-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Guantanamo man 'suing government'
- Thread starter Suranga3
- Start date
- Status
Christoff Yurievich
Member
ShadowRed said:
Like I said, it's fully inclusive, so the all the holiday-related activities are part of the deal. Same goes for those people who complained about Nelson Mandela waking up to the best view in the world for 27 years and learning valuable life-skills like breaking rocks.
Shompola said:
How can you be sure that innocent men, that had no involvement with either, weren't taken? Who simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? I'm absolutely sure it happened, and that there are innocent people down there right now.
What the US is doing in Guantanemo is abhorrent, imo.
Christoff Yurievich
Member
Jeffahn's statements are so obtuse as to be deliberate and Shompola...I just dunno. Blanket statement much?
Shompola said:
You are a fucking idiot. How do you even know that they're guilty of something when they haven't even trialed? And wtf happened to the Geneva convention? Americans love to bring that up when their troops are gettin' captured but never the other way around. Hey then guess what. I'm happy the Iraqi resistance is cutting off the heads of your soldiers. I mean who cares about that stupid convention. Moron...
Groder Mullet
Member
Che said:
How do you know they aren't guilty? Because they came out and said they aren't? Your pretty damn gullable if thats the case. And I don't believe any of our soldiers have been decapitated so I must assume you mean you are happy that innocent civilians are tortured and murdered by the terrorists. Did you cheer when Margaret Hassan was killed? Nick Berg? Paul Johnson?
Again, the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. Insurgents aren't uniformed and only represent their own interests. Not that any of that matters as no one has ever proved that we were anything but fully compliant with the Conventions.
So please take your wannabe moral authority and cram it up your ass.
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
I find the actions of America with respect to that camp almost as morally offensive as I find the actions of the insurgents.
I hope one day that those responsible for Guantanamo face war crime charges, just as I hope one day the insurgents/terrorists are beaten.
However my hopes are the hopes of an eternal optimist, both unlikely to ever be fulfilled.
I hope one day that those responsible for Guantanamo face war crime charges, just as I hope one day the insurgents/terrorists are beaten.
However my hopes are the hopes of an eternal optimist, both unlikely to ever be fulfilled.
Groder Mullet said:
Wow.
Perhaps we should change some of the rules so these things are less likely to happen. I do realize that this type of situation is inevitable, and there will be some "collateral damage", but it really bothers me that these people are not getting much of a fair trial.
Do you honestly have no heart? Do you want the US to be these boorish, uncivilized, flag waiving, assholes, locking up everything that moves?
Fuck all the idiots on this board for immediately jumping to the conclusion that this person is innocent...but your much worse for not even caring how these people are detained.
The idea that "Were not the one's cutting people's heads off, so we are perfect." Is friggin scary.
Groder Mullet said:
Great, so if we're so confident of their guilt, let's stop running a faux court that doesn't adhere to international law? You seem to be ignoring the fact that people from Guantanamo have been released years after their capture without being charged for a single crime. How one can support the ideals behind Guantanamo is beyond me.
gohepcat: You're missing the point. People, even American citizens, have been arrested and locked up indefinitely on the mere SUSPICION of being involved in terrorism or the insurgency, and are held without any evidence or charges, while the Executive Branch claims that others, particularly that evil Judicial Branch, shouldn't be "second guessing" them in these matters. This is fundamentally and indefensibly wrong, and for all the bullshit about "defending freedom" thrown about, it's appalling that the American government is taking hints from the KGB.
People often wonder how Gore would have handled 9/11 differently. I'd say with confidence that he would have already charged and convicted those guilty of terrorism, and released those who aren't in any associated with terror.
But I guess that would have made him a pussy? *shrugs shoulders*
But I guess that would have made him a pussy? *shrugs shoulders*
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
Here's something I read that might be relevant to the discussion. It's titled "Preemption vs. Prosecution: Strategies In Combating Terrorism
Here is an excerpt:
Experts on both continents say the problem comes from the United States' rush to put together a counterterrorism strategy after 9/11. The biggest European countries started cracking down on terrorism in the 1970s, when nationalist and leftist groups were most active. The extra decades have given them time to adapt law enforcement and the courts to the extra demands of terrorism prosecutions.
In France, "a long tradition of internal subversion has created more tolerance for what we'd consider police state activities," according to Jeremy Shapiro, an expert in French counterterrorism at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He said police routinely listen in on mosques and have broad power to detain people without charge. "Before the 1998 soccer World Cup, they went downtown and rounded up the usual suspects. They just hold them for up to four days with no charge." In Britain, police can arrest anyone associated with a named terrorist group. In Spain, judges have far more power than in the United States, with the ability to hold people in detention for up to four years without charges and to direct investigations and police resources.
American law grew more strict in the 1990s, after the first World Trade Center bombing, the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City bombing. The 1996 antiterrorism law increased domestic surveillance and boosted law enforcement capabilities. According to Michael Scheuer, who from 1993 to 1996 led the CIA's task force tracking Osama bin Laden, the CIA began disrupting Al Qaeda cells abroad during the Clinton administration and transferring detainees to other countries. But within the United States, terrorists like the first World Trade Center bombers were tried in criminal court under heavy guard, rather than in the military tribunals currently in planning for Guantánamo detainees.
Before 9/11, the U.S. and Europe both viewed the other as complacent on terrorism. According to Dale Watson, former chief of the FBI's counterterrorism bureau in Washington D.C., the Europeans did not take the Al Qaeda threat as seriously as Hezbollah and domestic terrorist groups. European officials worried that the United States was too focused on civil liberties rather than crime fighting.
The rest can be found at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/special/pre.html
Here is an excerpt:
Experts on both continents say the problem comes from the United States' rush to put together a counterterrorism strategy after 9/11. The biggest European countries started cracking down on terrorism in the 1970s, when nationalist and leftist groups were most active. The extra decades have given them time to adapt law enforcement and the courts to the extra demands of terrorism prosecutions.
In France, "a long tradition of internal subversion has created more tolerance for what we'd consider police state activities," according to Jeremy Shapiro, an expert in French counterterrorism at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He said police routinely listen in on mosques and have broad power to detain people without charge. "Before the 1998 soccer World Cup, they went downtown and rounded up the usual suspects. They just hold them for up to four days with no charge." In Britain, police can arrest anyone associated with a named terrorist group. In Spain, judges have far more power than in the United States, with the ability to hold people in detention for up to four years without charges and to direct investigations and police resources.
American law grew more strict in the 1990s, after the first World Trade Center bombing, the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City bombing. The 1996 antiterrorism law increased domestic surveillance and boosted law enforcement capabilities. According to Michael Scheuer, who from 1993 to 1996 led the CIA's task force tracking Osama bin Laden, the CIA began disrupting Al Qaeda cells abroad during the Clinton administration and transferring detainees to other countries. But within the United States, terrorists like the first World Trade Center bombers were tried in criminal court under heavy guard, rather than in the military tribunals currently in planning for Guantánamo detainees.
Before 9/11, the U.S. and Europe both viewed the other as complacent on terrorism. According to Dale Watson, former chief of the FBI's counterterrorism bureau in Washington D.C., the Europeans did not take the Al Qaeda threat as seriously as Hezbollah and domestic terrorist groups. European officials worried that the United States was too focused on civil liberties rather than crime fighting.
The rest can be found at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/special/pre.html
Groder Mullet said:
On a serious note, you can't have it both ways. Either they're civilians and should get the treatment any civilian (foreign or domestic) would get, or they're military fighting a war and should get the treatment any soldier would get. This middle ground is a dispicable concept that makes no sense. I'm all about the grey areas, usually, but this is taking it too far.
ScientificNinja
Member
Shompola said:
That's ridiculous. There are many people in Guantanamo Bay who were captured AFTER the assault on Afghanistan, and not even on the field of battle; and one person I read about (I believe his name is Mamdou Habib) was taken after he called his wife and said something big might be happening on 9/11. Thing is, practically EVERYONE in that region of Afghanistan knew something was going to happen!
- Status