• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Muslim Dies in Guantanamo Prison after 11 Yrs in Custody; No Charges

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Al Jazeera is a quality news source for the most part. They occasionally have a spin from the region, but all news has some spin.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Al Jazeera is a quality news source for the most part. They occasionally have a spin from the region, but all news has some spin.
Agreed. For a news source from that regioun, it shows very little bias.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,917
214
106
Shouldn't be surprising that those held in Gitmo don't have trials when now the government can hold US citizens without trial.
 

Phanuel

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2008
2,305
2
0
No, I do not agree. It is nothing more than the terrorists new outlet.
"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

Technically under this broad definition, the US is also a terrorist organization. So kindly stop being blind. Al Jazeera is just as legitimate as any new source we can get.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
14,425
4,495
136
So basically, you are claiming they are evil, so it is somehow OK for you to be evil? Wow.

Oooookay....yet another bigoted ignorant poster here on AT.:thumbsdown:
That's what the ignore list for :)

I try to be as fair as possible when putting people on my ignore list, but posts that sound like they were written by the deranged prisoner in The Life of Brian qualify without any further ado!

"NAIL 'EM UP I SAY! NAIL SOME SENSE INTO 'EM!"
"They'll probably get away with crucifixion for a first time offence..."
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

Technically under this broad definition, the US is also a terrorist organization. So kindly stop being blind. Al Jazeera is just as legitimate as any new source we can get.[/QUOTE]

Now that's funny and I completely agree with it.

As for what the definition of terrorisms is, I defer to and paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, I can't define terrorisms, but I know it when I see
it.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
431
126
hahahahahaaaaa out of the mouth of a Canadian...lol
It hardly matters if I was from Canada or North Korea - that doesn't excuse criminal behaviour on the part of the United States. How pathetic that you need to be reminded of that.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,958
3,465
126
Combat forces were authorized by a vote of both Houses of Congress for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There ya go.
Iraq was 'mission accomplished' in May 2003. That is when you return prisoners.

WTF is with these open ended war powers? How long before you betray us and turn these powers against Americans?
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
Iraq was 'mission accomplished' in May 2003. That is when you return prisoners.

WTF is with these open ended war powers? How long before you betray us and turn these powers against Americans?
Good question.

I was for the invasion of Iraq. I was for the action in Afghanistan up till the failure to support the attack at Tora Bora. We should have gotten out of there ten years ago.

I think the so called Patriot Act is far from good for our freedoms.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
-snip-

As an aside, another Geneva Convention needs to be conviened to create rules on what to do with Illegal Enemy Combatants. When they first few were made, no one dreamed there would be many tens of thousands of illegal enemy combatants so they did not bother to create rules on what to do with them. We need rules on what to do so that we can punish those who violate them. Without rules, there can be no punishment for violation since there can be no violation.
Yes. Here is the problem. I don't believe civilian law should be applied because it was not designed for such. "Rules of evidence", "probable cause", etc just can't or shouldn't apply. Soldiers are there to fight, not collect evidence and be concerned with the chain of custody etc.

So, we're stuck with some sort of military justice. But even it cannot be applied directly. If it were we could execute them for being 'out of uniform' etc.

So, they are not civilians nor military. So, yes, we need to develop a set of rules specifically for them. The GC ain't cutting it as it now stands.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY