Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: Ryan
I don't buy the whole "they're not Americans, they don't get our rights" argument - why should they not? As far as I'm concerned, any action taken by the US government should follow the rules of the constitution, so why should the writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended when it's convenient for them? This is our rule of law, and I think we need to be fair and consistent with it application, regardless of those being tried.

... because they are NOT American citizens, nor identifiable members of a standing army that adheres to the Geneva Convention. These are known terrorists that have directly or indirectly been involved in killing US citizens or attacking our interests internationally. We are at war with these people as authorized by congress. I consider the Guantanamo detention a waste of my tax dollars, it's not like they have cozy camps set up to keep any US soldiers they capture safe and warm... The best a US soldier can hope for in the hands of one of these animals is mutilation and torture, perhaps followed by having their booby trapped body dumped in the desert.

I like to think that one of the hallmarks of our justice system is it's ability to apply justice fairly to everyone despite emotional pleas that try to distort that ability, just as you try. Our application of law finds its definition in the Constitution, I believe that outward expression by our military/gov't needs to follow it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Grunt03
enemy combatants receive more rights, well shit why do I even need to be here in Iraq then?

How do you manage to put the fork and sppon from your plate to your mouth?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Grunt03
enemy combatants receive more rights, well shit why do I even need to be here in Iraq then?
I've been wondering that for the last five years.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you think we go back to secret CIA prisons and the likes?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. We will won't know the full impact until someone goes 100% through the process and either goes to jail or is set free due to legal reasons.

Who said secret CIA prisons were legal?

Honestly, I think the gist of what the SCOTUS is putting forth, is that the Administration must either treat these prisoners as PoW's with all of the inherent protections of the Geneva Conventions, or they are to be treated as civilians and thus the various protections of the US Constitution applies, including habeas corpus, etc. In other words, there is no in between. There is no "enemy combatant" category wherein the administration can just strip people of all rights and detain them indefinitely.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Germany in 1933 to 1945 was a radically left wing government...

You're disgusting.

Smoking bans, gun confiscations, modern liberal utopia! Hitler, like many here, was a big fan of attacking business and the private property rights of citizens as Fuher (leader) of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (the Nazi party).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704277/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Nazi_Party

.. you might want to pick another example to support your leftist slant next time, unless you're ok with admitting that modern socialist liberalism has much in common with the period and place in history you cited?

Why yes, smoking bans and gun confiscations were the defining traits of the Nazis, and they're acts only liberals would do.

It's not possible that liberals might ban certain guns in a peaceful society where those guns are used heavily in crimes, while a dictator might ban all guns to prepare for tyranny.

Hitler was a *fascist*. Fascism is a right-wing system, to the extent you want to use left and right. Not all right-wing systems are fascicm, but fascism is right-wing.

Here's a hint for you: the first group Hitler went to war with in Germany, before the Jews, before the gays: the communists.

In fact, here's an excerpt from a leftist, Michael Parenti, who wrote a book on the topic of the Communists' war with Hitler, "Blackshirts and Reds":

Plutocrats Choose Autocrats

Let us begin with a look at fascism?s founder. Born in 1883, the son of a blacksmith, Benito Mussolini had an early manhood marked by street brawls, arrests, jailings, and violent radical political activities. Before World War I Mussolini was a socialist. A brilliant organizer, agitator, and gifted journalist, he became editor of the Socialist Party?s official newspaper. Yet many of his comrades suspected him of being less interested in advancing socialism than in advancing himself. Indeed, when the Italian upper class tempted him with recognition, financial support, and the promise of power, he did not hesitate to switch sides.

By the end of World War I, Mussolini, the socialist, who had organized strikes for workers and peasants had become Mussolini, the fascist, who broke strikes on behalf of financiers and landowners. Using the huge sums he recieved from wealthy interests, he projected himself onto the national scene as the acknowledged leader of i fasci di combattimento, a movement composed of black-shirted ex-army officers and sundry toughs who were guided by no clear political doctrine other than a militaristic patriotism and conservative dislike for anything associated with socialism and organized labor. The fascist Blackshirts spent their time attacking trade unionists, socialists, communists, and farm cooperatives.

After World War I, Italy had settled into a pattern of parliamentary democracy. The low pay scales were improving, and the trains were already running on time. But the capitalist economy was in a postwar recession. Investments stagnated, heavy industry operated far below capacity, and corporate profits and agribusiness exports were declining.

To maintain profit levels, the large landowners and industrialists would have to slash wages and raise prices. The state in turn would have to provide them with massive subsidies and tax exemptions. To finance this corporate welfarism, the populace would have to be taxed more heavily, and social services and welfare expenditures would have to be drastically cut--measures that might sound familiar to us today.

But the government was not completely free to pursue this course. By 1921, many Italian workers and peasants were unionized and had their own political organizations. With demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, factory takeovers, and the forceable occupation of farmlands, they had won the right to organize, along with concessions in wages and work conditions.

To impose a full measure of austerity upon workers and peasants, the ruling economic interests would have to abolish the democratic rights that helped the masses defend their modest living standards. The solution was to smash their unions, political organizations, and civil liberties. Industrialists and big landowners wanted someone at the helm who could break the power of organized workers and farm laborers and impose a stern order on the masses. For this task Benito Mussolini, armed with his gangs of Blackshirts, seemed the likely candidate.(2)

In 1922, the Federazione Industriale, composed of the leaders of industry, along with representatives from the banking and agribusiness associations, met with Mussolini to plan the ?March on Rome,? contributing 20 million lire to the undertaking. With the additional backing of Italy?s top military officers and police chiefs, the fascist ?revolution??really a coup d?etat?took place.

Within two years after seizing state power, Mussolini had shut down all opposition newspapers and crushed the Socialist, Liberal, Catholic, Democratic, and Republican parties, which together had commanded some 80 percent of the vote. Labor leaders, peasant leaders, parliamentary delegates, and others critical of the new regime were beaten, exiled, or murdered by fascist terror squadristi. The Italian Communist Party endured the severest repression of all, yet managed to maintain a courageous underground resistance that eventually evolved into armed struggle against the Blackshirts and the German occupation force.

In Germany, a similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists emerged. German workers and farm laborers had won the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance. But to revive profit levels, heavy industry and big finance wanted wage cuts for their workers and massive state subsidies and tax cuts for themselves.

During the 1920s, the Nazi Sturmabteilung or SA, the brown-shirted Stormtroopers, subsidized by business, were used mostly as an anti-labor paramilitary force whose function was to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national stage. Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July 1932 campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two weeks alone.

In that same campaign the Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they ever won in a democratic national election. They never had a majority of the people on their side. To the extent they had any kind of reliable base, it generally was among the more affluent members of society. In addition, elements of the petty bourgeoisie and many lumpenproletariats served as strongarm party thugs, organized into the SA stormtroopers. But the great majority of the organized working class supported the Communists or Social Democrats to the very end.

In the December 1932 election, three candidates ran for president: the conservative incumbent Field Marshal von Hindenburg, the Nazi candidate Adolph Hitler, and the Communist Party candidate Ernst Thaelmann. In his campaign, Thaelmann argued that a vote for Hindenburg amounted to a vote for Hitler and that Hitler would lead Germany into war. The bourgeois press, including the Social Democrats, denounced this view as ?Moscow inspired.? Hindenburg was re-elected while the Nazis dropped approximately two million votes in the Reichstag election as compared to their peak of over 13.7 million.

True to form, the Social Democrat leaders refused the Communist Party?s proposal to form an eleventh-hour coalition against Nazism. As in many other countries past and present, so in Germany, the Social Democrats would sooner ally themselves with the reactionary Right than make common cause with the Reds.(3) Meanwhile a number of right-wing parties coalesced behind the Nazis and in January 1933, just weeks after the election, Hindenburg invited Hitler to become chancellor.

Upon assuming state power, Hitler and his Nazis pursued a politico-economic agenda not unlike Mussolini?s. They crushed organized labor and eradicated all elections, opposition parties, and independent publications. Hundreds of thousands of opponents were imprisoned, tortured, or murdered. In Germany as in Italy, the communists endured the severest political repression of all groups.

Here were two peoples, the Italians and Germans, with different histories, cultures, and languages, and supposedly different temperaments, who ended up with the same repressive solutions because of the compelling similarities of economic power and class conflict that prevailed in their respective countries. In such diverse countries as Lithuania, Croatia, Rumania, Hungary, and Spain, a similar fascist pattern emerged to do its utmost to save big capital from the impositions of democracy.(4)
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: halik
It is beyond me why so many left wing pacifists want to put their arm around these detainees and invite them in to their house to have dinner their family when most if not all of them would just as soon kill you as look at you.

These detainees are not friends, not poor helpless souls that need saving, not by any stretch and the ONLY rights they deserve are the ones they would give us, period!

If don't understand that detaining anyone, indefinitely and without charges is wrong, you have no right to call yourself an american

Wow, this guy has been an american for a little more than a week and he gets it.. WHATS WRONG WITH THE REST OF YOU!?


I think that for him to want to be a citizen, he would have to know much more about what it is he's buying into and jumping through hoops to obtain. A troll like Socio however, has no idea what it's all about. :disgust:
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Lemon law

I can understand that we have a thorny problem here, but there is something horribly wrong with simply imprisoning someone without an iota of evidence saying they are guilty of something.

There's also something wrong with the fact that the military wants to keep these people 'detained' forever.

Perhaps to keep them from committing terrorist activities, killing our soldiers and civilians;

Ex-Guantánamo detainee became suicide bomber in Iraq

A former Kuwaiti detainee at the U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was one of the bombers in a string of deadly suicide attacks in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul last month, the U.S. military said.

Commander Scott Rye, a spokesman for the U.S. military, identified one of the Mosul bombers on Wednesday as Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti man who was originally detained in Afghanistan and spent three years at Guantánamo Bay before being released in 2005. "Al-Ajmi had returned to Kuwait following his release from Guantánamo Bay and traveled to Iraq via Syria," Rye said, adding that the man's family had confirmed his death.

Ajmi is one of several former Guantánamo detainees believed to have carried out violence, said another U.S. military spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon. "Some have subsequently been killed in combat and participated in suicide bomber attacks," he said.


It is beyond me why so many left wing pacifists want to put their arm around these detainees and invite them in to their house to have dinner their family when most if not all of them would just as soon kill you as look at you.

These detainees are not friends, not poor helpless souls that need saving, not by any stretch and the ONLY rights they deserve are the ones they would give us, period!


Quit your idiotic blathering about "pacifism", "friends", and the threat that these people would just as soon kill me as look at me. Did you consult a neo-conservative handboook before typing that post? Most of what you pass as your opinion is nothing but the fearmongering you've listened to for seven years.

Wake up! Of course people detained are going to be unhappy with the US, particularly when they are held indefinitely, with no trial, with no idea of what they're being charged with. I'm sure plenty of those being held are probably there for a good reason - but what about the ones who aren't? Why do we have a right to pluck them off the street, ship them halfway around the world, and hold them for as long as we feel like? How would you feel if the situation was reversed? I bet that the minute you got released, you'd also go out and attack the nearest symbol of your captors.

If the detainees are being held for real reasons, it shouldn't be hard for the military to put together a case. If they are not, then these people should be released. We cannot imprison the entire ME based on the belief that some of them might harm us.

Nobody wants to hold them by their hands, sing a song, hug, and be friends. by imprisoning so many people, and by doing so in such an opaque way I think we are destroying what little credibility or respect we might have the in Arab world and, while you might not think that's important, I do. I think it's in our best interest to act in a manner befitting our self-proclaimed democratic principles. I think it's in our best interests to actively work to change negative opinions of the US abroad.

You are right even if they did not want to kill us before you can bet your butt they do now so would it not be best to keep them under lock and key for the time being?

Beside that what do you do with them if they get tried in civilian court and some how get released when their own counties refuse to take them back?

Grant them automatic US citizenship and let them move in next door? Then sue the US for wrongful incarceration, win a couple million and invest that in bombs to blow us up?

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=16844029

And despite the best efforts of the U.S. government, in many cases, Rivkin said, countries don't want to take back the detainees.

"Let's assume quaintly that they're not innocent shepherds. We cannot hold them, and we cannot send them to any other country. What are we supposed to do ? give them political asylum here? Let them walk the streets?" Rivkin said.

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out. Then we can smuggle them back into their respective countries if we have to.

Besides from what I understand the quality of life for prisoners at Gitmo is pretty nice so it is not like they are suffering in some hell hole.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Socio

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out.

If there was any doubt that you are a monster who has dehumanized a group of people, there isn't now. Not that there was before, but you sure help remove any question.

What's the best way to deal with people you have wronged? Wrong them more.

People wonder hos 'civilized' people could look at slavery and see it as ok. Look no further. Socio has gotten comfortable with the image of Muslims in custody, and so what's the problem?

Besides from what I understand the quality of life for prisoners at Gitmo is pretty nice so it is not like they are suffering in some hell hole.

You can't make this stuff up.

But you can explain it, with the word I used above, 'dehumanizing'. Some moral views say to treat people like you want to be treated. Socio falls short.

Righties love to say they are for responsibility, but has any political group ever tried harder not to have any, to not face any consequences for their mistakes, even admitted ones?

I kid you not, I'm almost sure a poll of righties would find many saying 'shoot them all'.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Socio

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it.

You're the biggest sounding pussy I've heard all day. You must tremble at the mention of the terrorists "who are out to get you". What is your freedom worth? Is it so much greater than anyone else's?

Beside that what do you do with them if they get tried in civilian court and some how get released when their own counties refuse to take them back?

So what? Are you saying that since justice is not always easy we should ignore it?

Besides from what I understand the quality of life for prisoners at Gitmo is pretty nice so it is not like they are suffering in some hell hole.

Tell that to their wives and children who no longer have a breadwinner, companion, etc.. We've taken everything they've ever had, and offer them no future.

Sure, some of these are bad guys, but likely, many are not. Any decent human being not as big a coward as you should believe it needs to be sorted out.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out.

If there was any doubt that you are a monster .

No wanting them released knowing damn well at least some would kill and terrorize innocent civilians and Coalition forces would make you "monster" and no better than them.



 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it.

You're the biggest sounding pussy I've heard all day. You must tremble at the mention of the terrorists "who are out to get you". What is your freedom worth? Is it so much greater than anyone else's?

Beside that what do you do with them if they get tried in civilian court and some how get released when their own counties refuse to take them back?

So what? Are you saying that since justice is not always easy we should ignore it?

Besides from what I understand the quality of life for prisoners at Gitmo is pretty nice so it is not like they are suffering in some hell hole.

Tell that to their wives and children who no longer have a breadwinner, companion, etc.. We've taken everything they've ever had, and offer them no future.

Sure, some of these are bad guys, but likely, many are not. Any decent human being not as big a coward as you should believe it needs to be sorted out.

Wow, just wow... lets not worry about the breadwinners, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children that were killed on 9/11 as a result of these terrorist asshats. Lets not worry about the Afghani civilians killed under the Taliban regime or in car bombings by insurgents in Iraq.

But yes, lets shed a tear for the breadwinner/companion terrorist asshole who chooses to go off to war and kill Americans or other people's family members instead of providing for his or her own family. Obviously THEY are the victims here... :roll:
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out.

If there was any doubt that you are a monster .

No wanting them released knowing damn well at least some would kill and terrorize innocent civilians and Coalition forces would make you "monster" and no better than them.

I expect these guys have much better prospects hiding out in Cuba than they would in their home country or any other middle eastern shithole in which they may be tried. I hear the Saudi prisons are particularly nice this time of year and that they keep their swords nice and sharp for quick decapitations versus the rusty implements your average terrorist/insurgent uses to behead his victims.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,888
0
0
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Wow, just wow...

What part of "Innocent until proven guilty" do you not agree with? What do you have against people accused of crimes being given a fair and expedient trial? If you love america so much then why aren't you at least tenuously aware of what it stands for?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out.

If there was any doubt that you are a monster .

No wanting them released knowing damn well at least some would kill and terrorize innocent civilians and Coalition forces would make you "monster" and no better than them.

He doesn't want them all released you crazy fascist, he wants them to have a chance to challenge their detention. All the supreme court did, and all anyone here is advocating is a chance for people who are stuck in jail forever to have a day in court where they can say why they think they shouldn't be in jail forever. How any thinking, reasoning American could be against this is simply mind boggling. What you are advocating is the very definition of tyranny.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Wow, just wow... lets not worry about the breadwinners, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children that were killed on 9/11 as a result of these terrorist asshats. Lets not worry about the Afghani civilians killed under the Taliban regime or in car bombings by insurgents in Iraq.

But yes, lets shed a tear for the breadwinner/companion terrorist asshole who chooses to go off to war and kill Americans or other people's family members instead of providing for his or her own family. Obviously THEY are the victims here... :roll:

Same goes for you. I like how you ignored the crowd of people earlier in this thread tearing you apart on this just to spout out some more worthless crap like this. Stop trying to argue that all the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. It's a lie and you know it. You are honestly trying to argue against the government having to show a cause for why they are imprisoning people for the rest of their lives. That's what you're arguing against. Do you see how absolutely insane that is?

People like you disgust me.
 

newnameman

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2002
2,219
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out.

If there was any doubt that you are a monster .

No wanting them released knowing damn well at least some would kill and terrorize innocent civilians and Coalition forces would make you "monster" and no better than them.

He doesn't want them all released you crazy fascist, he wants them to have a chance to challenge their detention. All the supreme court did, and all anyone here is advocating is a chance for people who are stuck in jail forever to have a day in court where they can say why they think they shouldn't be in jail forever. How any thinking, reasoning American could be against this is simply mind boggling. What you are advocating is the very definition of tyranny.
Do you think that when the country is at war that the military should have to go before a federal court to justify individually the detention of every single enemy prisoner?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: newnameman

Do you think that when the country is at war that the military should have to go before a federal court to justify individually the detention of every single enemy prisoner?

Of course not. Why are you asking this though? The supreme court said nothing to that effect.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
As usual, Glenn Greenwald has some great commentary on the issue.

The ruling itself

How to get the right to stand up for liberty against these measures: have the left propose them, as is happening in England. Column on conservative former PM John Major:

link
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it.

You're the biggest sounding pussy I've heard all day. You must tremble at the mention of the terrorists "who are out to get you". What is your freedom worth? Is it so much greater than anyone else's?

Beside that what do you do with them if they get tried in civilian court and some how get released when their own counties refuse to take them back?

So what? Are you saying that since justice is not always easy we should ignore it?

Besides from what I understand the quality of life for prisoners at Gitmo is pretty nice so it is not like they are suffering in some hell hole.

Tell that to their wives and children who no longer have a breadwinner, companion, etc.. We've taken everything they've ever had, and offer them no future.

Sure, some of these are bad guys, but likely, many are not. Any decent human being not as big a coward as you should believe it needs to be sorted out.

Wow, just wow... lets not worry about the breadwinners, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children that were killed on 9/11 as a result of these terrorist asshats. Lets not worry about the Afghani civilians killed under the Taliban regime or in car bombings by insurgents in Iraq.

But yes, lets shed a tear for the breadwinner/companion terrorist asshole who chooses to go off to war and kill Americans or other people's family members instead of providing for his or her own family. Obviously THEY are the victims here... :roll:

9/11 was a criminal act perpertrated by criminals. Lets let our justice system prevail and for those who are guilty, convict these criminals, sentence them to prison or execution. Lets get on with it, shall we?!

 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Socio
You are right even if they did not want to kill us before you can bet your butt they do now so would it not be best to keep them under lock and key for the time being?

What brilliant logic. They should use this with all wrongfully imprisoned people. "Well Mr. Smith, turns out the DNA test conclusively proves you could not have been the murderer. However, we've had you locked in here for the better part of a decade, and we figure you're probably pretty mad. What I'm trying to say is that you, by virtue of your anger over your wrongful incarceration, are more likely to commit a crime to 'get even.' Naturally, we can't have this, so I'm afraid I have no choice but to hold you here indefinitely."


Originally posted by: Socio
Beside that what do you do with them if they get tried in civilian court and some how get released when their own counties refuse to take them back?

Grant them automatic US citizenship and let them move in next door? Then sue the US for wrongful incarceration, win a couple million and invest that in bombs to blow us up?

If they get tried here and are found not guilty, that seems to me to be an indication that, I don't know, they might not actually be engaged in terrorist activity. And hell, even if they are engaged in terrorist activity but we don't have enough evidence to convict, we can still deport them. Who gives a shit if their home country doesn't want them back? Not our problem.


Originally posted by: Socio
The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out. Then we can smuggle them back into their respective countries if we have to.

Besides from what I understand the quality of life for prisoners at Gitmo is pretty nice so it is not like they are suffering in some hell hole.

You are evil. You don't try to be, but you inherently try to divide the human species into us and them. In this view of the world, we must always do what is right for us, and if any of them get in our way, they are expendable. Their rights are less important than ours because we are better. This is a dangerous view to take; this view leads to war. I'm not saying they don't share your view of the world (with the us and them labels reversed), but that just makes them evil too. Do you really want to stoop to the level of those you clearly despise?

I could write more, but I feel the rest of this sentiment would be better filled in by Moonbeam.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
If they get tried here and are found not guilty, that seems to me to be an indication that, I don't know, they might not actually be engaged in terrorist activity. And hell, even if they are engaged in terrorist activity but we don't have enough evidence to convict, we can still deport them. Who gives a shit if their home country doesn't want them back? Not our problem.

Where are you going to deport them too?

Even if their countries did take them back what would stop them from commenting acts of terrorism on innocent civilians and our soldiers? Nothing and that is the point for keeping them locked up!

The fact is if the Military does not have the ironclad proof that they are guilty does not necessarily make them innocent. However our judicial system will rule on fact not what ifs and there would likely be a wholesale release of potentially very dangerous people with no where to go but where they hate the most, here.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Socio
The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out. Then we can smuggle them back into their respective countries if we have to.

Besides from what I understand the quality of life for prisoners at Gitmo is pretty nice so it is not like they are suffering in some hell hole.

You are evil. You don't try to be, but you inherently try to divide the human species into us and them. In this view of the world, we must always do what is right for us, and if any of them get in our way, they are expendable. Their rights are less important than ours because we are better. This is a dangerous view to take; this view leads to war. I'm not saying they don't share your view of the world (with the us and them labels reversed), but that just makes them evil too. Do you really want to stoop to the level of those you clearly despise?

I could write more, but I feel the rest of this sentiment would be better filled in by Moonbeam.

I have found in life that sometimes you have to do unto others as they would do unto you, you have to stoop to there level and look them squarely in the eye so they can see exactly who the hell they are ****ing with.

I think dealing with terrorists/potential terrorists such as in this situation is just one of those times.


 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
If they get tried here and are found not guilty, that seems to me to be an indication that, I don't know, they might not actually be engaged in terrorist activity. And hell, even if they are engaged in terrorist activity but we don't have enough evidence to convict, we can still deport them. Who gives a shit if their home country doesn't want them back? Not our problem.

Where are you going to deport them too?

Even if their countries did take them back what would stop them from commenting acts of terrorism on innocent civilians and our soldiers? Nothing and that is the point for keeping them locked up!

The fact is if the Military does not have the ironclad proof that they are guilty does not necessarily make them innocent. However our judicial system will rule on fact not what ifs and there would likely be a wholesale release of potentially very dangerous people with no where to go but where they hate the most, here.

I have found in life that sometimes you have to do unto others as they would do unto you, you have to stoop to there level and look them squarely in the eye so they can see exactly who the hell they are ****ing with.

I think dealing with terrorists/potential terrorists such as in this situation is just one of those times.

Listen to what you're saying.
"Just because we don't have proof that they are guilty doesn't mean that they are innocent"
Well I don't have any proof that you're guilty of something, I guess that doesn't make you innocent either then huh? Justify to me why we shouldn't lock you up too, your ideas are so anti-American and anti-Constitution that you seem like you're a threat to our country as well.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Socio

You are a pathetic, scared person with a small mind, unable to grasp fundamental principles of decency and fair play.

The next step to your "lock 'em all up because some might be dangerous" is "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
If they get tried here and are found not guilty, that seems to me to be an indication that, I don't know, they might not actually be engaged in terrorist activity. And hell, even if they are engaged in terrorist activity but we don't have enough evidence to convict, we can still deport them. Who gives a shit if their home country doesn't want them back? Not our problem.

Where are you going to deport them too?

Even if their countries did take them back what would stop them from commenting acts of terrorism on innocent civilians and our soldiers? Nothing and that is the point for keeping them locked up!

The fact is if the Military does not have the ironclad proof that they are guilty does not necessarily make them innocent. However our judicial system will rule on fact not what ifs and there would likely be a wholesale release of potentially very dangerous people with no where to go but where they hate the most, here.

I have found in life that sometimes you have to do unto others as they would do unto you, you have to stoop to there level and look them squarely in the eye so they can see exactly who the hell they are ****ing with.

I think dealing with terrorists/potential terrorists such as in this situation is just one of those times.

Listen to what you're saying.
"Just because we don't have proof that they are guilty doesn't mean that they are innocent"
Well I don't have any proof that you're guilty of something, I guess that doesn't make you innocent either then huh? Justify to me why we shouldn't lock you up too, your ideas are so anti-American and anti-Constitution that you seem like you're a threat to our country as well.

Nice spin!

I said ?if the Military does not have the ironclad proof that they are guilty does not necessarily make them innocent?.

These are not typical criminals where one can do background checks, see arrest records, even be 100% positive of their actual ID. I can see it how would probably be very difficult to build cases that standup in our court of law as to their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and just as important provide a clear picture of what they are or potentially are capable of.

Thus many will get released that should not, all of which would be dangerous threat, some of which will do more than threaten.


 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
If they get tried here and are found not guilty, that seems to me to be an indication that, I don't know, they might not actually be engaged in terrorist activity. And hell, even if they are engaged in terrorist activity but we don't have enough evidence to convict, we can still deport them. Who gives a shit if their home country doesn't want them back? Not our problem.

Where are you going to deport them too?

Even if their countries did take them back what would stop them from commenting acts of terrorism on innocent civilians and our soldiers? Nothing and that is the point for keeping them locked up!

The fact is if the Military does not have the ironclad proof that they are guilty does not necessarily make them innocent. However our judicial system will rule on fact not what ifs and there would likely be a wholesale release of potentially very dangerous people with no where to go but where they hate the most, here.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Socio
The way I figure it is their freedom is not worth taking a chance that a single civilian or soldier gets killed because of it. So they can just sit and rot until the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is sorted out. Then we can smuggle them back into their respective countries if we have to.

Besides from what I understand the quality of life for prisoners at Gitmo is pretty nice so it is not like they are suffering in some hell hole.

You are evil. You don't try to be, but you inherently try to divide the human species into us and them. In this view of the world, we must always do what is right for us, and if any of them get in our way, they are expendable. Their rights are less important than ours because we are better. This is a dangerous view to take; this view leads to war. I'm not saying they don't share your view of the world (with the us and them labels reversed), but that just makes them evil too. Do you really want to stoop to the level of those you clearly despise?

I could write more, but I feel the rest of this sentiment would be better filled in by Moonbeam.

I have found in life that sometimes you have to do unto others as they would do unto you, you have to stoop to there level and look them squarely in the eye so they can see exactly who the hell they are ****ing with.

I think dealing with terrorists/potential terrorists such as in this situation is just one of those times.


Props Socio - its always refreshing to see signs of intelligent life still lurking in Anandtech pol forum. Be prepared to become the vessel upon which many others vent the piss and vinegar of their disordered childoods. Salutes