Who said I don't know anything about it? I know quite a bit about it, my objections come from the lack of a certain critical piece of information (what problem are we solving with Gitmo) that I don't have. But I don't think that's a problem on my part, I don't think a good answer to that question exists. If there IS an answer, go ahead, enlighten me. I've asked this question many times, and I've yet to receive a good answer from anyone.
Who said I don't know anything about it? I know quite a bit about it, my objections come from the lack of a certain critical piece of information (what problem are we solving with Gitmo) that I don't have. But I don't think that's a problem on my part, I don't think a good answer to that question exists. If there IS an answer, go ahead, enlighten me. I've asked this question many times, and I've yet to receive a good answer from anyone.
Well if I remember from the threads about torture, you define it very differently than I would. But even if that weren't true, you are presumably not the base commander at Gitmo, the fact that you've never seen it happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm not clear on what you mean by "alternatives"...?Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well we just need to be creative, don't we?
I will certainly agree that information obtained from detainees can be valuable, I'm just not sure we're getting that much more of it with how our current system operates vs other alternatives.
Condi in a thong - groovin' to Salt-N-Pepa ""Push It""
Ah, push it
Ah, push it
Oooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby
Oooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby
Get up on this!
Ow! Baby!
Salt and Pepa's here!
Ah, push it - push it good
Ah, push it - push it real good
Ah, push it - push it good
Ah, push it - p-push it real good
Hey! Ow!
Push it good!
Oooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby
Oooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby
Yo, yo, yo, yo, baby-pop
Yeah, you come here, gimme a kiss
Better make it fast or else I'm gonna get pissed
Can't you hear the music's pumpin' hard like I wish you would?
Now push it
Push it good
P-push it real good
Ah, push it
Get up on this!
Boy, you really got me going
You got me so I don't know what I'm doing
Ah, push it
And Sinsear and Pabster have convinced me - unless we're sure someone is not a 'threat', we need to assume they are an imprison them, and I'm far from sure they are not threats; in fact, I think they are.
Off to the jails for them.
Off to the jails for them.
I think that's probably true, and for what it's worth, I don't believe such treatment is as widespread as some people have argued.
Pabster may have a point- Gitmo is working just fine for the intended purpose, which is to convince the american public that the Bushistas are "tough on terrar", not to actually deal with terrorism, at all.
Just as various totalitarian regimes stage show trials, the Bush Admin has "show detentions"- the guilt or innocence of the detainees being completely immaterial to the reasons for their detention. They could have been randomly snatched from the streets of afghanistan, pakistan and all the other locales from where they've come, for all we know. Yet some seem to insist that they're guilty, of something, even though there's been no proof of any kind ever offered up in public. Which shows that the admin's actions are serving their domestic political ends rather well.
There are very valid reasons that our constitution makes certain demands of our govt, none of which the Bush Admin complies with as it pertains to gitmo detainees. The govt has certain obligations, including speedy public trial and confronting the accused with the evidence against them, neither of which seems to matter at gitmo...
I say we summon jurors, convene the court, and that the govt should make their case against each and every detainee on an individual basis- present the evidence, call the witnesses, hear the testimony, let the jury decide. If not that, then proceed under the rules of the UCMJ- we have a justice system that has served us well for over 200 years. Just because the Bush Admin summons the boogeyman doesn't mean we should abandon that system, even in the case of a single individual.
If we can't do that, then we have no business holding them in the first place, and we have no business claiming self-defense, either, if we can't make our case in an open court of law...
Just as various totalitarian regimes stage show trials, the Bush Admin has "show detentions"- the guilt or innocence of the detainees being completely immaterial to the reasons for their detention. They could have been randomly snatched from the streets of afghanistan, pakistan and all the other locales from where they've come, for all we know. Yet some seem to insist that they're guilty, of something, even though there's been no proof of any kind ever offered up in public. Which shows that the admin's actions are serving their domestic political ends rather well.
There are very valid reasons that our constitution makes certain demands of our govt, none of which the Bush Admin complies with as it pertains to gitmo detainees. The govt has certain obligations, including speedy public trial and confronting the accused with the evidence against them, neither of which seems to matter at gitmo...
I say we summon jurors, convene the court, and that the govt should make their case against each and every detainee on an individual basis- present the evidence, call the witnesses, hear the testimony, let the jury decide. If not that, then proceed under the rules of the UCMJ- we have a justice system that has served us well for over 200 years. Just because the Bush Admin summons the boogeyman doesn't mean we should abandon that system, even in the case of a single individual.
If we can't do that, then we have no business holding them in the first place, and we have no business claiming self-defense, either, if we can't make our case in an open court of law...
That's just stupid...there are always alternatives. The fact that you don't like them or find them necessary doesn't mean they don't exist.
But I'd also disagree with the idea that Gitmo is running fine. This is as much an ideological conflict as anything else, and Gitmo is failing pretty impressively in that regard. While it seems to draw a bizarre amount of support from guys like you, guys like you are hardly the people we should be concerned about. Our general approach to prisoners has done a lot to lower our standing in the rest of the world, and while you might dismiss that, it does make a real difference in how well we can fight terrorism.
From Palehorse-
Yeh, the ol' "national security" circular logic dodge, the boogeyman and catch-22 rolled together...
The real reason? Because they've got nothin' on the vast majority of detainees other than suspicion and a need to show that the Admin is "tough on Terrar!"- Gitmo is window dressing, a propaganda ploy, a sucker pitch and a sop to the well indoctrinated ranks of the faithful.
Washington, Jefferson, Madison and the rest must be spinning in their graves. It's a national disgrace, and an outrage that the political consciousness of America has degenerated so far as to accept it.
Yeh, the ol' "national security" circular logic dodge, the boogeyman and catch-22 rolled together...
The real reason? Because they've got nothin' on the vast majority of detainees other than suspicion and a need to show that the Admin is "tough on Terrar!"- Gitmo is window dressing, a propaganda ploy, a sucker pitch and a sop to the well indoctrinated ranks of the faithful.
Washington, Jefferson, Madison and the rest must be spinning in their graves. It's a national disgrace, and an outrage that the political consciousness of America has degenerated so far as to accept it.
And some years from now, Pakistan will be looked upon with disgust by the rest of the civilized world, for their failure to rein in Islamofascism. And, as usual, it will be the USA which has to get the job done.
PS you might want to take a look at your own prison system while you're at it.
We don't know what applies to who, because "enemy combatants" is a bullshit legal term that was invented so we could claim that NO laws covered our treatment of prisoners. I don't think the US Constitution should apply, but I think SOME set of laws and standards should be. We have a reasonable model in the Geneva Conventions, but we're not even willing to apply that.
This is a new kind of conflict, and it requires new rules in some cases. But it does NOT require new principles and ideals. And even if you can come up with some $400/hr lawyer answer about the rules, I think it's pretty clear what side our principles come down on. In cases like that, the only reasonable solution is to get rid of legal loopholes and start acting like Americans.
That's great, but when this is all figured out, I'd like to NOT end up in the same ideological group as Pakistan. This obsession you people have with comparing our behavior to some of the worst behavior on the planet is truly bizarre. We're supposed to be the leaders of the free world, not an ideological contemporary of Pakistan.
No, it is a reasonable term, for a new era. This is the first war where the enemy is not playing by standardized rules of engagement. They are not wearing uniforms and are not members of a sovereign nation fighting on its behalf. Hence the reason Geneva does not apply. I'm glad that you at least agree the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply. Most here won't even go that far.
Hence the enemy combatant. I don't see it as a "legal loophole" but, rather, a necessary category for the new reality we face.
Well obviously it's a new category, the reason it's a "legal loophole" is that it wasn't invented to come up with a way to classify terrorists, it was invented to come up with a way to skirt the rules. I'm fine saying terrorists aren't like enemy soldiers wearing uniforms, but I don't think that frees us from our principles just because it might free us from the law.
The fact that we face a new kind of enemy ("new reality" is going a little too far) means we need to look at the old rules and adapt them to this new situation, not just use the new situation as an excuse to just throw out the rules. The legal system HAS to work like that, because you can't write laws to cover every possible future development. More and more, people seem to be making the argument that since terrorism doesn't work with the old rules (a silly claim in most cases), we should just not have any rules at all. Given that this is allegedly going to be a long conflict, I think that's extremely foolish.
Edit: To give an example of what I'm talking about: The principle is that we don't torture people. Back in the days of nation state vs nation state, the way this was codified was, we don't torture enemy soldiers we've captured. Now that we have "enemy combatants", the way to deal with this is update the laws to say "we don't torture enemy combatants", not gleefully claim the law no longer applies.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
I guess to know the truth, you would have to have been there. Even then, the truth would only be what you know it to be. Stories are stories. Propoganda is propoganda. The only thing I can agree with is that the premise that it is ok to torture is flawed.
Do away with gitmo, if warranted, convict these people of a crime, and put them amongst our general prison population.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
how can we do so if the sources of intelligence and "evidence" must be kept from the public and the prisoners themselves?
Face it, the American justice system is not set up or prepared to handle the prosecution of foreigners picked up by the military and intelligence professionals in the war against terrorists.
so what then?
Just for the record, we DO adhere to most of the GC's rules governing the treatment of prisoners. Why do some of you believe that they've been thrown out altogether?! That's completely false.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter