Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crabofix on January 19, 2004, 05:29:14 AM
-
3 prisoners under the age of 15 is held at Cuba, in US custody. Its been 2 years since they where put there. Use simple math and you will figure how old they where to start with.
Mr Bush will be brought to Haag when his term has ended.
-
I know.......13
-
Why were 12 year olds taken taken there?
-
I think they are there cleaning the "Hooches"
-
Because they are a thread to the United States of paranoia. They needed to be locked away.
-
I don't think so.. even the previous war criminals hasn't seen the Haag court.
Like Kissinger for example.
Although hes got a good reason not to visit europe, but does it really matter...
-
Lock them little pre-pubescent militants up and throw away the key.
Or perhaps you could get a lawyer and start the adoption process. Teach em all about peace love. Take it all the way to the supreme court. Yeah, thats the ticket. Oh wait, your a european. Forget it.
Perhaps you could get your government to mount a rescue mission and save the little darlings from the great satan.
-
2 years in Cuba has got to be better than being shot dead on the battlefield while supporting terrorism.
-
Alternatively, Yeager, you could tell us why 12 year olds are in Guantanamo? Genuine interest here - condescend to fill us Europeans in.
-
Because it is near Florida, where 12 year olds can be tried as adults and receive the death penalty.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
2 years in Cuba has got to be better than being shot dead on the battlefield while supporting terrorism.
Yeah these bastards are really lucky to get utilized by some crazy fanatics and then get send to "camp" without any chance of defense.:rolleyes:
These kids need help and not any more inhumanity.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Yeah these bastards are really lucky to get utilized by some crazy fanatics and then get send to "camp" without any chance of defense.:rolleyes:
These kids need help and not any more inhumanity.
See, we agree on something.
-
Speaking of European teenagers
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/19/plane.diverted/index.html
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Because it is near Florida, where 12 year olds can be tried as adults and receive the death penalty.
I thought guantamo wasnt under US legislation?
Martlet,
Except not all of them are terrorists, most I suppose.. but not all.
Must be fun spending 2 years under worse conditions than a prison, for no reason...
-
19 years old.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,
Except not all of them are terrorists, most I suppose.. but not all.
Must be fun spending 2 years under worse conditions than a prison, for no reason...
Really? Which ones aren't terrorists?
-
(http://www.jimtardio.com/germany-dachau-never-again-big.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Really? Which ones aren't terrorists?
Have you missed the news? some prisoners have been released from guantamo.
-
held at Cuba, in US custody
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Have you missed the news? some prisoners have been released from guantamo.
So? That doesn't mean they weren't involved with or defending terrorists.
Tim McCamey (http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/04/1/17/18045695.cfm) was released from jail, but he's still a sex offender.
-
You're right, Crabofix, it's wrong for these terrorists to be held in Cuba. The soldiers who captured them should have given them the traditional military treatment for combatants who masquerade as civilians - a bullet in the head.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Mr Bush will be brought to Haag when his term has ended.
ROFL, he will be in Texas.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Really? Which ones aren't terrorists?
Do u really think that a kid can accountable decide that he wants to be a terrorist?
Do u really think a 13 year old kid should be put into "prison" instead of giving him psycholigical help and showing him that the evil american isnt so evil as hes been told?
-
All teenage terrorists should be sent to Germany as exchange students.
-
so thats what happened to duedal... he was captured by Americans and held for many years for no reason.
if only we had be kind to him and shown him that America is a nice place with decent folks.... oh well... too late now I guess.
lazs
-
Dowding, Im not in guantamo and Im guessing you arent either.
As such, it would be hard for me or you (or anyone not directly involved) to say with any level of accuracy that the young people subject to this thread should or should not be held there.
But heres the rub. If in fact there are young teenagers being held in guantamo then I am going to believe that it is justified as I would prefer to default in favor of my nation during war then against it. Sorry, just the way I believe.
-
This is how you create the next generation of Osama Bin Ladinīs
-
So in short:
A decision was made by those with first hand information regarding these two detainee's which resulted in their invitation to stay at a maximum security resort in Cuba.
Yet some of you, who dont even know their names, let alone why they are being held, feel that its wrong - entirely based upon their age - and not their actions of which you are clueless.
Is this correct?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Do u really think that a kid can accountable decide that he wants to be a terrorist?
Do u really think a 13 year old kid should be put into "prison" instead of giving him psycholigical help and showing him that the evil american isnt so evil as hes been told?
It completely depends on what the kid did.
Since you seem to know so much about it, why don't you tell me where the teens were captured, and what activities they were engaged in that resulted in their capture.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
This is how you create the next generation of Osama Bin Ladinīs
Versus the Timothy McVeighs and Terry Nichols of the world? Neh ... I don't buy it. When someone either gets it in their head or lets it be put in their head that terrorism is a justifiable act then they don't deserve a "get out of jail free" card when they're captured in the act or supporting it. Even juvies here in the states are locked up when they commit violent crimes.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Dowding, Im not in guantamo and Im guessing you arent either.
As such, it would be hard for me or you (or anyone not directly involved) to say with any level of accuracy that the young people subject to this thread should or should not be held there.
But heres the rub. If in fact there are young teenagers being held in guantamo then I am going to believe that it is justified as I would prefer to default in favor of my nation during war then against it. Sorry, just the way I believe.
ditto
I'll default to this admins decision over this matter & the entire war on terrorism, than side with bleeding heart libs and their euro pals that would like nothing more than to see our country knocked down a peg or two if not KO'd altogther
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It completely depends on what the kid did.
Since you seem to know so much about it, why don't you tell me where the teens were captured, and what activities they were engaged in that resulted in their capture.
Why did it seems to u that i know so much about it? I'm trying to do the same every average dumbo conservative does. I read some information (who cares for the source) and post my intellectual dung.
But anyway if they are there it surely doesnt depend on what they did cause in the age of 13 - 14 they are barely responsible for what they've been told to do. That U dont see this is clear, I mean ur Martlet right?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
ditto
I'll default to this admins decision over this matter & the entire war on terrorism, than side with bleeding heart libs and their euro pals that would like nothing more than to see our country knocked down a peg or two if not KO'd altogther
ROTFL Hey Eagler if I have the strong feeling that America must be knocked down ... ROTFL ... only to prevent others from having to read ur posts... ;)
-
Originally posted by Duedel
But anyway if they are there it surely doesnt depend on what they did cause in the age of 13 - 14 they are barely responsible for what they've been told to do. That U dont see this is clear, I mean ur Martlet right?
So because they aren't responsible, they should be released back into the world to continue to do terrorism? :confused:
-
That's the German way, stick your head in the sand and hope it all goes away.
Paint a old run down house with a fresh coat of paint........looks nice, but scratch the paint away........still the old run down house.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So? That doesn't mean they weren't involved with or defending terrorists.
Tim McCamey (http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/04/1/17/18045695.cfm) was released from jail, but he's still a sex offender.
You're quite ignorant person, hopefully you never get couple years of your life wasted in jail because you're suspected of something you didn't do.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Why were 12 year olds taken taken there?
because it was proved that they are terrorist...silly one :)
uuhh ohh.. btw ... ehm... or they never ever proved anything to those people ?
:D
man ...the day when world will lost this green kind, world will be more nicer place :D
anyway i guess they used to learn a lot of interesting things in the jail..
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Versus the Timothy McVeighs and Terry Nichols of the world? Neh ... I don't buy it. When someone either gets it in their head or lets it be put in their head that terrorism is a justifiable act then they don't deserve a "get out of jail free" card when they're captured in the act or supporting it. Even juvies here in the states are locked up when they commit violent crimes.
Not before due process of the law.. How many of these prisoners in Cuba have had their day in court?
What terrorist actions have these kids been accused of? If its taking up arms against the USA?? I'd imagine most anyone in that situation would do the same when confronted with a military force out to destroy the only way of life that is known..
What I mean to say is these kids did not come to america with bombs strapped to their bodies...
-
Originally posted by kappa
Not before due process of the law.. How many of these prisoners in Cuba have had their day in court?
What terrorist actions have these kids been accused of? If its taking up arms against the USA?? I'd imagine most anyone in that situation would do the same when confronted with a military force out to destroy the only way of life that is known..
What I mean to say is these kids did not come to america with bombs strapped to their bodies...
They are not us citizens therefore they are not entitled to due procsess. They are considered military combantants (I think or somthing similar) because of there status (wich is totaly legal) the only entitlements they recieve under the law is a military tribunal.
History has taught us, and bleeding hearts allways choose to forget, that kids have played a MAJOR role in violent uprisings over the last 20 years. A 12 year old with an AK is no different than a 30 year old cept the first one is a smaller target. Both have the ability to kill and be killed
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
So because they aren't responsible, they should be released back into the world to continue to do terrorism? :confused:
Man funked cant u even read 3 posts? They should be under psychological custody in a youth camp or whatever.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Man funked cant u even read 3 posts? They should be under psychological custody in a youth camp or whatever.
Sorry, I r tard. :)
-
Originally posted by Monk
That's the German way, stick your head in the sand and hope it all goes away.
Paint a old run down house with a fresh coat of paint........looks nice, but scratch the paint away........still the old run down house.
Yep me tard to, I dont get what u mean here Monk.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Mr Bush will be brought to Haag when his term has ended.
:rofl
:lol
Oh you chatty euros think you have any influence with you world court.... Who puts people in your court cells? The US army..
So yea. Hush up...
-
"History has taught us, and bleeding hearts allways choose to forget, that kids have played a MAJOR role in violent uprisings over the last 20 years. A 12 year old with an AK is no different than a 30 year old cept the first one is a smaller target. Both have the ability to kill and be killed"
doesn't mean that when captured they should be treated the same way as the 30 year old...any more than a 8 year old should be in the same amount of trouble as a 20 year old for stealing a candy bar (poor analogy i know...)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
:rofl
:lol
Oh you chatty euros think you have any influence with you world court.... Who puts people in your court cells? The US army..
So yea. Hush up...
Let me introduce my 2nd favorite black vs. white (i.e. Euro vs. USA) thinking BBS-Super-Expert.
BTW the 1st one is Eagler he manages it to be much more shortwitted with less letters than u Grunherz.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
You're quite ignorant person, hopefully you never get couple years of your life wasted in jail because you're suspected of something you didn't do.
That was quite a compelling response. I admit, you've convinced me. Now, if you'll just post your proof that they are innocent I'll give GWB a call and we'll rectify this situation ASAP.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
All teenage terrorists should be sent to Germany as exchange students.
LOL sig material there :rofl
-
I thought the Red Cross had checked Cuba out and said the prisoners where being treated very well?
You have links to back up your suggestion that there prison is inhumane?
I have no idea why they are there, but I still trust the government enough to not be worried about this.
I am sure they are there for a good reason.
It is not like they have gas chambers and ovens... or human skin lamp shades coming out of there.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Let me introduce my 2nd favorite black vs. white (i.e. Euro vs. USA) thinking BBS-Super-Expert.
BTW the 1st one is Eagler he manages it to be much more shortwitted with less letters than u Grunherz.
Its funny how you USA haters abhorr "simplistic" "black vs white" thinking when its thrown back into your face. I wonder where that moral indignance wanders off to when you guys write up your delightful tratises on why Bush and the USA truly are Hitler and Nazi germnay reincarnate..
-
In Den Haag
I just have to say it, sounds so presumptous and self important...
:lol
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its funny how you USA haters abhorr "simplistic" "black vs white" thinking when its thrown back into your face. I wonder where that moral indignance wanders off to when you guys write up your delightful tratises on why Bush and the USA truly are Hitler and Nazi germnay reincarnate..
As i said Gruny, ur problem is ur using way to much letters for ur prejudices. Try harder.
-
Then I suggest you improve your english literacy, you Germans are smart and hard working arent you, shouldnt be problem then....
In Den Haag :lol so funny
-
They are not us citizens therefore they are not entitled to due procsess. They are considered military combantants (I think or somthing similar) because of there status (wich is totaly legal) the only entitlements they recieve under the law is a military tribunal. n Gunslinger
Am I right in thinking that this is unprecedented? Has the USA ever held POWs or the like for 2 years with no sort of process of law??
And why is it totally legal? Because the powers that be at this moment say so?? Is it constitutionaly legal? Is this simply legal because our government says they are 'combatants' and deems it legal??
Our government classifies on a whelm who is and who isnt deemed a 'combatant'... What happens when the day comes that someone close is deemed a combatant?? Would you take up arms against your government? Would you be the 'terrorist'??
History has taught us, and bleeding hearts allways choose to forget, that kids have played a MAJOR role in violent uprisings over the last 20 years. A 12 year old with an AK is no different than a 30 year old cept the first one is a smaller target. Both have the ability to kill and be killed
Agreed... But the 12 year old only kills because he was told to. He was given (what seemed real) reasons. The same can be said about explaining to him why you shouldnt.. A 12 year mind is a world away from a 30 year mind.. ATBE...
You have links to back up your suggestion that there prison is inhumane? Gtora2
Being held prisoner by America without due process is inhumane IMO anyway you look at it.... Due process was one of the corner stones our country was founded on.... All men are equal to the law.. (all men, not all americans)
These people are being held because our government wants to.. When has that ever been enough until this administration?? (im asking) How long before this happens to Americans??
Arabs?? Jews?? Whats the difference??
-
Kappa
I think the US supreme court just told the bush admin he needed to prosecute these guys. I hope he does.
I do not consider holding non US citizens for two years inhumane, but if the sumpreme court says try them we should.
-
Being held prisoner by America without due process is inhumane IMO anyway you look at it....
====
Having to jump to your death from the 98th floor of WTC1 is pretty damned inhumane too. I dont care much about these people. Its simple really. You want war you got it.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Being held prisoner by America without due process is inhumane IMO anyway you look at it....
====
Having to jump to your death from the 98th floor of WTC1 is pretty damned inhumane too. I dont care much about these people. Its simple really. You want war you got it.
But isnt it the humanity something that differentiates us from terrorists?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Having to jump to your death from the 98th floor of WTC1 is pretty damned inhumane too. I dont care much about these people. Its simple really. You want war you got it. [/B]
Hardly fair.. These people, especially the teenagers, had nothing to do with the WTCs....
By that same thought, should we group all the arabs up and make the walk the plank Sinbad style? Perhaps march them all over the Grand Canyon edge.. As if, you bomb america, we'll make your family kill themselfs on one of our countries greatest attractions... If we kill or gather them ALL up.. We'll get the right ones?!?!?!
-
Originally posted by kappa
Hardly fair.. These people, especially the teenagers, had nothing to do with the WTCs....
You do understand the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban right?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
You do understand the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban right?
Both are victims of US agresssion?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Both are victims of US agresssion?
LMAO:rofl
-
Originally posted by kappa
Hardly fair.. These people, especially the teenagers, had nothing to do with the WTCs....
By that same thought, should we group all the arabs up and make the walk the plank Sinbad style? Perhaps march them all over the Grand Canyon edge.. As if, you bomb america, we'll make your family kill themselfs on one of our countries greatest attractions... If we kill or gather them ALL up.. We'll get the right ones?!?!?!
Notice how he marginalizes the terrorists guilt and immedily makes a hyperbolic leap that somehow punishment of terrorists is comporable or at least not too different from punishing all arabs en masse..
Simply amazing!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Both are victims of US agresssion?
Wow, this was close. But it must be:
Both where raised by the USA. Yep its funny how the USA have to fight their own creatures.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Wow, this was close. But it must be:
Both where raised by the USA. Yep its funny how the USA have to fight their own creatures.
We have to fight yours, too.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
We have to fight yours, too.
No. AS I learned in many other threads its totally unimportant what Germany wants, what Germany did or what Germany does.
And, be honest Martlet, Osama was ur (and GB's) little beloved kiddy. U know at that time where Sir Charles Douglas-Hume insisted to call these "freedom fighters". Those now known as "terrorists".
-
Uhhm the CIA did not start the taliban or alqaeda. Taliban is a 1990s faction that developed after the afghan war. Al Qaeda did not really exist as such during the afghan war - the players were there but bin laden did not fight much and mostly gave material support from his family construction business and money - the real genesis of al qaeda as we know it today was the first gulf war. Bin Laden hated the fact that american infidel troops were invited into saudi arabia to defend against an iraqi invasion after they annexed kuwait. He then decided to form al qaeda as we know today with america as its main enemy.
Along the same lines the post ww2 soviet union was a child of american foregin policy and support, wow how badly that turned out. We really should have let hitler win the war in the east and slaughter and enslave all of those guys.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
No. AS I learned in many other threads its totally unimportant what Germany wants, what Germany did or what Germany does.
And, be honest Martlet, Osama was ur (and GB's) little beloved kiddy. U know at that time where Sir Charles Douglas-Hume insisted to call these "freedom fighters". Those now known as "terrorists".
Since you seem to have such an affection for them, perhaps you could move them all to Germany.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Notice how he marginalizes the terrorists guilt and immedily makes a hyperbolic leap that somehow punishment of terrorists is comporable or at least not too different from punishing all arabs en masse..
Simply amazing!
Whats amazing to me are peoples ability to believe without question the guilt of ALL people being held in Cuba.. If they are not given the process of law, you might as well round them all up.. Thats what I was saying Grun.. I have no idea what you were trying to conveye....
-
Originally posted by kappa
Whats amazing to me are peoples ability to believe without question the guilt of ALL people being held in Cuba.. If they are not given the process of law, you might as well round them all up.. Thats what I was saying Grun.. I have no idea what you were trying to conveye....
I've yet to see evidence to convince me otherwise. Have you got any?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Uhhm the CIA did not start the taliban or alqaeda. Taliban is a 1990s faction that developed after the afghan war. Al Qaeda did not really exist as such during the afghan war - the players were there but bin laden did not fight much and mostly gave material support from his family construction business and money - the real genesis of al qaeda as we know it today was the first gulf war. Bin Laden hated the fact that american infidel troops were invited into saudi arabia to defend against an iraqi invasion after they annexed kuwait. He then decided to form al qaeda as we know today with america as its main enemy.
Along the same lines the post ww2 soviet union was a child of american foregin policy and support, wow how badly that turned out. We really should have let hitler win the war in the east and slaughter and enslave all of those guys.
Facts please??
I was under the understanding that the Taliban government was placed by american influences... Also, OBL and al qaeda has been around since the russian/afgan war?? OBL was sponsered by the CIA... as was the taliban.......
-
Hardly fair.. These people, especially the teenagers, had nothing to do with the WTCs....
====
So what? They were bad little terror kids or important intelligence sources. Either way, it does not matter what you or I think. Or does it?........
By that same thought, should we group all the arabs up and make the walk the plank Sinbad style?
====
By all means, group all muslim terrorists together and destroy them. Is that what you are saying? Yes, by all means. All muslim terrorists should be destroyed. Simple.
Perhaps march them all over the Grand Canyon edge.. As if, you bomb america, we'll make your family kill themselfs on one of our countries greatest attractions... If we kill or gather them ALL up.. We'll get the right ones?!?!?!
====
Is it smoke dope time where your at? Because this one looks to be like a drug inspired psychosis. Funny but sick...sorta :aok
-
Kappa they rounded up a few hundred guys. There were thousands of taliban captured and they could have just taken anybody they wanted. These guys were selected for gitmo because they were special cases. I could understand your concern if we simply shipped every afghan with a gun to cuba, but this not the case. I feel you are blowing this out of proportion.
IRRC one of your dear innocent 12-15 year olds murdered a special forces medic who tried to help him after he feigned surrender and injury... He is lucky to be alive IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I've yet to see evidence to convince me otherwise. Have you got any?
No, but as soon as I do see some I'll be happy.. One way or the other.. All I'm saying is these people need some sort of process... I dont mean to confess their inocence.. I dont care one way or the other.. The only thing I care about is they are being held without proof to the world.. Prove they are terrorist.. or let them go...
-
Originally posted by kappa
No, but as soon as I do see some I'll be happy.. One way or the other.. All I'm saying is these people need some sort of process... I dont mean to confess their inocence.. I dont care one way or the other.. The only thing I care about is they are being held without proof to the world.. Prove they are terrorist.. or let them go...
I think they're getting exactly what they need.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Since you seem to have such an affection for them, perhaps you could move them all to Germany.
Cool argument. Oh wait thats not an argument its ... uhm ... nothing .. nothing more than the typical "when I'm to dumb to say somthing minimal intelligent i name my opponent a terrorist affected ...
I'm impressed Martlet.
@Grunherz: yep its not wrong what u type but the USA and especially the CIA build the founding for Osama and his sick minded "firends". The CIA even showed these "freedom fighters" how to fight in full knowledge of their political inhuman views and therefore raised their own enemies.
Its an ineresting topic to discuss cause what would be if the USA wouldnt have interfered? I dont know.
But back to topic: At least it's inhuman to put people into prison without giving them a chance to defense themselves.
there are other possibilities and no thanks we have enough exchange students over here :D
-
The taliban was not placed by the CIA, what would the CIA have to gain from a radical anti-western muslim regime in afghsanistan , they rose up in the mid 1990s and slowly took the country over by themselves. If you read up on the afghan war in the 1980s you will see that the CIA in fact tried to steer support away from the hardliner tribes and factions in afganistan (no not all were crazy mulsim fanatics) they did support all of them because everyone fought but the CIA was defintely biased towards the moderates. The postwar mid 1990s afghan governemt was run more moderate forces (Norther alliance is remanat of that) but they fough each too much and destroyed kabul - so the initally the taliban were welcomed as peace givers.
Thats how they came to power. Again ask yourself why would CIA want to replace even a bad moderate US friendly government with a US hating fanatic regime like the taliban? The taliban did not exist during the afgahn war, they started up in the early to mid 1990s several years after the 1980s afghan war.
As for Bin Laden being a child of the CIA this is part of the fnatasy that makes him seem so much bigger than he was. He was a faily minor figure in the afgan war, he disnt fight much and mostly gave material support from his fortune. He was not helped any more or less than any other person on his level, which was minimal if at all.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Cool argument. Oh wait thats not an argument its ... uhm ... nothing .. nothing more than the typical "when I'm to dumb to say somthing minimal intelligent i name my opponent a terrorist affected ...
I'm impressed Martlet.
Actually, that was the idiotic response required in reply to your idiotic statement.
Anytime you feel like addressing my statement, feel free.
What's happening in Cuba isn't "inhuman" at all. It's the appropriate response to an inappropriate attack.
The cause and effect is pretty easy to follow. Don't support terrorism and you won't end up in a detention camp.
-
They are having an extended time out.
-
By all means, group all muslim terrorists together and destroy them. Is that what you are saying? Yes, by all means. All muslim terrorists should be destroyed. Simple.
Thats great! And we should destroy them all just because of one government offical that says they are terrorist? Or just a few say so perhaps..
I have to agree with you if they are bombing america or get caught in the act, they should be destroyed...
But the facts are pretty distorted throughout american history about who is a terrorist and who isnt. The fact that in one day a group's classification might change is proof enough to me that the word terrorist can be labeled to anyone or anygroup that our government sees fit... That alone, is not 'proof' to me...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
By all means, group all american terrorists together and destroy them. Is that what you are saying? Yes, by all means. All american terrorists should be destroyed. Simple.
Perhaps march them all over the Grand Canyon edge.. As if, you bomb Arabs, we'll make your family kill themselfs on one of our countries greatest attractions... If we kill or gather them ALL up.. We'll get the right ones?!?!?!
[/B]
mmm interesting just how much Mr Yeager sounds exactly like Osama....
-
Yeah, Duedel, we foolishly make friends with all kinds of people.
Why, we were pretty friendly with Germany in the Post WW1 period. Wilson's "14 Points" were without doubt the very best terms offered to a defeated Germany.
The US rejected the Versailles treaty and the US and Germany signed a separate peace treaty in 1921 and a trade treaty in 1923.
Then the US tried to help even more; in 1924 the Dawes Plan eased Germany's payment schedule and provided for an international loan. In 1929, the Dawes Plan was replaced by the Young Plan which substituted a definite settlement and reduced payments appreciably.
Yep, we were pretty darn friendly with Germany through the late 1920's and most of the 1930's.
Of course, you see what we got for offering the hand of friendship that time, too.
:p
-
Yes the USA helped a very Islamic afghanistan defend itself from the soviet union and win, many of the same muslim fighters then decided it was a good thing to become anti-american teorrists.
Thats true.
that said tell me how this then argue against US terror policy of agressvly hunting these bastards down like dogs? Are we to expect them to be reasonable all of sudden? What makes any of you think that if we agrtee to their demands or be nice or understanding of them that they will stop killing us?
-
Interseting Toad, we wrote the exact same post.... :)
-
These guys were selected for gitmo because they were special cases. I could understand your concern if we simply shipped every afghan with a gun to cuba, but this not the case. I feel you are blowing this out of proportion.
Proof... post a link or something...
Thx in advance.
-
Yes its obvious we indescriminately shipped every afghan and taliban to cuba, gitmo is very crowded...
-
Yes, Grun. After you graduate, I'm going to get you an interview at ALPA for a Union/Management Labor Relations Specialist job.
;)
-
@Toad: And this proves? Nothing. But nice try.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes the USA helped a very Islamic afghanistan defend itself from the soviet union and win, many of the same muslim fighters then decided it was a good thing to become anti-american teorrists.
Thats true.
that said tell me how this then argue against US terror policy of agressvly hunting these bastards down like dogs? Are we to expect them to be reasonable all of sudden? What makes any of you think that if we agrtee to their demands or be nice or understanding of them that they will stop killing us?
Dont forget that the Mudschahedin had the same intention as every islamic group over there. So maybe (just maybe) the USA could have known that this will be a boomerang. As i stated above its hard to tell if this intervention was a fault or not and where did i say u should not hunt those idiots? We are helping u in Afghanistan with our biggest military effort since WWII. I only said u have to treat them like every other US prisoner i.e. with humanity (death penalty ignored).
-
Apparently it proves that you can't grasp the concept that times change, politics change and thus so do alliances.
But I understand. It's a relatively new concept that has no historical foundation. Well, at least not since before... say.. about the time of the Roman Empire.
Well, before that too, really.
But maybe you will notice this relatively new phenomena before too mcuh more time passes Duedel. I mean, the world is so new and this concept is so radical.
-
These guys were selected for gitmo because they were special cases.
You are naive Grun, it will give with time/age. You DO know that you have released people from Gitmo right?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
You are naive Grun, it will give with time/age.
Or, perhaps, time/age gave you senility.
-
There was no one "Mujahadeen" all the various facations were all Mujahadeen together. Some the USA favored over others and some the Pakistanis favored over others as well. All the groups were helped in one way or another by the USA, Pakistan, China, even India and even Isreal...
Hey toad, does the NRA exclude supervisory or management jobs for union coverage? I sure wouldnt want to miss out on cushy union wages. :)
-
Originally posted by Maniac
You are naive Grun, it will give with time/age. You DO know that you have released people from Gitmo right?
If they are realeasing them then what are you complaiong about, release implies an investigation which means there is a selection process for people there...
-
NRA, the National Rifle Association? ;)
ALPA pays fine wages, trust me on this. Better yet, if you're REALLY, REALLY good, the ATA will hire you away from ALPA at an obscene amount of money just so to get you on their side of the table.
You should've seen the list of guys they "bought" on our property.
;)
-
If they are realeasing them then what are you complaiong about, release implies an investigation which means there is a selection process for people there...
Come on now...
If they release people from Gitmo, then its a sign that they indeed may have caught some people that shouldnt be there right?
-
National Railway Act, I think its the law that deals with railway and airline workers wrt union activity.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Come on now...
If they release people from Gitmo, then its a sign that they indeed may have caught some people that shouldnt be there right?
Or, it could be people they believe have given up all the information they held, so we have no use for them anymore.
-
Or, it could be people they believe have given up all the information they held, so we have no use for them anymore.
Are your goverment releasing Terrorists? djust letting them free to walk the earth?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Come on now...
If they release people from Gitmo, then its a sign that they indeed may have caught some people that shouldnt be there right?
Sure its possible, but so what? One does not need to be convicted before an arrest.. or does europe have "trials" first and then goes out and detainst the suspects?
The very fact that people are being released menas there is a trial process in place to judge the merit of who needs to be imprisoned or not. Otherwise what are you suggesting, that they pick them at random?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Are your goverment releasing Terrorists? djust letting them free to walk the earth?
Of course not, everyone at gitmo is innocent.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Are your goverment releasing Terrorists? djust letting them free to walk the earth?
We're hoping they return to France to protest the new muslim oppression.
-
Otherwise what are you suggesting, that they pick them at random?
No im sticking to the thread, debating weather or not these 12-yr olds are Al-Qaida terrorist or not.
Of course not, everyone at gitmo is innocent.
Your slipping.
-
So now the issue is no longer trials or processes to determine guilt but age of the terrorists?
You are slipping....
-
Yes, it was the age of the boys that brought this thread up. This thread wouldnt have surfaced if they werent so young thats correct.
-
Grun, if you're not a pilot, there's no restriction. If you're not on the seniority list in ALPA, you're not in the Union. So you can hold any of a large number of high paying positions working for ALPA.
Like I said, if you're real good, the Airline Transport Association will hire you away so they don't have to deal with you. ;)
Even pilots that go to "management" like VP Flight Operations generally just go "inactive" but do not give up their seniority number. There's no requirement to resign from the Union.
-
Sorry for the hijack.. but the thread IS getting a little humorous.
So, what is now the minimum age at which you can be considered a "terrorist"? Surely there's a "magic number". You know, before age X you're just a misguided impressionable youth unable to reason. After age X, you're a deadly terrorist with a belly bomb strapped on under your robe.
What is that age X anyway? Anyone have the book that defines it?
Thanks in advance.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Yes, it was the age of the boys that brought this thread up. This thread wouldnt have surfaced if they werent so young thats correct.
I get it. It's ok to associate with terrorists while your young, but it's fair to expect you to grow out of it.
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Yes, it was the age of the boys that brought this thread up. This thread wouldnt have surfaced if they werent so young thats correct.
This thread maybe, the general topic, no...
Anyway you guys should be happy that they are getting trials and that innocent ones are being set free..
cc Toad :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry for the hijack.. but the thread IS getting a little humorous.
So, what is now the minimum age at which you can be considered a "terrorist"? Surely there's a "magic number". You know, before age X you're just a misguided impressionable youth unable to reason. After age X, you're a deadly terrorist with a belly bomb strapped on under your robe.
What is that age X anyway? Anyone have the book that defines it?
Thanks in advance.
14 years, 5 months, 19 days, 4 hours, 27 minutes and 53 seconds - after that you are toast! According to the Haag of course.
-
I get it. It's ok to associate with terrorists while your young, but it's fair to expect you to grow out of it.
We will see if they get convicted or not. If they get convicted then i guess they are terrorists. If they dont then they aint terrorists...
But you guys are convicting them before hand...
-
interesting just how much Mr Yeager sounds exactly like Osama
====
Kind of a stretch but in the spirit of insignificant irrelevance I accept your comparrison :D
Spellcheckers correct me!
-
Anyway you guys should be happy that they are getting trials and that innocent ones are being set free..
You should be happy too...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
We will see if they get convicted or not. If they get convicted then i guess they are terrorists. If they dont then they aint terrorists...
But you guys are convicting them before hand...
Dang, I must have missed that, too. It's a good thing I have you to keep me up to date.
Could you post me a link to their convictions?
-
Could you post me a link to their convictions?
LoL! Stop being thick!
Im talking about you and Grun for your absolute belife/convictions that these two 12 yrs are Al-Qaida terrorists!
BEFORE they have gotten any conviction by any court.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
You should be happy too...
Sure, if they are innocent then by all means set them free. :)
-
Originally posted by Maniac
But you guys are convicting them before hand...
No. Nobody has to be convicted to be held in custody.
-
OMG!!!
-
And what of your conviction that they are not terrorists?
-
Either Try them or release them. Is there anything wrong with that concept?
If people are going to be locked up, should they not be charged tried and convicted instead of the current scenario?
The USofA used to rally forth against Third World Dictators for doing the same sort of thing to individuals, should this administration not hold fast to the same standards?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
OMG!!!
OMG!!! What? In europe do they hold the trials first and then try to to detain the suspects?
-
Im for that they get a fair trial. Did i say anything else?
Cant stand when someone challenges your way of thinking? you have to resort to the : Your either with us or against us policy?
OMG!!! What? In europe do they hold the trials first and then try to to detain the suspects?
Read my reply to Martlet : LoL! Stop being thick!
Im talking about you and Grun for your absolute belife/convictions that these two 12 yrs are Al-Qaida terrorists!
BEFORE they have gotten any conviction by any court.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Either Try them or release them. Is there anything wrong with that concept?
thats exactly whats going on. The fcat that people have been released means there is a trial process in place. Unless you guys are suggesting they are letting them go at random.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No. Nobody has to be convicted to be held in custody.
Although traditonally they do have to be charged with something...
*Braces for the legal hocus pocus "They are not US citizens detained on US soil so therefore the law does not apply to them and they are enemy combatants so therefore POW protections aren't afforded to them so therefore so therefore so therefore so therefore so therefore so therefore" statements in response*
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Im for that they get a fair trial. Did i say anything else?
Cant stand when someone challenges your way of thinking? you have to resort to the : Your either with us or against us policy?
They are getting trials, its obvious. If they were not distingusing between guilt or innocence (this is what a trial does) why were some released?
As for the other comment I was simply surprised that in europe nobody is arrested and detained until after they have been tried and convicted - thats neat. :)
-
As for the other comment I was simply surprised that in europe nobody is arrested and detained until after they have been tried and convicted - thats neat.
Its a subtle differance between being detained for 2 months and 2 years.
Either way, if we held someone here for 2 years he would be rich if he came out "innocent".
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Although traditonally they do have to be charged with something...
*Braces for the legal hocus pocus "They are not US citizens detained on US soil so therefore the law does not apply to them and they are enemy combatants so therefore POW protections aren't afforded to them so therefore so therefore so therefore so therefore so therefore so therefore" statements in response*
They are getting their trials, be happy. Unless of course you are in the random release camp.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Its a subtle differance between being detained for 2 months and 2 years.
Either way, if we held someone here for 2 years he would be rich if he came out "innocent".
Would you let them out on bail? Many trials in the USA last for a long time and some suspects are considered a flight risk and a danger to public safety so bail is not granted. I'll take it that people cought in afghanistan in a terror environment fit both criteria.
-
No bail system at all.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
They are getting their trials, be happy. Unless of course you are in the random release camp.
Which trials might those be? You make the assumption that because a person is released from custody it means that they must have had a "trial".
Do you think that every person who is arrested in the US receives a trial before being released from police custody? Often a release is a matter of police discretion, i.e., the cops know that they don't have enough to charge the offender, so they better cut him loose before a judge slaps their wrists.
If they had a trial, they must have been charged with something. If you could give me some insight on what those charges were it would be appreciated.
-
Yes I do assume that a realese means that this person was judged not to be guilty - thats precisely what trials to in the criminal courts.
According to what you said your police analogy does not apply, no charges and no criminal court system in cuba.
So based on that I'll take it you are in the random release camp - they let those guys go because they were all born in June.... ;)
-
Originally posted by Maniac
No bail system at all.
And you think there should be for this group?
-
No.
But the "law" should be swift consider that they are 2 12-yr olds.
You could be creating the next generation of Osamaīs if it aint swift...
-
Why should we consider that they are 12 year olds, should we give them lollipops with their religiously appropriate meals at gitmo?
One of these dear 12 year olds murdered a special forces medic who was treating him....
-
One of these dear 12 year olds murdered a special forces medic who was treating him....
Oh! i had no idea! You have a link?
-
Toad asked:
What is that age X anyway? Anyone have the book that defines it?
In the UK the age of criminal responsibility is 10, but they have special courts to try children and young people (I believe children are defined as 10+ - 15 and young people 15+ - 17)
It wouldn't surprise me if it was the same or similar in the States.
Ravs
-
So it's country specific? Ah, OK!
What age is it on the Gaza strip? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
Thanks in advance!
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html
This talks of one of the kids, may or may not be the one I rememember reading about.
"Last week, Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper reported that the youth, now 16, is being held in Guantanamo and that US officials have refused access to Canadian officials. The newspaper quoted unidentified sources as saying that the youth allegedly threw a grenade that killed Sergeant 1st Class Christopher James Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, New Mexico."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/16/1073878008032.html
This article details the inhumane conditions they are subjected to.
-
CC, thx
-
I don't know enough about the laws of other countries, but I think it is likely that they will have different laws as to when the age of criminal responsibility begins.
However, I do think that each country is expected to conform to its own laws.
Ravs
-
one more vote against holding anyone without charge.
men who torture are not men.
the one they let out have a story, whos on the side of the torturerers again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3241265.stm
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
one more vote against holding anyone without charge.
men who torture are not men.
the one they let out have a story, whos on the side of the torturerers again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3241265.stm
Reliable source.
Is he the guy that told you Bush was a deserter?
-
Where are the wild accusations? He only disagreed with the fact that he was imprisoned and interrogtaed which is of course understandable but where is the substance? Surely he should open up his media blitz with cries of hours and hours of torture...
-
...He says he was kept for more than a year in a prison cell that was like a cage meant for animals...
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2002/01/22/guantanamo_prison4.gif)
My Cod! The inhumanity!
... he says he was treated in the worst possible manner ...
But, of course, he can't tell you about that in detail right now. Wonder why?
..was repeatedly interrogated about his links to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden
NO! Say it's not so Shoeless Mohammed! They actually repeatedly interrogated you? They just kept asking questions and questions and more questions? Just because they were trying to track down the guy responsible for killing 2500+ people in the WTC and Pentagon?
I feel your pain!
Not as much as the pain I feel for the families of the victims, though.
Gotta admit though, LDV... there's more substance there than in most of your links. This is unassailable proof or torture fer sure, dude! fer shure! :lol
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes I do assume that a realese means that this person was judged not to be guilty - thats precisely what trials to in the criminal courts.
According to what you said your police analogy does not apply, no charges and no criminal court system in cuba.
So based on that I'll take it you are in the random release camp - they let those guys go because they were all born in June.... ;)
My apologies, but you need a refresher on how your criminal justice system works.
1. Person is arrested by police because they have reasonable cause to believe a criminal offence has been committed or they have witnessed the commission of an offence.
2. Person is charged with an offence and person is brought before a judge where the prosecution needs to show that they have a case.
3. Trial takes place.
The fact that someone is released after #1 but before #2 or #3 does not mean that they have been judged "not guilty".....it could also mean that the police never had a valid case to begin with. So, to prevent the government from randomly picking people up for questioning and detention, certain protections are in place, such as the right to counsel, right to a speedy trial, right to know what you are charged with and right to provide a defence to that charge.
None of those are afforded to your Gitmo guests.
I'm not sure where you got this idea that somehow I'm an advocate of this random release camp you keep referring to, so I'll ignore the comment again. If it makes you feel better to continue to refer to some imagined random release rather than present a coherent argument and/or present evidence of these trials you keep referring to, feel free to do so.
-
Hers' another refreshing thing to consider.
These guys didn't stick up a 7-11 and they're not being held as common petty criminals arrested by the justice system.
-
I know how it works, I just dont think tyhe mechanism applies in this case. Considering all these people were captured around terrorist training areas in afghaistan do yiou think they would be realesed without a determination of innocence having taken place? These arent random town drunk being relesed because the "cops" dont want to bother with them. If they are releasing them then SOME PROCESS TO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNONCE ( a trial) is taking place at gitmo and some are getting relesed if found to be innicent or not otherwise a threat.
911 was not a criminal offense like a robbery or check fraud. If any of you guys think and belive OBL and the bunch deserve normal criminal justice syatem trials please vote for this man in your upcoming primary!
VOTE FOR ME! (http://drudgereport.com/dean.mp3)
-
Grun, you should really control your Knee Jerk assumptions.
How do you equate believing in following ones own laws and standards, applied to other countries, with Believing OBL?
Sometimes I think you just look for confrontation.
Its either that or you are afflicted with the very dangerous case of Blind Patriotism.
[Hijack mode on]
Patriotism while admirable, can become a very serious shortcoming if followed blindly.
Can you kids recite any examples of Blind Patriotism leading to horrendous transgressions in History?
-
I just dont think the people who supported 911 belong in the criminal justice system.
There are 600 guys at guantanamo. We captured and had acesss to liteally thousands of afghans and taliban and alqaeda, If this was some random rush to imprison all arabs or muslims or afgand for no reason then why only 600 at gitmo? They are special cases. And to top it all off guys a re getting released, which means there is a trial process that considers the merits of keeping people in custody - it considers their innocence or guilt and threat level. If they are releses then obviously the authorities there belive thewy are not a threat and are innocent. What else do you want? Should we set them free on bail until they get a trial with johnnie cochran? Perhaps we can do that and give them plane tickets to canada where I'm sure you would love to have them.
I'm more concenrned with the blind stupidity of some people when it comes to their desires to baby these terrorist murderes than I am with somebodys love for america, especially after 911 when we found out just how dear what we have here is.
-
Thank you, that was a reasonably legitimate response, other than wanting to send them to Canada. We dont want them :) .
What I find a problem with Gitmo is, Waiting 2+ years to even start trials ? If they are setting the innocent ones free, how can they justify holding these ones for 2 years witout even allowing them legal counsel ?
If they are so absolutely guilty why not try them right away and throw the full extent of whatever fate awaits them immediately?
By holding them outside of the country and giving them a cute status, just to avoid following the same laws demanded of other countries, is just plain hypocritical in IMO.
I have No problem with Capital Punishment , Nor do I have a problem with incarceration of the Guilty. But obviously there is a problem if guys are getting released after 2 years of incarceration.
That is not a sign that the system is working. It is failing those potentially innocent.
-
Ping,
It isn't a "criminal justice" situation.
Last I heard they still we classing them as ''unlawful combatants'' and haven't even granted them POW status. Maybe that's changed by now, I don't know.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm saying that making a case for them based on "criminal justice system" simply doesn't apply at this point.
-
My view of it is that these people are being held without bail until their trials are completed, they are relesed if innocent, or kept in custody if found guilty. If they are released then they are innocent, if they are not then we know they are either guilty or still on trial. Obvioisly you cant set potential terrorists out on bail in the course of the trial, so where else do you keep them?
I dont know whether they have lawyers or counsel of some sort but the fact that some have bern set free clearly implies that there is cahnce for those who are innocent to have a fair opprtunity for fredom.
Look I would not support this if they were common street crinals or drunks or check frauders. But they are not like that, I feel its a differnt case and I dont think they merit a normal court proceeding. 911 was not merely a criminal matter.
-
I don't know Grun.....
Think about what a bunch of level-headed, open-minded, friendly, tolerant, reasonable people the Taliban were.
You know... blowing up 1000 year old Buddha's, killing women at the soccer stadium for adultery, no education for women, no women in professional occupations. Pretty normal bunch of folks; just like everyone else.
Maybe we should turn 'em all out. They'd probably just join Red Crescent and do humantiarian stuff back home.
;)
-
lovely how you explain away locking men in dogcages without even a summary military trial. and children imprisoned without same.
how ever you justify it no trial at all is just ****ed up.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not saying this is right or wrong.
Did this confuse you again?
Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't know Grun.....
Think about what a bunch of level-headed, open-minded, friendly, tolerant, reasonable people the Taliban were.
You know... blowing up 1000 year old Buddha's, killing women at the soccer stadium for adultery, no education for women, no women in professional occupations. Pretty normal bunch of folks; just like everyone else.
Maybe we should turn 'em all out. They'd probably just join Red Crescent and do humantiarian stuff back home.
;)
Like I said, they are all innocent.... :)
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
lovely how you explain away locking men in dogcages without even a summary military trial. and children imprisoned without same.
how ever you justify it no trial at all is just ****ed up.
If you and yours expressed just half as much outrage at the 911 terrorists and their buddies as you do towards the USA...... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Like I said, they are all innocent.... :)
Actually, you seem to think they are all guilty.
My apologies if you read my posts as suggesting that providing basic legal protections to accused terrorists as is the same, or should be done at the same level, as "common criminals".
For example, I don't believe that these people should have a bail hearing or be released pending their "trial" on a promise that they might show up (they won't). But I do believe that they should have:
(a) A right to a lawyer or other legal advisor.
(b) A right to be advised of what they are charged with.
(c) A right to a speedy trial.
I don't believe that (c) needs to be done in front of the traditional civilian judge and jury system. A military tribunal is fine with me so long as the process is transparent, subject to public and judicial scrutiny.
Bear in mind, even those accused of the most heinous crimes of this century had their day in court at Nuremberg. It is not important that justice be done but rather that justice be seen to be done.
Look...it's your country and your judicial system and you and your government can choose to run your affairs as you please. But my own personal opinion is that it is hard enough to convince others of the benefit of freedom and democracy when you can't even practice it in your own backyard.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Actually, you seem to think they are all guilty.
My apologies if you read my posts as suggesting that providing basic legal protections to accused terrorists as is the same, or should be done at the same level, as "common criminals".
For example, I don't believe that these people should have a bail hearing or be released pending their "trial" on a promise that they might show up (they won't). But I do believe that they should have:
(a) A right to a lawyer or other legal advisor.
(b) A right to be advised of what they are charged with.
(c) A right to a speedy trial.
I don't believe that (c) needs to be done in front of the traditional civilian judge and jury system. A military tribunal is fine with me so long as the process is transparent, subject to public and judicial scrutiny.
Bear in mind, even those accused of the most heinous crimes of this century had their day in court at Nuremberg. It is not important that justice be done but rather that justice be seen to be done.
Look...it's your country and your judicial system and you and your government can choose to run your affairs as you please. But my own personal opinion is that it is hard enough to convince others of the benefit of freedom and democracy when you can't even practice it in your own backyard.
Best post here yet... But, sorry to say, all it will bring up are chimes they are all innocent, its americas fault, and we should release them all on bond... Or perhaps, of course they are guilty cause my pres said they are.. Or maybe, they are guilty because they are arab.. or maybe they are guilty because i just feel it.. so clearly no real proof is needed..
-
Nice post. They will get their military trials... :) In the meantime the innocent ones are being set free.
-
"Or maybe, they are guilty because they are arab.."
You are the only one who keeps bringinig that up, why is that?
I have said countless times that its obvious the USa is not targeting all arabs or muslims. You sweem to fantasize about that possibility, is it because of your hatred for religion?
-
Or perhaps, of course they are guilty cause my pres said they are.. Or maybe, they are guilty because they are arab.. or maybe they are guilty because i just feel it.. so clearly no real proof is needed..
====
Why dont you hop on a plane and head down to the Git and straighten things out? Seems nobody else has a clue when your in town.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Bear in mind, even those accused of the most heinous crimes of this century had their day in court at Nuremberg.
That's true.
At the end of a "traditional war", after the shooting was over, after the needs of interrogation had been met and the Germans had signed and unconditional surrender, these folks "got their day in court."
April 13, 1949
Military Tribunal IV-A sentences nineteen defendants found guilty in the Ministries Trial, a trial involving three Reich Ministers and eighteen other members of the Nazi party hierarchry accused of war crims and crimes against humanity.
Although appeals continue in this case until January of 1951, sentencing in the Ministries Trial brings an end to the four-year-long series of Nuremberg trials.
Took a while, it seems.
-
MJHerman made a point that I may not have made.
I also dont believe they should be set free before trial, nor do I think it should be a regular court either.
-
Didn't the Nuremberg trial start in november 1945 ?
1945 not 46
-
601 left to go :)
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/20/britain.guantanamo/index.html
__________________________
"Nine Britons and six Frenchmen are among the 660 people who have been held at the U.S. naval base on Cuba for more than two years without being charged or having access to legal assistance."
__________________________
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two legal appeals over whether the detainees are being held unlawfully. It would be the first time the justices review the constitutionality of the White House's war on terror laws that followed the September 11 attacks.
__________________________
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Or perhaps, of course they are guilty cause my pres said they are.. Or maybe, they are guilty because they are arab.. or maybe they are guilty because i just feel it.. so clearly no real proof is needed..
====
Why dont you hop on a plane and head down to the Git and straighten things out? Seems nobody else has a clue when your in town.
Obviously this includes you... What point are you trying to make?
My point was after someone post something substantial all they get in return is cynicism..
-
Yes Bazil, but what does it all mean?
==========================
"Without question, the President can detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy. Presidents have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation's history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then, as now, the purpose of detention was not to punish, but to protect.
"Article II of the Constitution is the primary basis for the President's authority to detain enemy combatants. Article II vests the 'executive Power' in the President and provides that he 'shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.' U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1; id., § 2, cl. 1. These provisions invest 'the President alone . . . with the entire charge of hostile operations' during wartime. Hamilton v. Dillin, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 73, 87 (1874); see also Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 788 (1950). The determination that an individual should be detained as an enemy combatant has traditionally been one of the President's most fundamental military judgments.
"While Article II is a sufficient basis for the President's authority to detain enemy combatants, in the current conflict the President also enjoys the support of Congress. In its Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, Congress authorized 'the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.' Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added); see also 10 U.S.C.§ 956. Congress thus specifically authorized the President not only to use deadly force, but also any lesser force needed to capture and detain enemy combatants to prevent them from engaging in continued hostilities against the United States. The President's constitutional power is at its apex when he enjoys such support from Congress, especially in the field of foreign affairs. See Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 674 (1981); Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-37 & n. 2 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's true.
At the end of a "traditional war", after the shooting was over, after the needs of interrogation had been met and the Germans had signed and unconditional surrender, these folks "got their day in court."
Took a while, it seems.
Indeed it did. But during the interim period between capture and trial the services of the JAG divisions of the various Allied nations were made available to them....perhaps not immediately in May, 1945 but shortly thereafter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "traditonal war". For the most part the crimes they were being tried for were crimes against civilians, POWs, etc....they were not on trial for those actions undertaken by them within the "rules of war".
The Nuremberg Trials went a long way to educating what had been a population living under a dictatorship to the principles and benefits of democracy and a fair and just judicial system, and is one of the best examples of leading by example rather than preaching from the barrel of a rifle. That's been my only point all along.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Yes Bazil, but what does it all mean?
==========================
"Without question, the President can detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy. Presidents have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation's history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then, as now, the purpose of detention was not to punish, but to protect.
"Article II of the Constitution is the primary basis for the President's authority to detain enemy combatants. Article II vests the 'executive Power' in the President and provides that he 'shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.' U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1; id., § 2, cl. 1. These provisions invest 'the President alone . . . with the entire charge of hostile operations' during wartime. Hamilton v. Dillin, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 73, 87 (1874); see also Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 788 (1950). The determination that an individual should be detained as an enemy combatant has traditionally been one of the President's most fundamental military judgments.
"While Article II is a sufficient basis for the President's authority to detain enemy combatants, in the current conflict the President also enjoys the support of Congress. In its Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, Congress authorized 'the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.' Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added); see also 10 U.S.C.§ 956. Congress thus specifically authorized the President not only to use deadly force, but also any lesser force needed to capture and detain enemy combatants to prevent them from engaging in continued hostilities against the United States. The President's constitutional power is at its apex when he enjoys such support from Congress, especially in the field of foreign affairs. See Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 674 (1981); Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-37 & n. 2 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
I don't mean to quibble Yeager, but have you actually read all of the cases that are cited? Could you provide the source of the summary that you posted? The reason I ask is that a person (such as the author of the summary) can often pull relevant provisions out of judicial decisions out of their context without providing the reader with the judge's actual decision on the matter and/or providing the facts.
For example, I thought that in the Hamdi case the judges said charge him or let him go (or was that the other "dirty bomb" guy?).
-
I was looking for an official DoD perspective and the search found this link. It rambles on so I tried to find the really salient points but did not see the date of the article. Its rather old
====
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/b10022002_bt497-02.html
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
lovely how you explain away locking men in dogcages without even a summary military trial. and children imprisoned without same.
how ever you justify it no trial at all is just ****ed up.
You're so outraged at such injustices...well...except those like 9-11, or suicide bombings of women and children or mass murder.
Yup....just a real justice hunter....it's all Bush's fault. Must be great to not only have a simple mind, but a simple life to boot!
Carry on my wayward son.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I was looking for an official DoD perspective and the search found this link. It rambles on so I tried to find the really salient points but did not see the date of the article. Its rather old
====
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/b10022002_bt497-02.html
Thanks for the link. It is a good example of how one properly responds to concerns/criticism of the issue rather than the typical (at least on this BBS):
"Remember the WTC"
"You're a liberal"
"You're a terrorist"
Etc.
I haven't read the various background material cited in the statement, but do bear in mind that the writer is General Counsel to DoD. His job depends on towing the party line, and it is unlikely that he would even want a job with DoD if he didn't believe in what he is saying.
That's not to say that his opinion is somehow incorrect - It just means that for every case argued to support his position there may be cases that don't.
And much like our opinions here, the report is only an opinion - It is not a statement of what the law is on this issue.
Still, a good read, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to see the "enemy combatant" argument rationally enunciated.
-
MJHerman:
By "traditional war" I mean a declared war pitting nation state against nation state. This thing going on now may be called "the war on terror" but I can't see it as the "usual" war. It's undeclared and it features the COTW against a shadowy terrorist organization that may or may not be allied with/ supported by other governments.
And during the "traditional war", POW's were simply incarcerated and interrogated. No JAG, no trials; just held until the war was over.
These prisoners in Gitmo haven't even been given POW status, have they? Aren't they still "unlawful combatants", a category not covered by the Geneva convention and certainly assured of fewer rights than POWS?
Again, I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm just saying it is NOT the usual situation. They're not "criminal justice" cases yet. They may be at some future date. They're not even POW's being held until the "war" is over.
They're "unlawful combatants" entitled to ...... what rights?
I sure don't know.
-
Supreme Court will hear first appeals involving Guantanamo detainees (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/10/scotus.detainees/)
-
Originally posted by Toad
MJHerman:
By "traditional war" I mean a declared war pitting nation state against nation state. This thing going on now may be called "the war on terror" but I can't see it as the "usual" war. It's undeclared and it features the COTW against a shadowy terrorist organization that may or may not be allied with/ supported by other governments.
And during the "traditional war", POW's were simply incarcerated and interrogated. No JAG, no trials; just held until the war was over.
These prisoners in Gitmo haven't even been given POW status, have they? Aren't they still "unlawful combatants", a category not covered by the Geneva convention and certainly assured of fewer rights than POWS?
Again, I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm just saying it is NOT the usual situation. They're not "criminal justice" cases yet. They may be at some future date. They're not even POW's being held until the "war" is over.
They're "unlawful combatants" entitled to ...... what rights?
I sure don't know.
unlawful combatants only in the eyes of BUSH, who knows that the case would not hold in a legal court.
According to international law, they are still POW, you guys can call them whatever you want to protect your butts.
Bush will not be able to leave US after his term is finished, for the same reason Kissinger gave up his travels around the world.
-
I think it bears mentioning that when the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War was drafted in 1949, people thought about warfare and the nature of its combatants along much more traditional lines and regulated for their treatment accordingly.
We probably need a new legal regime to deal with people who fall within this quasi-military category.
Ravs
-
Article 4 {of the Geneva Convention as it pertains to POW's}
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Al Queda is an independent multinational organization that does not form part of the armed forces of a Party of conflict, as it does not belong to territory. It is unlike the army of any nation, and therefore would not fall under the definition of paragraph 1.
Al Queda does not have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, ie. no uniforms, and does not conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, ie. they fly civilian planes into civilian targets for the expressed purpose of killing civilians. Therefore the organization does not qualify under the definition of paragraph 2.
By this interpretation of Int'l law they do not qualify as POW's until the Hague says something different. I do not see how they could, as the judges would have to ignore the wording of the very treaty they reference.
-
Exactly the problem, Holden.
These people are not prisoners of war, so do not attract the protection of the Convention. So why are they being held by military authorities rather than civil authorities?
The reality is that nation states will deal with issues practically, in the manner they think best when the odds are high. Inconvenient laws are ignored for the sake of expediency, which on occasion is no bad thing - particularly today where changes are happening so quickly the law finds it hard to keep up with them.
Ravs
-
The armed forces caught them so it makes some sense that they are the convening authority.
I would think that if Pershing were to have captured Pancho Villa, military courts and prisons would have been the rule in that case as well.
-
If it's a matter to which the civil courts have jurisdiction, then the Armed forces should hand the detainees over to a civil authority. All the military have done (in civil terms) is effected an arrest.
Of course we all know that this situation is not so clearly defined - which makes for criticism whatever action the military take in dealing with the detainees.
It may well be that the administration do not want civil trials (in criminal courts) for these people for fear that they will be acquited owing to the heavy burden of proof the prosecution will need to make out together with the equally heavy burden of procedural compliance.
The nearest recent example I can think of which compares to this is the trial of the bombers of the Pan Am flight 103 which was blown up over Lockerbie in Scotland. In that case, the accused were tried under Scottish Criminal law.
Ravs.
-
Criminal courts, civilian courts, this would probably be a decision for the government presiding. But... that is what is happening...
-
See Rule #5
-
12 yr old kids are not of any mental capacity to be responsible for their actions/beliefs....but they are if anything more dangerous than your typical terrorist...They,coming into thier pubescent years can only think of those 76 virgins and rivers of milk and honey awaiting them in heaven once they gloriously blow themselves up. :rolleyes:
The kids should be held but not at a prison with adult terrorist suspects...If they had spent three years at a youth rehabilitation/detention centre,they might be far less a threat when/if they are released.
Their current treatment has made them a far more dangerous threat if they are ever released(read next election).
It's too late for them though,might as well execute them....Another example of how Bush doesn't put a value on human life.
-
See Rule #5
-
If I was the govt. head of the world's dominant superpower, I'd sit on my bellybutton and do nothing, besides cultivate the country's internal health.
Foreign policy would solely consist of adressing trite and vain criticism to other countries for their mistakes, and strictly-business commerce.
-
If that kid really killed the medic that was helping him, lock him up for good.
I support the US fully in their mission.
-
See Rule #13