Harping On Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is Highly Misguided

Source

0 Replies

Sure, terrorists are sawing heads off and everything -- whatever! But we should really be talking about the "flag protection amendment."

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Woiyo, the detainees in Gitmo are not POW's. They are illegal combatants. POW's are eligible for the full protection of the Geneva conventions. The camps in Iraq full of Iraqi soldiers are POW camps.

Please do not confuse the two as they have very different rights and protections.

I understand the distinction. The point I am trying to show here is the contradictory nature of the left wing. On one hand, they want Gitmo prisioners treated under the terms of the GC. Then they say they deserve rights granted under civil law. Apparently they do not know what they want.

Woiyo:

don't you understand that if they are not deemed either terrorists or POW's we cannot assign any legal status to them. This is exactly what the regime that has decided they are neither POW's nor terrorists wants.

It is not as if some 'left' wing flip floppers exist. I am saying - because I can't speak for some fictitious group called oddly 'the left' - that a legal status needs to be assigned. Terrorist - or POW. Cheney's conception of 'Bad Man' aint cutting it.

Read the opinions of Rasul v. Bush and you will see that the president's concept of enemy combatant does not supercede the detainee's right to appear in court.

Micheal Jackson might have been a bad man - but if you don't have the goods to convict - he is a free 'bad man'.

I think you have the cart before the horse here.

TF

0 Replies

Bagram.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Bagram.

Let me help Sozobe:

Click

TF

0 Replies

It is not just the 'left' that thinks what Gitmo does is illegal:

"Memo: Pentagon Concerned About Legality of Interrogation Techniques

June 15, 2005 ?- The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws, ABC News has learned.

Notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 ?- obtained by ABC News ?- show that Alberto Mora, general counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law.

During a January 2003 meeting involving top Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and other officials, the memo shows that Mora warned that "use of coercive techniques has military, legal, and political implication has international implication and exposes us to liability and criminal prosecution."

Mora's deep concerns about interrogations at Guantanamo have been known, but not his warning that top officials could go to prison.

In another meeting held March 8, 2003, the group of top Pentagon lawyers concluded ?- according to the memo ?- "we need a presidential letter approving the use of the controversial interrogation to cover those who may be called upon to use them."

No such letter was issued."

Source:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=852458&page=1

Now, we have Bush v. the Supreme Court, Geneva Convention, International Law and any other comers. When do you simply admit your concept of 'enemy cobatant' was wrong and lead to abuse of those detainee's?

TF

0 Replies

You who say that these are no common criminals may remember that terrorists have been put on trial in the US before.

That being the case, it is safe to say that while we are fighting the war on terror, the end of hositilities will be never. There will always be a 'looming threat,' someone who wants to kill innocent Americans.

So we are going to be holding these gentlemen in Gitmo (or elsewhere) in perpetuity, for the rest of their lives, until we execute them or they die from natural causes.

With no trial.

And you think this is right? This isn't right! Hell, the convicted f*cking nazis after WW2 got a trial and they were worse than any terrorists!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The concept of enemy combatant is not wrong and the label did not lead to any abuse.

Did you read the article I posted showing that some of the "innocent victims" released from Guantanamo Bay have either been re-captured or killed fighting our forces in Iraq? That's what happens when you release animals back into the wild. Who knows how many people have died as a result of their being freed?

0 Replies

Oh man, here I go again, agreeing (somewhat) with Cy. This will mean another trip to my analyst. Oh well.

The trap the admin has fallen into is simply not knowing what to call these people. If they are indeed terrorists, then I whole-heartedly agree that charges need to be brought and they need be given their day in court to answer to them. If they are POW's, then that would point to a future release date once hostilities have ceased. The tricky part is determining when hostilitis cease. I think we all can agree that has not happened yet. Even if you go the route of calling them illegal combatants, the inference is that they were combating our armed forces, thus while they may not be covered by the Geneva Convention, they still would have to be looked at as prisoners to be released at the end of hostilities.

So, if the government is going to call them POW's or Illegal Combatants, then I have no problem with holding them in Gitmo until hostilities cease, just like any other POW. If hostilities don't cease in their lifetimes, they can blame their compadres for that one, not us. (IMO) But if the government is going to treat them as terrorists, then charge them, try them and go from there.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Brandon:

That is not what he said. Breathe and re-read.

Terrorism as a word means to employ tactics that bring about fear and trembling to it's intended targets.

Our administration has done a really good job of it. You want other to question thier assumptions in this case because you think they are off base. What you do not question is:

1) We are better off now - "protected" from the terrorists.

Sometimes you need to oppose an evil, dangerous force in the world, like Hitler or the Soviets. You will ultimately be better off than if you let them do what they like. The simplistic assumption that if you are not immediately better off, you're doing the wrong thing, is inane. Sometimes when you first engage a dangerous foe, you are initially worse off, but that doesn't mean it isn't your only possible route to survival.

thethinkfactory wrote:

2) What we have done by 'hunting them down and smoking them out' has garnered us more safety than before.
3) That the methods we have employed have not contributed to the general sense of fear and terror.

We are in a worldwide war with a worldwide foe, and your idea that one should expect instant, monotonic improvement is foolish. We are fighting two very dangerous forces: (1) Islamic extremists who want to destroy our culture, (2) the increasing accessibility of WMD, even to nutjob dictators. Should we make a standard policy of not pressing the point with a country like Iraq that may well have a hidden weapons program, sooner or later one of our cities will go up in smoke.

thethinkfactory wrote:

The proof for this is our track record and Al-Queda themselves. We funded, trained, and essentially put them in power because they temporarly helped us oust the Russians from Afghanistan.

It was the right thing to do at the time. Afghanistan had been annexed by Russia. We helped the indigenous rebels. Their ultimate mutation into terrorists would not have been easy to predict.

If you want to play with me, you're going to have to do better than this.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Sure, terrorists are sawing heads off and everything -- whatever! But we should really be talking about the "flag protection amendment."

Might I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? Thanks for your cooperation.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

*sigh*

Why the eyeroll Intrepid? Because Brandon asked Joe to stay on subject?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1399877#1399877

0 Replies

No, McG. The previous post he made. Are you Brandon's protector now? Laughing

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

No, McG. The previous post he made. Are you Brandon's protector now?

No, he does just fine all by himself. I was just wondering if you were purposefully being insolent, or maybe you were not aware that Brandon was asked, rather rudely, to stay on subject on a different thread.

That's all.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
No, McG. The previous post he made. Are you Brandon's protector now?

No, he does just fine all by himself. I was just wondering if you were purposefully being insolent, or maybe you were not aware that Brandon was asked, rather rudely, to stay on subject on a different thread.

That's all.

There you go making assumptions. I am complimented, indeed, that you took the time to inquire whether I was being purposefully insolent. Even though I was not, it is reassuring to know that you are there to champion the cause.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Might I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? Thanks for your cooperation.

Since you started a thread about al Qaeda and 9/11 and heads getting sawed off, it was on topic to point out how perverse it is to harp on about stuff that's going on thousands of miles away when the American flag is in danger of being burned right here in the US! Your assertion that I'm off topic is both absurd and completely consistent with the conservative propensity for avoiding facing an opponent's argument head on.

/so there

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Might I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? Thanks for your cooperation.

Since you started a thread about al Qaeda and 9/11 and heads getting sawed off, it was on topic to point out how perverse it is to harp on about stuff that's going on thousands of miles away when the American flag is in danger of being burned right here in the US! Your assertion that I'm off topic is both absurd and completely consistent with the conservative propensity for avoiding facing an opponent's argument head on.

/so there

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Count on you to attack the man, but run away from the argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you want to play with me, you're going to have to do better than this.

I am not attacking you nor am I 'playing with you'.

I have asked you some questions - and furthermore gave a good argument as to why enemy cobatant status is not legal, constitutional, or moral.

You have sidestepped the question by giving arguments impossible to measure - how we may be better off - how Afghanistan was 'necessary' and the like.

The issue is this, and you brought it up, focusing on Gitmo is wrong.

I have argued it is right for all the reasons I have given above.

Why should we ignore it? Please show me why not giving any rights of due process and then ignorig this is the right / legal / constitutional thing to do.

As far as your post above - I think Ben said it better than me.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Ben Franklin

0 Replies

Ben Franklin did not have to contend with biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

0 Replies

Harping On Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is Highly Misguided

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know