The disgrace of Guantanamo Bay

[taranaki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/in...rtner=homepage


Of the 550 held there, only 4 have ever been charged.Another utter failure by the Bush administration...

[thegladhatter]

They are POWs. They DON'T NEED to be charged. When the war is over...THEN they will be released. Until then....we don't WANT them out causing more harm to our great nation. The disgrace is people whining about their sorry rear ends.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by taranaki

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/in...rtner=homepage


Of the 550 held there, only 4 have ever been charged.Another utter failure by the Bush administration...

Sad part is, his supporters have yet to accept/acknowledge that he failed in anything - kinda like his response in the debates ("Name 3 instances where you failed...").

[thegladhatter]

If the game aint over...you don't acknowledge defeat. You just finish the game. He aint failed yet.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

They are POWs. They DON'T NEED to be charged. When the war is over...THEN they will be released. Until then....we don't WANT them out causing more harm to our great nation. The disgrace is people whining about their sorry rear ends.

My God, what an ignorant statement!!
The whole point is that your beloved Bush Admin. has NOT called them POW's!!
They are called "enemy combatants"

Do you know why??
Because if they were called POW's then they would be subject to the Geneva Convention (which the US signed) which would guarentee basic human rights.

The treatment these prisioners is getting violates the Geneva Convention. The US is perpetrating a war crime with their actions here. It is a disgrace. They are kept in Cuba because if they were brought to US soil, the government would be forced by their own laws to give them better treatment.
So, mass murderers and serial killers in the US get better treatment than these guys, yet there is no trials to see if any of them are guilty and deserving to be there in the first place.

Does the Pentagon think they are guilty? Well put them on trial and see.

This situation is a disgrace!! Lots of us throught the States would obey their own laws. Guess not. So the states is no different than other despotic regimes that would imprison people just because they felt like it....lets see......Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR and Maoist China. Good company guys!!

I hope some of these prisioners survive to sue the Pentagons ass off.

[thegladhatter]

I have no sympathy for them. They were tickled to death on 9/11. They are in much better shape than those who were murdered on that day.

[Tehvisseeus]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Because if they were called POW's then they would be subject to the Geneva Convention (which the US signed) which would guarentee basic human rights.

They are called enemy combatants because they dont fall into the definition of a POW. In order to attain POW status you must be a member of a chain of command, wear uniforms, and bear arms openly. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/POW

Also they are protected by the 4th geneva convention, just not the 3rd.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

They are called enemy combatants because they dont fall into the definition of a POW. In order to attain POW status you must be a member of a chain of command, wear uniforms, and bear arms openly. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/POW

Also they are protected by the 4th geneva convention, just not the 3rd.

Nonsense.
They meet the citeria as stated.
They certainly had a chain of command. Their actions were organised and coordinated. They were supplied with guns, ammo, food etc by well financed backers and support personell.
They certainly bore weapons openly. How can you fight otherwise? Realistically can you jam an AK-47 doen your pant leg and still fight?
As for uniforms.....the US forces certainly could identify them well enough to capture/shoot them and not the entire population of the country. They could recognise each otherwell enough that they did not shoot each other. It sounds like a functional uniform to me.

Look, the Pentagon can split hairs or stretch definitions all they want. It still does not make it right, legal or justified. It DOES to immeasurable harm the the effectiveness of the US foreign policy in the long run. Much of the rest of the world hates the US for just this kind of BS.

I am sure lots of these prisioners are really nasty people. But likely, lots of them are not. If they were detained on US soil, (whether they are foreign citizens or Americans) they would receive a speedy trial or be deported.
This double standard that the US has in this case is a shameful disgrace, especially for a freedom loving nation such as the US.

[indyram]

Ignorance is in the air. If you are so sure that they had a chain of command, why don't you tell us who the commanders where. How about their uniforms, do you know what they looked like. I think that their uniforms where nothing more than people obviously shooting at the troops, good enough reason to either shoot back or capture them.

[Tehvisseeus]

Sorry allow me to refrase.

You must have a structured chain of command. Blowing up a bus just because some guy told you to does not constitute a chain of command.

Bareing arms openly means that you arent concealing them. Do you really think that a terrorist is going to walk through a street with marines in it holding his AK? No probably not.

Uniforms are used to identify people. The US knows who are combatants and who arent not by looking at them, but by using intelligence and common sense. If someone is shooting at them then he's probably a combatant.

I hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world didn't really like the US even before Bush took office. There havnt been many hearts broken which werent already before he took office. Heck Europeans weren't that happy with us when we were aiding them after WWII. I'd call that BS too but thats a matter of opinion.

The prisoners were mostly detained in Iraq and Afghanistan because they were shooting at our soldiers or otherwise trying to cause them harm. They are nasty people. If they were detained on Us soil you're right, they would just simply get deported, but theres a difference. The military doesnt have jurisdiction over US soil.

It's not a double standard. People detained over seas arent simply criminals, theyre enemy combatants as defined in the 4th geneva convention.

The US is a freedom loving country, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't piss us off when people are shooting at our boys. If the methods behind detainment save even 1 life then they are worth it.

[-Josh-]

[YogsVR4]

Ok - we should release them immediately.




Tell them to get off the base and make a swim for it.

[-Josh-]

Or we could deal out Justice ancient Roman style, with a gladiator pit.... Strongest man gets to continue raining down Jihad on Americans until caught again....

[Tehvisseeus]

ohhh I think I like Josh's idea best. I can see it now Gladiator 2: Welcome to the Real World

[aloharocky]

The prisoners should be lined up every morning, kicked in the nuts, and then staked out in the sun. Right alongside anyone that defends them.