:rolleyes: That’s nonsense. Being tortured into a confession or accused because someone was tortured into accusing you or grabbed because someone wanted money from us isn’t evidence at all. As said, not even the government believes it has evidence against over 150 of them.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
That’s nonsense. Being tortured into a confession or accused because someone was tortured into accusing you or grabbed because someone wanted money from us isn’t evidence at all. As said, not even the government believes it has evidence against over 150 of them.
[/QUOTE]
That seems counter-intuitive, considering that we DID let many people go. The government must think they have SOME evidence or valid information about the people who remain, or they would have let them go as well, right? Or are we (i.e. the Obama administration, despite getting a political black eye over this) keeping them just for the fun of it??
-XT
I don’t understand this apparent third category of people who are ostensibly neither captured soldiers (covered by Geneva) nor apprehended criminals (subject to prosecution in normal courts). How does this not make a mockery of both international accords and American civilian justice?
Do you have any rational reason for that belief, other than “BOO, the US sucks and I hate it!”? Because I believe that recent history shows that when a nation stops being mixed up in garbage politics half a world away, they are usually pretty mellow on the whole “evil” thing.
Do you hate every other country? I never see you threadshitting in other places whenever someone brings up Britain, Germany, Russia, Equador, Cuba, Japan, or in fact, anywhere else. But in ANY political thread that has a bearing on the US you bang the “THE US IS EVIL AND BAD BECAUSE THEY DO THINGS EVIL AND BAD AND ARE SCUM AND I HATE THEM SO THERE!” card.
I’m not saying that other nations doing these things makes them ok. They aren’t. I’m saying that you’re fixation on the US alone in this regard makes it irrational. There are certainly valid reasons to be disappointed with some of the policy decisions that the US government’s have made, both recently and in the past. This is, as stated, true of all nations. But to hate a nation-state based on those, to the exclusion of all else seems exceedingly narrowminded.
In regards the OP: I am disappointed, but unsurprised. The pres is stuck between a rock and a hard spot… most of the detainee’s have been processed. What is left is a mix of those that are legitimately hard core, and those that maybe got caught up in the chaos and fog of war. Those latter will be sorted in time, but the former are an issue. If you grant them civilian trials, they will almost certainly get aquitted, as their capture was not a civil matter (no miranda, etc.). And many of them, if they are returned to their nation of origin, may be killed, or released. Both are bad options.
I don’t have the answer either.
Excuse me. What thread do you think this is? This is a thread about one of those reasons.
No, it means I live in the US and therefore have a reason to care. And it means I’m constantly bombarded with rhetoric about how superior America is to everyplace else in all ways. And it is America and not other countries that gets the bulk of people excusing its barbaric behavior on this board.
Outrage fatigue.
Public: “Dammit, close this prison!”
Bush: “Can’t, sorry.”
Public: “To hell with you! Let’s get this guy in here. Hey you, close the prison!”
Obama: “Sure. …Oh, wait, psyche!”
Public: “…Goddammit, you people give me a headache. I’m going to go watch American Idol.”
I guess it doesn’t make a mockery because the distinction wasn’t a recent invention: the Geneva Accords themselves contemplate and describe persons that are not subject to protection as prisoners of war, and general international law recognizes that a nation’s laws don’t have to extend beyond its borders; a country’s protections extended to its internal criminals does not extend to crimes and criminals beyond its borders.
The poor and oppressed victims of America’s relentless barbarism are no doubt grateful for your brave campaign of keyboard activism.
You dodged, or misunderstood. America has these prisoners because we are involved in actions that were precipitated by some Bad Things that occured a few years back. If those Bad Things hadn’t happend, we wouldn’t have them. If earth were a sudden paradise, as you stated, you belive we would continue to be “BIG BAD EVIL US RAAAAWR!”. I have asked why you think this is the case, your hypothetical. What special pathology unique to America alone would make it the giant monster in a world of peace and butterflies? What makes the US different from Great Britain, France, China, Russia, etc?
But you don’t care. You complain, make up stories about how awful the US is, but you don’t make any effort to change it. If I recall correctly, you don’t vote. You sure as hell don’t campaign for any office (and can’t, at this point).
As for your constant bombardment about how superior America is, I think you’re suffering from the fallacy of Confirmation Bias. You hate America, thus anything you see that seems supportive of it (flag on the front porch, pro-US bumper sticker, someone enjoying freedom of religion) you perceive to be some sort of “in your face” thing, when it’s not.
Again, all of that is irrelevant, we aren’t talking about other countries.
As if I could. If Bush and his aftermath weren’t enough, what would be?
What are you babbling about?
No; America is rabidly nationalistic, as I’m sure you know. You appear to be operating on the principle that “if Der Trihs says something it must be wrong”.
They are captured soldiers (combatants/belligerents) covered by Geneva (Common Article 3). However, they are not Geneva POW’s.
They can be tried as combatants under the laws of war or as criminals under civilian laws. The Government’s policy would dictate where you try them. We’ve tried some as combatants, some as criminals; we’ve set most free. Others, and this is the problem, we choose not to try under either system. We’re just holding them until the end of the war.
If you believe they are criminals only, then this is a complete mockery of American civilian justice. Even if they are combatants, holding them until the end of the war is outdated for this type of “war.” However, the mere act of detaining combatants is not inherently violating international laws. The length of detention is obviously troublesome, though.
No more nationalistic than any other nation, on average. On a trip to Canada a few years back, I saw plenty of houses with Canadian flags on their porches.
Is there some things that American’s claim that others don’t, or can’t? Sure. The US has the strongest military in the world. We are the richest nation on the planet. These are not being rabidly nationalistic, they are just statements of fact. Basing your perception of how American’s view themselves based on YouTube comments and the like is really not a good way to base ANY opinion.
And no, I’m not automatically naysaying you. I’m TRYING, for some stupid reason, to get you to realize that you are holding the US to a different standard than you do any other nation, for reasons that are unknown.
…I’m sorry, but this is a load of hogwash.
Obama didn’t set up the Guantanamo detention centre. He tried to close it. I’m sure that even he didn’t realize what cowards his fellow Democrats were when they voted not to fund closing down the base.
There is no harsher critic of this board of Guantanamo Bay than me. I’ve started three threads on the topic here, hereand here, There is absolutely no doubt that some people ended up at Guantanamo Bay for the stupidest of reasons. They ended up there because of paperwork mistakes. They ended up there because Junior Officers didn’t want to upset Senior Officers. They ended up there because they were handed over to US troops in exchange for bounty payments. Many were not captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan but were taken from the streets of Bosnia, Pakistan and Ghana. It is absolutely obvious that despite the rhetoric that many of those detained were not “the worst of the worst.”
Guantanamo Bay in total has housed 775 detainees. Right now Guantanamo houses 172 detainees. Many, if not most and possibly all of the obviously innocent are no longer detained at Guantanamo.
It is disingenuous to claim that Obama in any way deserves the same ire as Bush. It is disingenuous to claim now that Guantanamo Bay now has the same issues as when I first posted about it back in 2004.
When the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities were established “the worst of the worst” were being kept at secret detention sites scattered around the world and it wasn’t until 2006 that most of them were moved to Guantanamo Bay. There are some very very bad people detained at Guantanamo. What Bush did wrong: and this is entirely the fault of the Bush administration, was to throw the "“very very bad people” in with the “not-so-bad” people in along with the “completely innocent” and made the claim that they were all the same.
The Bush administration created a clusterfuck of a situation because they acted irrationally at a time that required careful thought. If Obama had his way Guantanamo would have been closed by now, but that is clearly not what the US public want or demand. In my opinion there isn’t anything more politically that Obama can do now: he made his play for justice and that was categorically rejected by the people. The only option he has now is to make sure the system is as fair as possible and let the tribunals run their course as quickly as possible. Considering how completely the Bush Administration screwed this up and how cowardly the US Senate, Congress and the US people have been on this issue this is the best that can possibly be done in this situation.
There’s no nation on Earth more nationalistic than the Swiss. But that’s not a reason to hate them.
I think that’s a lot of it. But to be fair, I think there’s also more acceptance of Bush’s position now due to, “Well, if Obama—who wants to shut it down—knowing what he knows now as President, thinks we shouldn’t, maybe there is no better option.”
You’re probably right that my original post was a little too terse.
Obama is a politician. He’s going to respond to political pressure.
There are people who want the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay. But they’re not protesting against Obama for failing to live up to his promise to do it.
Meanwhile, Obama knows if he did go ahead and release the detainees, there would be a huge backlash against him.
So he’s probably figuring why should he take the political hit for releasing the detainees when the other side is apparently willing to let him slide if he doesn’t?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/us-knew-guantanamo-inmates-innocent/story-fn6s850w-1226044770742 Not my understanding. We kept some for many years and did it to keep from admitting that is what we were doing, keeping prisoners with no evidence against them.
If their status is people captured on a battlefield, at what point do we release them? The war in Iraq was officially declared over last September.
I think most people would agree it would be wrong if we were still holding German and Japanese POW’s from WWII.
Should the Afghanis and Iraqis start displaying POW flags?
Beyond the simple humanity and morality objections one might wish to put forward, the rule of law and due process are there to protect the “good guys” from being treated like the “bad guys”. Like the “not bad guys” held in Gitmo on flimsy or absolutely zero evidence whatsoever. Those are the ones you should be in arms about - even if there might be only one of them, or none.
Once you allow the government to treat “bad guys” as it damn well pleases, what is there to stop the government from treating “good guys” like this and handwave your objections away by telling you they’re “bad guys” ? It’s like that cliché: “when they came for the Jews…”. Due process protects YOU. That’s why you should feel a tad miffed that the concept was and is being liberally shat upon.
While I have numerous problems with some of the procedures mentioned in the seizure and treatment of some of the Gitmo prisoners there are two main reasons I support the detention of terrorists and enemy combatants there.
First, the Geneva Conventions came about to “civilize” warfare. One of the concerns that led to its creation was the possibility of combatants under the authority of no gov’t, outside of any recognized armed force, and absent any formal state of war. This of course leads to the possibility of atrocities outside of “civilized” warfare such as the targeting of civilians. To extend the protections of the GC to such unlawful combatants gives them its protections without any incentive to abide by its other terms.
Secondly, and related, these prisoners have no constitutional rights either. They are neither citizens nor on US soil. Even our own soldiers and pow’s taken by us do not have the same rights as an average citizen. The terrorists in gitmo are not criminals, they are unlawful soldiers waging unlawful warfare under int’l law. Treating them as such is a deterrent to others who might do the same.
This in no way expresses absolute support for their treatment, torture, or the slipshod procedures under which some of those were imprisoned. But to hold trials on US soil as if they are merely criminals is not the answer. However, some minimum standard that embodies our basic principles of law and justice is needed and imprisoning the innocent or leaving even the guilty imprisoned in perpetuity without some form of ajudication is certainly repugnant to those principles