does not fit with the moral, ethical, or legal standards established for our country. If I learned anything from George W. Bush, it's that sometimes you have to make the tough choice, and sometimes people die because of it.

Were these American people in favor of Gitmo when they voted for Bush in 2004?

And here is a different perspective from the WSJ's op-ed page:

Obama and Guantanamo

Fighting terrorism is simpler when you're a candidate.

Campaign promises are so much easier to adhere to when they're strictly hypothetical, as Barack Obama is discovering. The then-President-elect said 10 days ago on ABC that while he still plans to close Guantanamo, "it is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize" and that "many" of the enemy combatants are "very dangerous."
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CZ626_oj_1gi_E_20090121205359.jpg AP

Merely for gesturing at this reality, Mr. Obama suffered the blunt-force trauma of his left-wing allies, and the panicked transition leaked new details on the Administration's intentions last week. On Tuesday the Pentagon halted military commissions at Guantanamo for 120 days, and reports as we went to press yesterday said Mr. Obama would sign an executive order today that the base be closed within a year. This was after he told the Washington Post that closure might take even longer. Isn't responsibility fun?

The first practical question is where to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 245 or so other remaining Gitmo prisoners. Dangerous enemy combatants can't simply be released into the streets. The Obama camp says that after reviewing the classified files, it will try to repatriate as many as safely possible. But 60 already cleared for release remain because they may be persecuted by their home countries. And even Mr. Obama's vaunted diplomacy is unlikely to convince rights-protecting countries to resettle people he believes are too dangerous to release in the U.S. -- and the more willing Mr. Obama is to release prisoners, the more difficult this problem will become.

One suggestion is moving the remaining prisoners to Kansas's Fort Leavenworth, but state politicians are already sounding a red alert. The military base is integrated into the community and, lacking Guantanamo's isolation and defense capacities, would instantly become a potential terror target. Expect similar protests from other states that are involuntarily entered in this sweepstakes.

In any event, this option merely relocates Guantanamo to American soil under another name. The core challenge is not a matter of geography but ensuring a stable legal framework for detaining and punishing fighters engaged in unconventional warfare against the U.S.
In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the Bush Administration and Congress painstakingly set thresholds for who can be detained and under what rules. Mr. Obama argues that work was flawed and that the trials should not continue in their present form. But he also said in his ABC sitdown that he wants to create "a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, but doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

Sounds great. But this "balance" is difficult to strike because many of the Guantanamo prisoners haven't committed crimes per se but are dedicated American enemies and too dangerous to let go. Other cases involve evidence that is insufficient for trial but still sufficient to determine that release is an unacceptable security risk.

The stock anti-antiterror position is that detainees should be charged with crimes, either through military courts-martial or (preferably) the ordinary criminal justice system. Anyone who can't be indicted should be set free. But such trials are unworkable even for the 70 or 80 detainees that prosecutors had planned to try with military commissions, let alone prisoners who are too dangerous to release but for which there isn't sufficient evidence for a tribunal, much less civilian courts. Critics like to point to aggressive interrogations as somehow tainting these cases, but the real problems are far more prosaic. For instance, any evidence probably can't be admitted in civilian courts because terrorists aren't read their Miranda rights when picked up in combat zones.

An alternative to military commissions that is gaining political traction is the idea of a national security court, composed of Article III judges to supervise detentions and administer trials. There are real risks here. Politically, it will cost time and capital that Mr. Obama probably prefers to spend elsewhere. Practically, any new system is likely to face the same legal challenges from the white-shoe lawyers at Shearman and Sterling and anti-antiterror activists that for years tied down military commissions.

But legal experts across the political spectrum including Harvard's Jack Goldsmith, the Brookings Institution's Ben Wittes and Georgetown's Neal Katyal advance this option as a way to restore "credibility" to the detainee process. The national security court would operate under rules of evidence and classification that would allow the military to avoid compromising intelligence sources and methods, as well as admit intelligence gathered under battlefield conditions.
Then again, such rules would be almost identical to those now used in . . . George Bush's military commissions. On wiretaps, interrogations and now Gitmo, the new Administration is discovering that the left-wing attack lines against Bush policies are mostly simplistic illusions. Now those critics are Mr. Obama's problem.

freegood

01-22-2009, 11:46 PM

Rover

01-23-2009, 12:46 AM

And I do realise that the rules of civilised nations cannot be allowed to become a suicide pact. But, civilisation isn't negotiable.Civilization is negotiable. Or at least evolving. 300 years ago I would have had 40 slaves to harvest my crops and I would have forced my daughters to marry the sons of mayors and lawyers. I would have been the most civilized fellow in the land.
Oh, sorry. That speech was supposed to be directed at the leaders of the civilised world, not the jihadists. Fuck them. If we could come up with a set of laws and treaties called "nuke the fuckers", I'd be all for it. But it has to be by the book.So we could set up international law that condones torture and you'll be fine? Is your problem with torture that it isn't legal, and if it were legal you'd have no problem with it?

We're going over the same points in the same threads. All combatants, let me repeat, ALL, combatants, captured on the battlefield fall under international law. That's absolutely crystal clear in Geneva. Were we to employ your misinterpretation of international law, then partisans unaffiliated to a state's army (including french and german partisans during the second world war) could be tortured with immunity, while Nazi troops could not.This simply isn't true. And for the record, partisans captured on the battlefield during WWII were summarily executed, or given a fancy military tribunal and then executed.

And it would make sense that unaffiliated partisans could be tortured and executed, while uniformed troops could not. The military and warfare are/were considered honorable professions conducted by gentlemen. A partisan running around committing acts of terrorism is the exact opposite of that.

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
I think it's safe to assume that islamic militant terrorists, who behead prisoners, hide in schools, use civilians as shields from weapons, and intentionally target civilians for attacks have declined to accept and apply the provisions of the Geneva convention.

vasili denisov

01-23-2009, 01:09 AM

We're going over the same points in the same threads. All combatants, let me repeat, ALL, combatants, captured on the battlefield fall under international law. That's absolutely crystal clear in Geneva. Were we to employ your misinterpretation of international law, then partisans unaffiliated to a state's army (including french and german partisans during the second world war) could be tortured with immunity, while Nazi troops could not.

This simply isn't true.
Uh, yes, it is. Here, I already posted this (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=349207#post349207) here.

In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.

And for the record, partisans captured on the battlefield during WWII were summarily executed, or given a fancy military tribunal and then executed.
Yes, and those executions can be considered as war crimes.

And it would make sense that unaffiliated partisans could be tortured and executed, while uniformed troops could not. The military and warfare are/were considered honorable professions conducted by gentlemen. A partisan running around committing acts of terrorism is the exact opposite of that.

Well, the Vichy government was recognized as the official government of France by axis states, so arguably the french partisans, who included many gentlemen and brave soldiers, were not considered the official, affiliated army of france. So, according to you, the torture and execution of these men by the Vichy government cannot be considered a war crime.

I think it's safe to assume that islamic militant terrorists, who behead prisoners, hide in schools, use civilians as shields from weapons, and intentionally target civilians for attacks have declined to accept and apply the provisions of the Geneva convention.

The Geneva convention is not a business contract; it is not rendered void for other parties if one party fails its obligations. That Serbia may have committed war crimes did not give license to Croatians to commit war crimes, and both parties have been prosecuted for such acts.

Archangel

01-23-2009, 01:35 AM

Civilization is negotiable. Or at least evolving. 300 years ago I would have had 40 slaves to harvest my crops and I would have forced my daughters to marry the sons of mayors and lawyers. I would have been the most civilized fellow in the land.

Your land, maybe. We may have had serfdom and indenture here, but slavery was rather frowned upon. But what's your point, anyway? If civilisation evolves, isn't taking a step backwards counter to nature?

So we could set up international law that condones torture and you'll be fine? Is your problem with torture that it isn't legal, and if it were legal you'd have no problem with it?

No, what I said is that while steering clear of those things that can't be interpreted as anything but, the international community has to come up with a way to deal with a category of people who aren't really simple criminals, but who also don't really fit into the military combatant category, in a decisive but somehow acceptable manner, possibly using methods which are now considered borderline (sleep deprivation etc). What that is is a matter of consensus.

I think it's safe to assume that islamic militant terrorists, who behead prisoners, hide in schools, use civilians as shields from weapons, and intentionally target civilians for attacks have declined to accept and apply the provisions of the Geneva convention.

So? Criminals, by raping, stealing, murdering, embezzling, lying etc, show that they reject the legal norms that society has set for all of its members. But still, civilised countries do not allow policemen to beat felons to death; we provide them with legal representation, a fair trial, and in case of conviction, we either let them live with some vestiges of dignity, or kill them in a, well, merciful manner.
Because if we abase ourselves to their level, we lose the moral authority to do anything about them at all.

The same applies here, only on a larger scale: If we would punish those who we say attack the civilised world, we have to be civilised to have the authority to do so. So what our society must do is look at ways of combating this threat, decide what is legal and what isn't, and then strictly adhere to the legal ones. If the community of civilised nations decides that waterboarding is legal (which I doubt), so be it.

As I keep saying, it's not them I want to protect; it's us. Whether you torture people or not is one of the decisive benchmarks of civilisation - so it is up to society to define the term for this age.

Archangel

01-23-2009, 01:37 AM

Somebody once talked about the re-naturalisation of society, and scary as it may sound, it looks as though we may be halfway there.

Rover

01-23-2009, 02:03 AM

Uh, yes, it is. Here, I already posted this (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=349207#post349207) here.That statement is what the International Red Cross believes is the meaning of that section. That is the Red Cross's opinion.

The 2nd Article I posted is the "out clause" for countries. No country would agree to be bound by regulations that hamper their national defense, if the other side isn't subjected to the same regulations. So, the very first thing the negotiators came up with, after the obligatory, "We should all try to do these things to our utmost ability," was state how they can get out from underneath the obligations.

All treaties have these. It's standard: "We'll do these things, if you're doing these things, but if you're not gonna do it, then we're not gonna, because it's not fair."

The Geneva convention is not a business contract; it is not rendered void for other parties if one party fails its obligations. That Serbia may have committed war crimes did not give license to Croatians to commit war crimes, and both parties have been prosecuted for such acts.Sure it is. Contract - treaty, same thing with a different name. Read the text of it. Everyone plays by the rules or no one is obligated.

Serbia and Croatia have bigger problems, like being members of the ICC, and inviting that clusterfuck of an organization to determine wrongdoing.

freegood

01-23-2009, 02:08 AM

The US has the most troops stationed abroad. Torturing people just gives the next enemy bigger excuse to torture our guys openly.

During the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong tortured American prisoners to a new science. They actually thought that the world would tolerate such a fact by publicizing it. It was only because of political outrage from other countries that they stopped doing it wholesale and even released prisoners so they could receive proper medical care.

We've already crossed that line, and you won't see other nations rallying to our cause the next time a power or group tortures our servicemen and hides behind chickenshit legalities based upon the precedents the Bush Administration set.

That is the price we will pay if we don't repair our moral credibility.

Rover

01-23-2009, 02:13 AM

Our "torture" consists of waterboarding and sleep deprivation. It's hard to morally equate that with boiling someone in a vat of oil. I'd like to believe the international community recognizes the difference between beheading a prisoner, and making them listen to AC/DC.

Archangel

01-23-2009, 02:25 AM

Beheading is execution, not torture...

And for everybody who plays down waterboarding as some kind of leisure activity, I almost hope somebody tries it on you once.
The fact is that while nicking $10 from your aunt's purse isn't the same as somebody fucking over his clients for millions and millions, they're both a form of theft. Just because it's a lesser form doesn't mean it's negligible, and it definitely doesn't allow you to keep a moral high ground. By any definition, waterboarding is torture, and that's the end of that; getting into debates on which is worse and "they started it" is eminently childish.

freegood

01-23-2009, 02:45 AM

The history of waterboarding (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834)shows that the debate really isn't that new. Yet another Bushism to reinvent the wheel only to hammer out the pointed edges....

Archangel

01-23-2009, 02:50 AM

It always comes down to one thing:

Seeing the other side as less than human.

Charlatan

01-23-2009, 03:45 AM

It must be really hard being Yelram.

The fact that people who ostensibly support democracy and liberty can actually want their government to "torture the fuck out of" people, without a shred of evidence, let alone a trial, is some of the scariest shit I've witnessed in my life.

Look, it's quite simple. Civilised nations don't torture people. Barbarians do. Full stop. It's pretty much THE big difference between the two.
If you want your country to join Iran and North Korea in the eyes of the civilised world, fine. I just hope to God that the majority of your countrymen is just as appalled at that notion as I am.At least we agree on something.

Debo

01-23-2009, 07:28 AM

WSJ op/ed misses the point again by leaving out mention of torture-induced confessions. Public and world opinion of our military courts are so low that even a fair judgment would be rendered useless. Dubya screwed the pooch with his egg breaking and his successor is left trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together after he's been scrambled and fried.

Only three people were waterboarded: KSM, Ramsi Yousef and an unnamed person.

And the information obtained from KSM prevented future terrorists attacks. I have no problem dunking his head in a bucket of water if it saved my life.

vasili denisov

01-23-2009, 08:49 AM

That statement is what the International Red Cross believes is the meaning of that section. That is the Red Cross's opinion.
The Red Cross isn't a latecomer commentator on this; they're the ones who initiated and drafted the Geneva conventions. The commentary is made by the drafters to clarify the points of the treaty. These aren't incidental notes by some blogger, but points of legal consequence.

The Geneva convention is not a business contract; it is not rendered void for other parties if one party fails its obligations. That Serbia may have committed war crimes did not give license to Croatians to commit war crimes, and both parties have been prosecuted for such acts.

Sure it is. Contract - treaty, same thing with a different name. Read the text of it. Everyone plays by the rules or no one is obligated.

Serbia and Croatia have bigger problems, like being members of the ICC, and inviting that clusterfuck of an organization to determine wrongdoing.
I think you're avoiding the issue here. I've said that a treaty such as this doesn't work like a business contract. You say, sure it does. I gave a clear example of how it isn't. Serbia's violations do not give Croatia license to commit war crimes. Milosevic is prosecuted, and so is Croatian Ante Gotovina. Your response was, Serbia and Croatia have bigger problems than this. That doesn't really do much to refute my point.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 09:55 AM

The Red Cross isn't a latecomer commentator on this; they're the ones who initiated and drafted the Geneva conventions. The commentary is made by the drafters to clarify the points of the treaty. These aren't incidental notes by some blogger, but points of legal consequence.

I think you're avoiding the issue here. I've said that a treaty such as this doesn't work like a business contract. You say, sure it does. I gave a clear example of how it isn't. Serbia's violations do not give Croatia license to commit war crimes. Milosevic is prosecuted, and so is Croatian Ante Gotovina. Your response was, Serbia and Croatia have bigger problems than this. That doesn't really do much to refute my point.

You are making shit up, and you just keep repeating it, like its suddenly going to become true.

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are." Thats in article 4.

You arent "stupid" you are just naive, and redundant.

Article 5

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. ... Section II. Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict ...Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary."

THEY CAN BE DETAINED INDEFINITELY. Fucking toolbag. You think if you word stupid thoughts intelligently, they suddenly gain credibility? This is like two teams playing football, and a fucking fan runs in, grabs the ball, and gets the first down. The teams are playing by the rules, but the rules do not apply to someone who is not playing the game.

Archangel

01-23-2009, 10:18 AM

And you make an amazing case for yourself by not being able to talk to vasili without calling him a "fucking toolbag" and the like. Seriously, being raised by wolverines appears to have done little for your social skills.

TylerDurden

01-23-2009, 11:15 AM

This is like two teams playing football, and a fucking fan runs in, grabs the ball, and gets the first down. The teams are playing by the rules, but the rules do not apply to someone who is not playing the game.

this would be a great analogy, if only it were used on an applicable rebuttal. srsly, save yourself embarrassment and shut the fuck up. your name-calling temper tantrums disguised as rebuttals are completely diminishing your credibility. you've already been dealt with, and the rest of the conversation has moved on without you.

And you make an amazing case for yourself by not being able to talk to anyone without calling them a "fucking toolbag" and the like. Seriously, being raised by a pack of wild, mentally retarded dickalopes appears to have done little for your social skills.

fixed.

and before you slam my post for not containing anything of substance or even pertinent to the root discussion... i've already done so, and don't need to further. i just enjoy watching you get mentally raped.

vasili denisov

01-23-2009, 11:19 AM

You are making shit up, and you just keep repeating it, like its suddenly going to become true.

THEY CAN BE DETAINED INDEFINITELY. Fucking toolbag.
Clearly, this issue is causing you to be very upset. I believe you're citing the wrong convention. You're citing the fourth, which covers civilians. If we're speaking about Taliban captured on the battlefield, they would fall under the third, covering prisoners of war. Article 5 in that treaty makes clear that should there be any doubt whether anyone captured falls under the categories of prisoner of war outlined in Article 4, they are granted full protection by the treaty.

Again, the same points are being re-hashed. You're stating that these persons fall outside of international law. The treaty emphasizes that no person should fall outside the grounds of the treaty. You're trying to find some basis for your beliefs in the treaty which is not there, and getting more emotional each time. I think this is a failed quest on your part, and if you can't debate it rationally, just let it go.

Archangel

01-23-2009, 11:22 AM

There are maybe ten people on these boards whom I would NEVER even think of trying to patronise intellectually.

The fact that someone would even attempt that shit with vasili is bloody ludicrous.

Stax

01-23-2009, 11:40 AM

There are maybe ten people on these boards whom I would NEVER even think of trying to patronise intellectually.

Do I make the Arch list or did my commentary on German anti-Holocaust-denial laws piss you off too much? <3

Only three people were waterboarded: KSM, Ramsi Yousef and an unnamed person.

I find it far more likely that there are three people we know about. It seems unlikely to me that an entire method of interrogation was applied to just three prisoners, especially given how vociferously the administration defended it.

tockit

01-23-2009, 12:03 PM

As far as I can tell, the only people who determined these guys are terrorists are the same people who brought us the "intelligence" which resulted in the invasion of Iraq. Did you forget those lies or are you the only person in the world who still believes them? I'm not saying that they arent terrorists, but there needs to be some independent evaluation. A court perhaps?

And thanks for playing the fear card like a good little Bush nuthugger. You know what scares me more than a prison close to my house stuffed with "terrorists"? An ignorant and tyrannical government who puts people in foreign prisons indefinitely and with impunity.

Do you ever think about why "they hate us!!!"? It's not because we have "freedom" and MTV. You're a tool.
Pizzle, I apoligize!

I guess I shouldn't assume that a Jihadist Terrorist would return to a life of terrorism? I would have thought a guy like this would have joined the Peace Corp......

They gave this guy the benefit of the doubt, even let him out (an independent evaluation perhaps), like Obama wants to do and look what happens.....

Strange though, they let him out, and are in the process of preparing to shut down Gitmo, and he is still joining a Terrorist Cell?

Still seems angry to me:

Guantánamo Detainee Resurfaces in Terrorist Group
By Robert F. Worth

Friday, January 23, 2009
BEIRUT: The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order that President Barack Obama signed that the detention center be shut down within a year.
The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by a U.S. counterterrorism official. "They're one and the same guy," said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. "He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear."

The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in the absence of any measures for dealing with current detainees. But it also helps explain why the new administration wants to move cautiously, taking time to work out a plan to cope with the complications.

Almost half the camp's remaining detainees are Yemenis, and efforts to repatriate them depend in part on the creation of a Yemeni rehabilitation program - financed in part by the United States - similar to the Saudi one. The Saudi government has claimed that no graduate of its program has returned to terrorism.

"The lesson here is: Whoever receives former Guantánamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them," the U.S. official said.
Although the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have "returned to the fight," its claim is difficult to document and has been met with skepticism. In any case, few of the former detainees, if any, are thought to have joined the leadership of a major terrorist organization like Al Qaeda in Yemen, a mostly homegrown group that experts say has been reinforced lately by an infusion of foreign fighters.

Long considered a haven for jihadists, Yemen, a desperately poor country in the southern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, has witnessed a rising number of deadly attacks over the past year. U.S. officials say they suspect that Shihri may have been involved in the double car bombings outside the U.S. Embassy in Sana on Sept. 16 that killed 16 people, including six of the attackers.

In the Internet statement, Al Qaeda in Yemen identified its new deputy leader as Abu Sayyaf al-Shihri, saying he returned from Guantánamo to his native Saudi Arabia and then traveled to neighboring Yemen "more than 10 months ago." That corresponds roughly to the return of Shihri, a Saudi who was released from Guantánamo in November 2007.
"Abu Sayyaf" is a nom de guerre, commonly used among jihadists in place of their real name or first name.

A Saudi security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Shihri had disappeared from his home in Saudi Arabia last year after finishing the rehabilitation program.
A Yemeni journalist who interviewed Al Qaeda's leaders in Yemen last year, Abdulela Shaya, confirmed Thursday that the deputy leader was indeed Shihri, the former Guantánamo detainee. Shaya, in a telephone interview, said Shihri had described to him his journey from Cuba to Yemen and supplied his Guantánamo detention number, 372. That is the correct number, Pentagon documents show.

"It seems certain from all the sources we have that this is the same individual who was released from Guantánamo in 2007," said Gregory Johnsen, a terrorism analyst and the editor of a forthcoming book, "Islam and Insurgency in Yemen."
Shihri, 35, trained in urban warfare tactics at a camp north of Kabul, Afghanistan, according to documents released by the Pentagon as part of his Guantánamo dossier. Two weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he traveled to Afghanistan via Bahrain and Pakistan, and later he told American investigators that his intention was to do relief work, the documents say. He was wounded in an airstrike and spent a month and a half recovering in a hospital in Pakistan.

The documents state that Shihri met with a group of "extremists" in Iran and helped them get into Afghanistan. They also say he was accused of trying to arrange the assassination of a writer, in accordance with a fatwa, or religious order, issued by an extremist cleric.
However, under a heading describing reasons for Shihri's possible release from Guantánamo, the documents say he claimed that he traveled to Iran "to purchase carpets for his store in Riyadh." They also say that he denied any knowledge of terrorists or association with any, and that he "related that if released, he would like to return to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, wherein he would reunite with his family."
"The detainee stated he would attempt to work at his family's furniture store if it is still in business," the documents said.

Hanover Fist

01-23-2009, 12:07 PM

Are Obamas continuing airstrikes inside Pakistan also against International Law? Or are they ok now because Obama is doing them and not Pres. Bush?
Hasn't Obama just attacked a sovereign nation without provocation?

Le Goat

01-23-2009, 01:31 PM

It's cause he's black, not cause he's not Bush. Duh.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 04:12 PM

Clearly, this issue is causing you to be very upset. I believe you're citing the wrong convention. You're citing the fourth, which covers civilians. If we're speaking about Taliban captured on the battlefield, they would fall under the third, covering prisoners of war. Article 5 in that treaty makes clear that should there be any doubt whether anyone captured falls under the categories of prisoner of war outlined in Article 4, they are granted full protection by the treaty.

You arent debating, you are repeating, and you are consistently WRONG. Lets actually read the words, since I already posted them. Your whole statement here is entirely incorrect, because the Taliban armies WERE NOT CONSIDERED PRISONERS OF WAR.

Here is the obvious reasoning for why they dont, since you have decided to make up what the convention states instead of reading it.

"To determine the prisoners' status under the Geneva Convention, the first place to look is in the treaty itself. You can find this on Yale Law School's web site at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm) Article 4 of the treaty defines a prisoner of war. The following test applies to the Taliban prisoners:
"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
The Taliban terrorists fail at least items (b), (c), and (d) of this test. They do not wear uniforms ("a fixed distinctive sign"). In fact, they rely on blending into the civilian population in order to carry out their terrorist acts. Their arms are usually concealed in their luggage, the back of a truck, or even inside their shoes. They target non-combatants in preference to military forces, so they routinely violate the most basic rules of warfare. I don't see how an honest observer could even think of calling them prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Michael C. Dorf, the Dean of the Columbia University Law School, has published his legal opinion at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html." (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html)

(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html)

So theres why your first point is wrong. Then you say this.

Article 5 in that treaty makes clear that should there be any doubt whether anyone captured falls under the categories of prisoner of war outlined in Article 4, they are granted full protection by the treaty.

And apparently you didnt read the actual treaty again, because it guarantees them ONLY the right to humane treatment during imprisonment.

Here i'll post it again, since you apparently DIDNT READ IT.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. ... Section II. Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict ...Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary."

And here you come, to restate the exact same completely false statements again, and wonder why I call you a toolbag.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 04:18 PM

this would be a great analogy, if only it were used on an applicable rebuttal. srsly, save yourself embarrassment and shut the fuck up. your name-calling temper tantrums disguised as rebuttals are completely diminishing your credibility. you've already been dealt with, and the rest of the conversation has moved on without you.

fixed.

and before you slam my post for not containing anything of substance or even pertinent to the root discussion... i've already done so, and don't need to further. i just enjoy watching you get mentally raped.

Mentally raped? Yeah, ummm okay. Do you know where the shift key is? And how to capitalize? I mean you've obviously found the period. Its funny when someone proves someone wrong, using their own "source" for their position, that i'm somehow mentally raped? Its hard for someone with a sloppy wet pussy for a brain to rape anything.

TylerDurden

01-23-2009, 04:53 PM

blah blah blah. rape me. blah blah blah.

you're welcome.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 04:53 PM

Awwww, how cute Tylerdurden has no life, and neither does hoser. AWWWW cutesy wootsy neg rep. You guys are the best. I dont know what i'd do without pathetic computer nerds that never fucking leave the net. Have a fun time negging my posts, and feeling good about yourself, i'm going to hang out with friends in reality, you know, that place you go when you get off your fat dumb asses.

TylerDurden

01-23-2009, 04:55 PM

Yelram

01-23-2009, 04:58 PM

lulz. someone's butt-hurt. run along and play. you and your friends can talk about how sweet the newest power ranger dvd was.

Man, i've been in the negative rep more times than you jackoff a day. That still doesnt change the obvious language of the geneva convention, or the legality of detaining terrorist suspects at GB indefinitely. But its awesome you have such a good time neg repping. There used to be a time on the forums, where that amount of negging wasnt allowed, but hey, whateva.

Hoser

01-23-2009, 05:01 PM

Bush was wrong holding them the way he did, if he had gone another route with it there would be no problem, but he went the wrong way about this, bottom line.

TylerDurden

01-23-2009, 05:04 PM

Man, i've been in the negative rep more times than you jackoff a day. That still doesnt change the obvious language of the geneva convention, or the legality of detaining terrorist suspects at GB indefinitely. But its awesome you have such a good time neg repping. There used to be a time on the forums, where that amount of negging wasnt allowed, but hey, whateva.

just like there used to be a time where the average newb-ass poster knew how to have a conversation without slamming every fucking op he was responding to.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 05:05 PM

Bush was wrong holding them the way he did, if he had gone another route with it there would be no problem, but he went the wrong way about this, bottom line.
This is exactly why I hate tards like you, MAKE A FUCKING POINT OR DONT WASTE MY TIME.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 05:06 PM

just like there used to be a time where the average newb-ass poster knew how to have a conversation without slamming every fucking op he was responding to.

Newb? Dude, i've been here so much longer than you its not even funny. I was here when it was MBS, and tied in with nerdy south. I've been my self on here since the fucking beginning, and if someone says something stupid, I call them out. If you want some pussy forum where people need to play nice, then fucking go to "The View" forums or something.

TylerDurden

01-23-2009, 05:09 PM

Newb? Dude, i've been here so much longer than you its not even funny. I was here when it was MBS, and tied in with nerdy south. I've been my self on here since the fucking beginning, and if someone says something stupid, I call them out. If you want some pussy forum where people need to play nice, then fucking go to "The View" forums or something.

101 posts in three fucking years; lulz (http://archive.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=1554)

try again. (http://archive.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=105)

Hoser

01-23-2009, 05:10 PM

This is exactly why I hate tards like you, MAKE A FUCKING POINT OR DONT WASTE MY TIME.

Make a point???

I am pretty sure me saying that Bush was wrong about imprisoning these people the way he did is a point. It wasn't some long drawn out post, it said exactly what I wanted without trying to make it seem like a post to win a Pulitzer.

If you cannot understand the very simple message then to fucking bad.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 05:13 PM

101 posts in three fucking years; lulz (http://archive.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=1554)

try again. (http://archive.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=105)

Oh yeah, I forgot I have a life.

And BTW, that isnt the first forum, thats like about the 3rd i'm pretty sure. Either third or second. But either way, you werent on MBS, I know that for a fact. I dont post in Gen con, I dont post in fucking anything except NEWS, P&C, and Philo.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 05:14 PM

Make a point???

I am pretty sure me saying that Bush was wrong about imprisoning these people the way he did is a point. It wasn't some long drawn out post, it said exactly what I wanted without trying to make it seem like a post to win a Pulitzer.

If you cannot understand the very simple message then to fucking bad.

NO YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD, that is an unsubstantiated statement. Much like me saying "your mother should have had you aborted, and the world would be a better place". But i'd say this thread is enough substantiation for that claim. But i'm sure you'll neg rep me for being too "mean". Its kinda cute to watch you two retards fumble over who can make the dumbest post, and neg me the most.

Hoser

01-23-2009, 05:15 PM

No, it is called a fucking OPINION!!!!!

Limp

01-23-2009, 05:16 PM

Opinions are like asses. Everyone has one and most of them stink.

Pax Britannia

01-23-2009, 05:17 PM

Yelram

01-23-2009, 05:18 PM

No, it is called a fucking OPINION!!!!!

Debates do not include opinions, they include claims, and substantiation, an opinion is bias. Thats like me saying "THE BEST COLOR IS RED", and then someone says "NO ITS BLUE", and thats where the debate would end. See how that works?

Hoser

01-23-2009, 05:21 PM

TylerDurden

01-23-2009, 05:22 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot I have a life.

back peddle some more. this seems to be a pretty common excuse for you. like i said, if you can't hang... run along and play with your "real life" (read: imaginary) friends.

And BTW, that isnt the first forum, thats like about the 3rd i'm pretty sure. Either third or second. But either way, you werent on MBS, I know that for a fact.

wrong again. i knew anita when she was roym, and a huge post whore; long before she was admin. i was there before the hack, when rp was an active member, and when it was common to see dunndidit spewing the same shit that goat does now. i even (barely) fucking remember rp having lindsay lohan's animated-titty-bouncing avatar back when she was hot.

unfortunately you can't pull that o-g shit with me. thanks for playing.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 05:23 PM

Let me break this down for those who've arrived mid argument:

Tyler: I have an opinion
Yelram: YOUR WRONG!
Tyler: Alright, that doesnt change my view
Yelram: FUCKING MORON FORUM TROLL NEWB
Tyler: I've been here about as long if not longer than you
Yelram: YEAH WHATEVER GET A LIFE NERD!
Etc etc ect

Continue....

Ummm, no. I never even got involved with Tyler until he fucking kept neg repping me. I wasnt even talking to him. He was trying to muzzle me, so I told him off. Again, I dont care about their little forum drama, they obviously care more about their little internet world than I do. If someone would make a rebuttal against my posts that didnt just say the exact opposite with absolutely no citation or support, I wouldnt get quite as hostile.

mongo

01-23-2009, 05:23 PM

http://i41.tinypic.com/25s4oro.jpg

Hoser

01-23-2009, 05:25 PM

Again, I dont care about their little forum drama, they obviously care more about their little internet world than I do.

Clearly, since you are still here posting and arguing and all.

If someone would make a rebuttal against my posts that didnt just say the exact opposite with absolutely no citation or support, I wouldnt get quite as hostile.

That has been tried, but you just get all pissy and call people fucking tool bags.

Yelram

01-23-2009, 05:25 PM

Anything posted here is going to be bias. You can find "facts" to back up both sides of every single argument. None of us are experts, we base everything we say on something we saw on TV, read in a paper or read online. Everybody argues what they believe and ignore what they don't.

I may not agree with most things you say, but that does not make them wrong, as much as I hate to say it.

Very few things in life are solid facts, and those that are are widely agreed upon and never argued.

If you dont like disagreement, dont come into a thread about politics. Or better off, dont vote, do your country a big fucking favor. But seriously, i've been waiting for some people to get off of work, so its been fun, but when someone can actually post a response, where they USE THE FUCKING GENEVA CONVENTION TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION, i'll come back to this thread, if it hasnt been closed atleast.

Hoser

01-23-2009, 05:27 PM

You mean like Vasilli did???

Yelram

01-23-2009, 05:47 PM

You mean like Vasilli did???

HAHAH, I didnt realize you were courticer, I should have figured, I thought it took some special talent to be that high of a level of dumb.

Hoser

01-23-2009, 05:50 PM

hmmmm
But seriously, i've been waiting for some people to get off of work, so its been fun

and awesome rebuttal.

TylerDurden

01-23-2009, 06:02 PM

blah blah blah. i got raped. blah blah blah. back peddle. blah blah blah. hang with my real friends.

kthxbye. enough of this shit. let's get this thread back on track...

All combatants, let me repeat, ALL, combatants, captured on the battlefield fall under international law. That's absolutely crystal clear in Geneva.

discuss.

satandole666

01-23-2009, 06:18 PM

Out of curiosity, is there a part of the Geneva code that defines prisoners of war and civilians specifically?

I was under the impression that Prisoner of War status applied to armed forces members, politicians, and members of the governing body of a State in general. These terrorist organizations are largely considered non-governmental organizations, therefore they wouldn't qualify for PoW status.

This make any sense to anyone?

I think this current fiasco will help the International Community define more clear these two groups, as I am not sure the Geneva Convention was done with wars like our current one in mind.

mongo

01-23-2009, 06:22 PM

kthxbye. enough of this shit. let's get this thread back on track...

i can't get it back on track yet, this is too rich.

http://i44.tinypic.com/59sv0m.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/28mnuv6.jpg

vasili denisov

01-23-2009, 07:27 PM

You arent debating, you are repeating, and you are consistently WRONG. Lets actually read the words, since I already posted them. Your whole statement here is entirely incorrect, because the Taliban armies WERE NOT CONSIDERED PRISONERS OF WAR.

Yelram, I repeated the same points over and over because the relevant law remains the same.

Third Convention applies to combatants; Fourth Convention applies to civilians. As made clear in the note cited at the end of the treaty, no one can be considered to fall outside of international law. Since the administration has consistently referred to those captured as "combatants" (though unlawful ones), they can be assumed to fall under the third, not the fourth Convention.

The Taliban terrorists fail at least items (b), (c), and (d) of this test. They do not wear uniforms ("a fixed distinctive sign"). In fact, they rely on blending into the civilian population in order to carry out their terrorist acts. Their arms are usually concealed in their luggage, the back of a truck, or even inside their shoes. They target non-combatants in preference to military forces, so they routinely violate the most basic rules of warfare.
I appreciate your citation of this argument dealing with article 4 from the third convention. However, at no point does the cited argument mention the following Article 5:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Later on, you have:
So theres why your first point is wrong. Then you say this.

Article 5 in that treaty makes clear that should there be any doubt whether anyone captured falls under the categories of prisoner of war outlined in Article 4, they are granted full protection by the treaty.

And apparently you didnt read the actual treaty again, because it guarantees them ONLY the right to humane treatment during imprisonment.

Here i'll post it again, since you apparently DIDNT READ IT.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

etc.

Again, you're mixing up the conventions. I'm citing Third, and the article you're replying with is from the Fourth. And you can't consider someone you've referred to as a combatant, as a civilian solely for the purpose of saying the Fourth doesn't cover them. If the Fourth doesn't cover them, they are covered under the Third.

Again, I'm not certain why my making the case here has caused you such upset. I've tried to stick to the law and avoided personal attacks. It Arguing for justice for enemy combatants is not the same as demanding sympathy for their ideology.

vasili denisov

01-23-2009, 07:36 PM

I was under the impression that Prisoner of War status applied to armed forces members, politicians, and members of the governing body of a State in general. These terrorist organizations are largely considered non-governmental organizations, therefore they wouldn't qualify for PoW status.

This make any sense to anyone?
That's the argument made by the Bush administration; as has been pointed out at many times, it's a very flawed argument, that does not take into consideration many points in the treaty. Using your loose definition, unaffiliated partisans could be tortured and summarily executed; so could members of a private security organization such as Blackwater.

I think this current fiasco will help the International Community define more clear these two groups, as I am not sure the Geneva Convention was done with wars like our current one in mind.
The treaty has very broad definitions. As I've pointed out here, and have been pointed out in many places, those captured fall under either the Third or Fourth. You can't employ the luxury of saying, such a person has never existed before, so they don't get protection.

Debo

01-23-2009, 08:09 PM

I find it far more likely that there are three people we know about. It seems unlikely to me that an entire method of interrogation was applied to just three prisoners, especially given how vociferously the administration defended it.

Do you have any proof that more than three people have been waterboarded? Or are you shooting from the hip?

heelsguy

01-23-2009, 08:50 PM

so now we know: MSNBC is still focused on Bush. keith Olberfaggott signed off on 1/23/09 with "that's countdown for today, the 2 thousandth whatever day since the previous president declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"..

pathetic.

I was actually hoping that network would just swoon over the Obama admin and move on dot org

Archetype

01-23-2009, 09:06 PM

Mentally raped? Yeah, ummm okay. Do you know where the shift key is? And how to capitalize?
Do you know how to take your finger off the shift key?

mongo

01-23-2009, 09:22 PM

Do you know how to take your finger off the shift key?

http://i44.tinypic.com/17zjo2.jpg

Hanover Fist

01-23-2009, 09:27 PM

That's the argument made by the Bush administration; as has been pointed out at many times, it's a very flawed argument, that does not take into consideration many points in the treaty. Using your loose definition, unaffiliated partisans could be tortured and summarily executed; so could members of a private security organization such as Blackwater.

As far as partisans go, it would depend on if they are controlled by a single command and whether they wear a distinguishing uniform as to whether they would be covered under the GenCon, in most cases they probably would not be protected.
The private security firms would most likely be covered under the GenCon, although since I am not privvy to 100% of their operations I can't say for sure.
The Geneva Convention is pretty straightforward on their requirements for determining what is a lawful combatant. If everyone on the battlefield were to be considered a lawful combatant no matter what, why would they have placed criteria for determining it?
According to the GenCon, Gitmo is completely legal and we can hold detainees there for as long as needed until we can arrange for them to be tried by tribunal.
A separate issue is how they should be treated when they are there. There is probably a much better argument to be made on that point then on the point of whether they can be held indefinitely.
Yes, they should be treated humanely when being held and be fed, clothed and given proper medical attention.
Can there be any interrogation at all? What limit do you put on being treated humanely? (i.e. is being forced to stand for long periods inhumane? Is only a certain temperature range acceptable or is below 60F inhumane? Is feeding them the same food every single day humane? Is solitary confinement inhumane?)

I still think that Obama has placed himself in a precarious position in his haste to make a decision on Gitmo. He will not be able to close it within a year because the countries will not take these guys back. He won't be able to put them into our civil legal system for many reasons, and he won't be able to let them go. His rush to do something, while making him look good in the short term will end up making him look much worse later on when he has to do something just as bad or worse when that 1 year period has expired.

Yelram

01-24-2009, 12:13 PM

Same thing, no citation, same thing same thing.

Okay, so heres the third convention, which I gave a link to, and which a yale law professor analyzes. I dont know why you keep insisting that I'm not quoting from the third convention.

Article 4 of the third convention.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

You keep repeating the same nonsense, and not supporting it with anything but repeating the same false statements. The convention most certainly makes exceptions for specific groups of individuals, the wording is as clear as can be. They are required to be treated humanely, and at the end of hostilities, they are to be given a trial, but their holding until that point is entirely legal. They are not LEGAL combatants, so they are not covered under the 3rd. They ARE committing belligerent acts, there is no doubt as to their status, they are NOT legal combatants, so they are to be treated as hostile civilians under the 4th, and therefor can be detained until the detaining party's security is no longer threatened.

Hanover Fist

01-24-2009, 02:45 PM

Hey Great Idea Obama, then we can get some more of these swell videos:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video

1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.

A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.

"We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure," said Gordon.

"We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose," he said.

On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," al-Shihri was quoted as saying.

Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, the US counter-terrorism official said.

The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani).

The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees -- about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released -- are believed to have returned to the fight.

The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year.

vasili denisov

01-24-2009, 04:28 PM

Okay, so heres the third convention, which I gave a link to, and which a yale law professor analyzes. I dont know why you keep insisting that I'm not quoting from the third convention.
Because Article 5 that you quoted above is from the fourth.

Article 4 of the third convention.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Yes, and I've said before in discussing Article 4 when cited by the professor, this Article is qualified by Article 5.

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

This is not a question of whether the person falls under international law; it is a question of which of the conventions; does the person fit the definition of a combatant or non-combatant?
As far as partisans go, it would depend on if they are controlled by a single command and whether they wear a distinguishing uniform as to whether they would be covered under the GenCon, in most cases they probably would not be protected.
The private security firms would most likely be covered under the GenCon, although since I am not privvy to 100% of their operations I can't say for sure.
You're then placing an incumbency on the partisan structure to be such that it allows it the possibility of protection under international law. You're in effect putting the burden on the victim. That might be very satisfying when dealing with Al-Qaeda; but you're robbing anti-Nazi and anti-communist partisans of these same protections, both of which had very loose command structures, some groups operating independently, often without a consistent uniform. As for private contractors, given that they are considered legally liable in Iraq (they fall under state law), there's no reason why international law shouldn't apply to them.

The Geneva Convention is pretty straightforward on their requirements for determining what is a lawful combatant. If everyone on the battlefield were to be considered a lawful combatant no matter what, why would they have placed criteria for determining it?

The criteria are there to distinguish very specifically between combatants and civilians, so civilians are not classed as combatants, both of which receive different legal protections. As is already mentioned in what I've already quoted to Rover, the treaty points are not there to exclude someone from international law. If you don't fall under the third, you fall under the fourth.

A separate issue is how they should be treated when they are there. There is probably a much better argument to be made on that point then on the point of whether they can be held indefinitely.
Yes, they should be treated humanely when being held and be fed, clothed and given proper medical attention.
Can there be any interrogation at all? What limit do you put on being treated humanely? (i.e. is being forced to stand for long periods inhumane? Is only a certain temperature range acceptable or is below 60F inhumane? Is feeding them the same food every single day humane? Is solitary confinement inhumane?)

I have five minutes to kill. Here's a passage about the effectiveness of lack of sleep, as well as lack of food, combined with prolonged interrogation from Robert Conquest's The Great Terror, one of the definitive books, if not the definitive book, about the purge campaign conducted by the Soviet Union. It's handily referenced in the index under "torture".

When there was time, the basic NKVD method for obtaining confessions and breaking the accused man was the "conveyor" - continual interrogation by relays of police for hours and days on end. As with many phenomena of the Stalin perio, it has the advantage that it could not easily be condemned by any simple principle. Clearly, it amounted to unfair pressure after a certain time and to actual physical torture later still, but when? No absolutely precise answer could be given.

But at any rate, after even twelve hours, it is extremely uncomfortable. After a day, it becomes very hard. And after two or three days, the victim is actually physically poisoned by fatigue. It was "as painful as any torture". In fact, we are told, though some prisoners had been known to resist torture, it was almost unheard of for the conveyor not to succeed if kept up long enough.

There is nothing new about the conveyor method. It was used on witches in Scotland. The philosopher Campanella, who withstood all other tortures during his interrogation in the sixteenth century, succumbed to lack of sleep.

So it has precedent as an effective coercive technique under a repressive regime and in the persecution of witches. It does not leave behind the physical marks of other torture; it has the advantage, as mentioned in the quoted section, that while being beaten for five minutes is torture, lack of sleep for five minutes is not. It is a technique considered torture through its prolonged use, though this prolonged use is employed in enhanced interrogation technique. It is considered verboten under torture statutes.

If you wish to argue that such practices are not torture, then you give legal precedent for any totalitarian regime that follows in the footsteps of the Soviet Union, and deprive dissidents and other victims of legal recourse and later justice.

Hanover Fist

01-24-2009, 05:03 PM

The Geneva convention even has articles that talk about combatants that do not qualify for POW status. It talks about situations where articles in the GC can be suspended based upon the status of the captured person. So clearly there is a category beside combatants and civilians or there would be no reason to have a separate section of the GC to address it.

Part I. General Provisions

...

Art. 5Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

A civilian that takes up arms is no longer a civilian and yet if that civilian does not meet the requirements for a lawful combatant, he merely becomes a protected person who is not subject to the terms of the GC or basically, an unlawful combatant. At that point it is up to the capturing power to determine their status and try them by tribunal at such time as they determine it is feasible.

Yelram

01-25-2009, 01:47 PM

vasili denisov

01-25-2009, 04:08 PM

The Geneva convention even has articles that talk about combatants that do not qualify for POW status. It talks about situations where articles in the GC can be suspended based upon the status of the captured person. So clearly there is a category beside combatants and civilians or there would be no reason to have a separate section of the GC to address it.

Part I. General Provisions

...

Art. 5Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Yeah, this is the fourth convention. It applies to civilians. If you're referring to someone as a combatant, and their conduct in combat, they fall under the third, which deals with combatants.
But you listed the fourth, and since they are combatants, they are covered under the third, because it has the word "doubt" in it, so that means everyone is included, and we dont even need 4th convention, because everyone is covered under the 3rd.(/redundant sarcasm)
You seem to think this is legal sophistry, when it isn't. Someone is either a civilian or a combatant. We can't cite the law when it suits our purpose, then abandon it when it doesn't. Such behaviour, if common, would make liberal democracy or capitalism impossible; the law must be consistently applied in all areas and business contracts must be respected, rather than broken when one of the parties feels like it.

Hanover Fist

01-25-2009, 05:14 PM

A civilian that takes up arms is no longer a civilian they are a combatant. However, since they do not meet the definition of a lawful combatant, they are deemed unlawful combatants or "protected persons".
They have their rights under the GC suspended as the capturing power deems necessary. The only entitlements they are given is basic human rights. i.e. food, shelter, medical and in a time that the capturing power deems prudent, a military tribunal.
You will also notice that the GC gives the capturing power the leeway into determining if they think a civilian has born arms against them, not the UN or any other agency.

So according to the GC we are legally able to capture a civilian on the battlefield we deem has been belligerent and confine him until we see fit to try him by tribunal.

The only thing really up for debate is how they are to be treated when being held and in what form the military tribunal will take place.

Hanover Fist

01-25-2009, 06:09 PM

Heheh, this actually might be a pretty good idea. Fuck Pelosi and her dumb ass, let's send all the fucks to her district.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/25/pelosi-shrugs-alcatraz-possible-terror-detention-facility/

Pelosi Shrugs off Alcatraz as Possible Terror Detention Facility

Republicans opposing an Obama administration order to close Guantanamo Bay prison facility within a year suggest sending terror detainees to House Speaker Pelosi's district.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday shrugged off Republican suggestions that the federal government reopen Alcatraz prison in her San Francisco district to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

President Obama this week signed an executive order calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo within the year. Republican Rep. Bill Young then suggested to White House counsel Greg Craig that the prisoners who could not be released back to their home countries or sent to a third country be put up in "the Rock," the famous military installation and prison that closed down in 1963 and is now part of the National Park Service.

Asked whether that was a serious proposal, Pelosi said, "It is -- no."

"Perhaps he's not visited Alcatraz," Pelosi said of Young while displaying little sense of humor. "Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It's a prison that is now sort of like a -- it's a national park."

That explanation didn't stop House Minority Leader John Boehner from repeating the suggestion on Sunday, making that point that closing down Guantanamo by year's end may not be the best plan considering the recidivism rate of terrorist detainees is about 12 percent.

"If liberals believe they ought to go, maybe we ought to open Alcatraz," Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC "Meet the Press." Being reminded that Alcatraz is a national park, Boehner responded, "It's very secure."

The argument is just the latest iteration in an ongoing dispute over what to do with the remaining 245 enemy combatants who were to be tried in military commissions until a stay was ordered by the president last week in one of his first official acts.

Boehner said the promise to close Guantanamo by year's end is impractical.

"Unilaterally saying it without knowing how were going to deal with them keeps a campaign promise, but may be irresponsible," he said.

Yelram

01-26-2009, 09:31 AM

Yeah, this is the fourth convention. It applies to civilians. If you're referring to someone as a combatant, and their conduct in combat, they fall under the third, which deals with combatants.

You seem to think this is legal sophistry, when it isn't. Someone is either a civilian or a combatant. We can't cite the law when it suits our purpose, then abandon it when it doesn't. Such behaviour, if common, would make liberal democracy or capitalism impossible; the law must be consistently applied in all areas and business contracts must be respected, rather than broken when one of the parties feels like it.

You are seriously thick as a brick. If you can read the Geneva convention, and somehow get that all "combatants" are covered under the third, your reading comprehension must be at a 6th grade level, or you just believed something someone told you that is patently not true.

Here is article 5 from the third convention

Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

What is the purpose of having a tribunal if they are all fucking covered? To determine that they are actually covered under the third? You keep on incorrectly assuming

that the minute someone picks up a gun they are given POW status, which would make all of article 4 superfluous and entirely useless. I guess they just listed the criteria for shits and giggles right?

Hanover Fist

01-29-2009, 08:01 PM

A military judge denied President Obamas orders to suspend the hearings at Gitmo today.
I guess the President doesn't really have as much power as he thought he did.
Who knew?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012902021.html

Military Judge Denies Obama Request to Suspend Hearings at Guantanamo

A military judge in Guantanamo Bay today denied the Obama administration's request to delay proceedings for 120 days in the case of a detainee accused of planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship, an al-Qaeda strike that killed 17 service members and injured 50 others.

The decision throws into some disarray the administration's efforts to buy time to review individual detainee cases as part of its plan to close the U.S. military prison at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba. The Pentagon may now be forced to temporarily withdraw the charges against Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent.

Nashiri is facing arraignment on capital charges on Feb. 9, and Judge James Pohl, an Army colonel, said the case would go ahead.

"We just learned of the ruling here . . . and we are consulting with the Pentagon and the Department of Justice to explore our options in that case," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Asked at a news briefing whether the decision would hamper the administration's ability to evaluate the cases of Guantanamo detainees, Gibbs replied: "No. Not at all."

In one of his first actions, President Obama issued an executive order instructing Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates to make sure all military commission proceedings "are halted" during a review of the cases of individual detainees at Guantanamo and of the broader system of military commission trials.

The administration chose to achieve that by instructing military prosecutors to seek 120-day suspensions of legal proceedings in the cases of 21 detainees who have been charged. Approximately 245 prisoners are being held at Guantanamo.

The request was quickly granted in other cases when prosecutors told military judges that a suspension was in the "interests of justice" so that the "president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically."

But Pohl said he found the government's reasoning "unpersuasive" and he clearly felt he was not bound to bow to the administration's wishes.

Whiffleball

01-29-2009, 09:55 PM

It looks like the judge won't get his way though (http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4544:military-commissions-must-obey-presidents-directive&catid=71:world-news&Itemid=30)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29, 2009 - The military commissions system created in 2006 to try accused terrorists held at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must comply with President Barack Obama's directive to suspend all legal proceedings there, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said at a news conference today. A reporter asked for Morrell's reaction concerning news reports that say a military judge at Guantanamo today ordered that legal proceedings be continued against accused al-Qaida terrorist Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Nashiri is charged with planning the Oct. 12, 2000, bombing of the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole that was berthed in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen U.S. sailors died as a result of the attack.

All legal proceedings at Guantanamo are "on hold," Morrell said. A series of assessments and reviews of detainee operations at Guantanamo are now being conducted as part of Obama's Jan. 22 executive order to shut down the detention facility within the year.

Obama instructed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Jan. 20 to cease referring any new cases through the military-commissions process at Guantanamo Bay and to request 120-day continuances on all ongoing active cases there. Two days later, the president issued three executive orders, one of which directs the closure of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay within the year.

Resolving the issue concerning Nashiri's legal proceedings at Guantanamo, Morrell said, is a matter for the military commissions convening authority.

"But the bottom line is, we all work for the president of the United States in this chain of command, and he has signed an executive order which has made it abundantly clear that until these reviews are done all [legal activity at Guantanamo] is on hiatus," Morrell said.

Al-Nashiri has said he was tortured into confessing involvement in the bombing. The CIA has admitted "waterboarding" him at a secret location in 2002, and tapes of the interrogation were destroyed in 2005.

So even if this guy did what he is accused of, his prosecution will be tainted by the usage of torture. Way to go, Bush!

Hanover Fist

02-20-2009, 07:29 PM

The review of GITMO that Obama ordered has been completed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022002191.html?wprss=rss_nation

Report Finds Guantanamo Prison Meets Standards of Geneva Convention

A Pentagon review of conditions in the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Convention but that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more religious and social interaction with one another, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.

The report, which was ordered by President Obama, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House. Obama requested the review as part of an executive order on the planned closure of the prison at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. naval base on the southeastern tip of Cuba.

Defense attorneys for the approximately 245 detainees held at the military prison have complained bitterly about the isolation of some of the prisoners. The attorneys allege that the isolation has caused severe mental problems.

They also have criticized the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes. There are approximately 40 prisoners on hunger strike in Guantanamo Bay, according to Pentagon officials.

Walsh concluded that the force-feeding, which involves strapping prisoners to feeding chairs and forcing tubes down one nostril and into their stomachs, is in compliance the Geneva Convention's mandate that the lives of prisoners must be preserved, the government official said.

But Walsh did find that prisoners should be allowed more communal recreation and prayer time. Prisoners in Camp 6 and the highly secret Camp 7, which holds such high-value detainees as Khaild Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, are held in windowless cells for up to 23 hours a day.

Walsh said that the most isolated prisoners, including the high-value detainees in Camp 7, should be allowed to pray and have recess together in rotating groups of at least three.

kid_vidrio

02-20-2009, 07:36 PM

Problem solved.
Let the Caribbean vacation continue!

Hanover Fist

02-20-2009, 10:27 PM

More good stuff from Obammy. It seems to me that he talked a lot of shit til he got the lowdown from the intelligence guys, ever since then he seems to be squawking quite a different tune. I guess we know where we can ship all the Guantanamo detainees now. They should have stfu, GITMO is 1,000,000 times nicer than Bagram.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-20-terror-detainees_N.htm

Obama backs Bush policy on detainees' rights

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama sided with the Bush administration Friday, saying detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.

After Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.