Did Obama ever intend to close the Gitmo prison?
Poll
 | 6 votes (30%) | ||
| | 2 votes (10%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 12 votes (60%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) |
20 members have voted
That said, I think he did kinda want to close Guantanamo, just the same way as how people kinda want to start eating right the next year, just after they finish this cake and the one tomorrow. Then found it's too useful a tool and decided "what the hell". He's not stupid, so had to know there would be a cost, but when in doubt, say the popular thing.
I think every president candidate wants to eat his cake and have it too close Gitmo and have it too. There is a difference between wanting something and being committed enough to actually do it.
Maybe I made a mistake in my vote in this poll...hmmm...
I can't believe he was the only one who could not see it could not be done. It's just a lame excuse. Of course, he knew, he just did not care. Talk is cheap, and he is very well aware of that.
Looks like I am saying almost exactly the same thing as P90, but my conclusion is "he lied", while his is "hi did not" :) Or isn't it?
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerRecently, President Obama reversed his campaign promise and subsequent executive order to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay and discontinue military tribunals in lieu of civilian trials. The question is meant to ask y'all to guess his intentions.
I think he wanted to close it, but as some of us could tell from the begining, he was naieve and inexperienced such that he didn't realize it was put in place for good reason. I knid of can hear a Presidet Bush sayhing to Obama in a dream, "fighting muslim extremists not as easy as you thought it was, is it?"
1. Close Gitmo, because it represents so MANY things wrong.
2. Allow trials for the folks there, because we have a Constituition, and you have the right to a trial.
Real easy to make these arguments when you are on the outside.
And then, TA-DA, your in charge. And you get all the facts. Which you knew ALREADY, but since the OTHER GUY had come to that conclusion, it must be WRONG. So, you take a few years, throw a few bones, "We gonna try this..." and then, you announce that, "Yes, these are the only things we can do"
1. Keep Gitmo open becasue there are NO other alternatives.
2. Trials? We don't need no stinking trials for these guys!
Last time I checked, Prisoners of War are not released until the war is over. And I think there is still shooting going on in Afganistan.
The choices are bad. And the other guys had made the seeming best choices from all those bad choices. And it was easy to critize till YOU had to make them.
That is why the statement about Gitmo, to keep it open, was two paragraphs. Yet the Administration plan to have trials was a media Day and thick briefing books about the plan, and why, and all the supporting reasons....
Just the government doing the old "Move on, Nothing to see here...."
SFB
Quote: SFBYes, its a lot easier to make the promise to do something.
1. Close Gitmo, because it represents so MANY things wrong.
2. Allow trials for the folks there, because we have a Constituition, and you have the right to a trial.
SFB
I think it goes to more than that. Bush was a fighter pilot, MBA, and businessman. As a pilot you are taught "fly the plane first!" Unruly passenger? FLY THE PLANE. Engine on fire? FLY THE PLANE! As an MBA you are taught to look at all the available facts and make a decision. The decision may be wrong or it may be right, but DO SOMETHING. You can worry about the consequences later, but they will be worse if you decide nothing and go out of business. Add in deadlines for things like making a payroll. Bush was also a govenor, more decison-making required. Bush was hard-wired to make a decision on-time.
Obama was a lawyer, community organizer, and senator. As a lawyer you are taught to respect the law and Constitution. You are taught to think of everything that *might* happen and write that into a contract. As a community organizer you have no deadlines and few people to answer to, and those people are not stockholdedrs but usally a looser group with time and money on their side. You just have to say, "we SHOULD do 'x'." Finally, senators are always debating and avoid taking a position until the final vote. They have a job where they can call people up and grill them for what they did, while as a senator you can avoid doing anything in many cases.
So in a campaign Obama can say, "why didn't you just give them trials in the USA?" After he is elected he learns why. Same as the kid fresh out of college takes who thinks he knows how a business runs. Then he gets hired and learns running a business is not what you learned in your books but is the real world.
Quote: weaselmanI can't believe he was the only one who could not see it could not be done. It's just a lame excuse. Of course, he knew, he just did not care. Talk is cheap, and he is very well aware of that.
Looks like I am saying almost exactly the same thing as P90, but my conclusion is "he lied", while his is "hi did not" :) Or isn't it?
I would put it this way, it's not a stone-cold lie, same way as going all-in on a gutshot draw isn't a stone cold bluff. It's more like how a husband tells his wife "I'm going to fix the roof this weekend!" [probably] [if I'm not tired at work] [if none of my friends call] [if there's nothing good on TV] [if I don't change my mind] [well if I feel particularly like fixing some roofs].
So he lied not about wanting to close Guantanamo (probably), but about being committed to do it. While at that, I'm pretty sure Bush wanted to close it too, certainly so after the word got out.
Quote: P90ISo he lied not about wanting to close Guantanamo (probably), but about being committed to do it. While at that, I'm pretty sure Bush wanted to close it too, certainly so after the word got out.
Word got out--about what? That the prisoners there live a life far better than the average Cuban under Castro?
Quote: P90Sure, I hope they include Waterboarding in the next Summer Olympics. It sounds like a great sport with a lot of potential.
Our own troops get waterboarded during training so I don't see the problem. More so if it saves lives, which it did.
Quote: Wavy70Would you feel better with McCain who depending upon the crowd he was speaking to would call for the closing of Gitmo and the following day call for it to stay open during his campaign?
I stopped listening to McCain a long time ago. I was also not surprised when he recently told reporters that iPhones & iPads were Made in USA!!! These politicians that stay in office for decades for no apparent reason need to get a life. They just feel they are so important and the world needs them. Plus they get their egos stroked daily!
Quote: AZDuffmanOur own troops get waterboarded during training so I don't see the problem.
They aren't. Torture resistance is part of SERE program only undertaken by a select fraction of the military, mostly special forces.
The problem with torture is that there isn't any line between using it on enemy soldiers only and just plain using it.
However, the idea behind Gitmo isn't even about torture. Torture is already little short of mainstream. The idea of Gitmo is establishing a practice of shipping prisoners offshore to bypass laws and restrictions protecting human rights.
Worst-case scenario, well within our lifetimes, the ideas of Common Law, Miranda rights, option of trial in open court can end up being limited to the realm of little more than shoplifters and DUIs. Offshore detention, quick confession and trial by Troikas are so much more streamlined and reliable for people we want imprisoned. All you need to do is be a suspected terrorist, and if suspected terrorists deserve it, why not suspected murderers and suspected child molesters. Not-so-worst-case scenario, the entrance barrier to offshore "tough justice" treadmills remains higher, but still within a normal person's reach.
Quote: P90
However, the idea behind Gitmo isn't even about torture. Torture is already little short of mainstream. The idea of Gitmo is establishing a practice of shipping prisoners offshore to bypass laws and restrictions protecting human rights. Well within our lifetimes, the ideas of Common Law, Miranda rights, option of trial in open court can end up being limited to the realm of little more than shoplifters and DUIs. Offshore detention, quick confession and trial by Troikas are so much more streamlined and reliable for people we want imprisoned. All you need to do is be a suspected terrorist, and if suspected terrorists deserve it, why not suspected murderers, suspected child molesters and suspected dissenters.
This is where liberals like yourself make no sense. Miranda Rights as well as right to trial are a civillian right. Fighting terrorists is a military matter. Did we give the Nazis we caught a civillian trial? If Miranda was law then, would we have said to Hitler (had he not killed himself) that he had a right to an attorney? And how do you think these guys were caught? Do you think they just happened to be walking down the street and we took them off to Gitmo?
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is where liberals like yourself make no sense.
I'm not a liberal. I'm a right-wing libertarian.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf Miranda was law then, would we have said to Hitler (had he not killed himself) that he had a right to an attorney?
Is it your belief that military criminals should not have the right to an attorney? If so, could you explain your reasoning - why is it wrong for people accused of military crimes to be represented?
The accused in Nuremberg trials *were* represented by defense attorneys. Yes, if Hitler was there, he would have an attorney as well.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd how do you think these guys were caught? Do you think they just happened to be walking down the street and we took them off to Gitmo?
Sometimes it was pretty close to that. Or someone pointed a finger, and there you go. There's no trial, no chance to prove yourself innocent, no conviction, no term to serve, just four walls and indefinite time.
I'm amazed at how nonchalantly you apply the presumption of guilt.
Quote: P90They aren't. Torture resistance is part of SERE program only undertaken by a select fraction of the military, mostly special forces.
.
My daughter wasn't special forces. As a Marine and part of fight crew, she went through SERE school. She was waterboarded and even hit. She has always maintained the worst part of that training was killing and eating a rabbit.
I may be mistaken, but you seem to want POWs to be treated as criminals. These people are not even real POWs. I'm all for treating them as the unlawfull combatants they are and when captured on the battlefield, take them out and execute them. Before I get anyone too upset, I did say execute the ones specifically caught on the battlefield. The ones that were not captured while trying to kill Americans, using questionable intelligence, should be returned to their own countries.
Quote: P90I'm not a liberal. I'm a right-wing libertarian.
Is it your belief that military criminals should not have the right to an attorney? If so, could you explain your reasoning - why is it wrong for people accused of military crimes to be represented?
The accused in Nuremberg trials *were* represented by defense attorneys. Yes, if Hitler was there, he would have an attorney as well.
The Nuremberg Trials were held military tribunal style, not in civillian court as you want to have for muslim terrorists. Rules of evidence are different. And everyday German POWs were NOT tried but held until the war was over. Your comparrison to the Gitmo Detainees not getting civillian trials makes no sense. And I don't buy your "right wing libertarian" stand.
Quote: timberjimMy daughter wasn't special forces. As a Marine and part of fight crew, she went through SERE school.
Yes, as part of flight crew in this case. It's still far from universal.
That aside, torture training and actual torture are different. The former is consensual, for one. Comparing them is like comparing BSDM to violent rape - even if both may include similar actions, they are vastly different acts.
Quote: timberjimI may be mistaken, but you seem to want POWs to be treated as criminals. These people are not even real POWs.
Actually, they are POWs. What makes them "not real" is that their side isn't a party in appropriate international agreements and so has no recourse in international law.
No, my position is that POWs should be treated as POWs, even if they don't have a legal recourse for "enforcing" such treatment (not that any other country could). If nothing else, on the basis that US is waging a war against them, and on the basis that US government supposedly means to present itself as a righteous power bringing democracy to the world.
Rules in regard to POW treatment have been established for a reason. Ignoring them and sinking down to the opponent's level just because we can isn't something I feel like supporting.
Quote: P90Rules in regard to POW treatment have been established for a reason. Ignoring them and sinking down to the opponent's level just because we can isn't something I feel like supporting.
Excuse me, but when did the US put these people in planes and crashed them onto buildings?
That's their level.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe Nuremberg Trials were held military tribunal style, not in civillian court as you want to have for muslim terrorists. Rules of evidence are different.
I didn't say I want them tried in civilian courts.
Currently they aren't even given military tribunals, and when given any, it's nothing near what UCMJ requires. There are no "different rules of evidence" in play - there is no evidence and no rules.
The actual war phase is long over. The War Of Terror will never be "over", by your logic giving a license to hold POWs forever. Not that there even was a formal war in the first place, so it being "over" or "not over" wouldn't put US under any obligations, of course.
But let's put laws aside. Let's look at what actually happened.
What happened is that US has invaded two other countries, one of them under a false pretense, another under a less false one. OK, they were bad guys, we can all agree on that. After discovering the false pretense was false and beating the other one, US did not left, but decided to continue the occupation. As part of that occupation, people are being taken prisoner, some under warlike circumstances, others not.
In place of treating them as either POWs or civilians, special camps have been created, intentionally abroad to avoid US jurisdiction, where they are not given the rights of either. The use of these camps has been expanded to host people from different places, not limited to prisoners specifically from one of the two countries in question, and these camps are being used for the very reason of bypassing the need for charges, evidence and trials.
It is the last part that is particularly worried, as it establishes that suspicion of connection to terrorism can be used to instantly switch off any rights protected by the Constition and legal systems.
P.S. While at that, yes, I have more respect for Bush than Obama. At least Bush wasn't a hypocrite and had a clear political stance, while with Obama we see the worst of Bush and the worst of the left wing combined.
Quote: P90IWhat happened is that US has invaded two other countries, one of them under a false pretense, another under a less false one.
False pretense? What false pretense?
Quote: P90
Actually, they are POWs. What makes them "not real" is that their side isn't a party in appropriate international agreements and so has no recourse in international law.
.[/q
What makes them not real is that they wear civilian clothes and surround themselves with non-combatants to keep from being attacked. I am not aware of any international agreement or treaty that protects people that wage war in this matter. You seem to making the argument that these terrorists should be protected because they operate outside of the realm of the existing international agreements.
Quote: timberjimWhat makes them not real is that they wear civilian clothes
1. Even hypothetically, what other clothes would they wear? It was US that invaded their country - are they under the obligation to provide uniforms and insignia for themselves if they are to be afforded the most basic of human rights?
2. There were repeated historical precedents, and they were more common than not, of enemy guerillas being treated as POW.
Quote: timberjimand surround themselves with non-combatants to keep from being attacked.
3. No. Some of them do. Some don't. And other captives still are these non-combatants.
Those who do are committing war crimes, for which they should be tried and punished. This is the correct recourse.
Your approach - "Some guerrillas are evil, so let's treat all captives as guilty" - only serves to punish the very non-combatants that get mixed up and captured in these situations.
Laws and rules of justice, both military and civilian, are not a bone we throw to criminals for being good. They are there to separate the criminals from the innocent. Saying that if a crime is bad enough, presumption of innocence and trial procedure should not apply to those suspected of it is ridiculous and detrimental to the purpose of the law.
Quote: P901. Even hypothetically, what other clothes would they wear? It was US that invaded their country - are they under the obligation to provide uniforms and insignia for themselves if they are to be afforded the most basic of human rights?
Yes. If they don't they are in breach of the Geneva Convention and thus not entitled to its protections.
Besides, in case you've forgotten, the Taliban owned Afghanistan when NATO invaded in 2001. They were the country, not a mere guerilla band.
Quote: NareedYes. If they don't they are in breach of the Geneva Convention and thus not entitled to its protections.
Not really: Wearing uniforms wouldn't change anything in terms of law, because they are not combatants of a signatory of a Geneva Convention.
(Not that anyone could enforce it against world's largest aspiring rogue nation anyway, of course.)
In terms of precedent, it is a long-standing practice to treat guerrillas and combatants of unrecognized nations in the same manner as uniformed prisoners.
Quote: P901. Even hypothetically, what other clothes would they wear? It was US that invaded their country - are they under the obligation to provide uniforms and insignia for themselves if they are to be afforded the most basic of human rights?
2. There were repeated historical precedents, and they were more common than not, of enemy guerillas being treated as POW.
3. No. Some of them do. Some don't. And other captives still are these non-combatants.
Those who do are committing war crimes, for which they should be tried and punished. This is the correct recourse.
Your approach - "Some guerrillas are evil, so let's treat all captives as guilty" - only serves to punish the very non-combatants that get mixed up and captured in these situations.
Laws and rules of justice, both military and civilian, are not a bone we throw to criminals for being good. They are there to separate the criminals from the innocent. Saying that if a crime is bad enough, presumption of innocence and trial procedure should not apply to those suspected of it is ridiculous and detrimental to the purpose of the law.
1. You keep making statements "that we invaded their country" like the only people we are fighting are natives. Surely you know that Muslim extremists have been streaming into these areas from all over the world to fight the "Great Satan" and kill Americans. "Hypothetically", they would wear uniforms as required by international law to be treated as legitimate combatants.
2. Please provide documented examples of this. It should be easy since you say it has been common. Be sure to include the ones who practised homicide bombings of innocent civilians.
3. You find it necessary to completely alter what I have said to try and make your point. I clearly stated that the terrorists not captured in the act, or with poor evidence should be repatriated.
I find it very illuminating that you refer to terrorists as "guerrillas". I believe this says alot about your train of thinking and falls right in line with the statements you have been making.
Quote: P90Not really: Wearing uniforms wouldn't change anything in terms of law, because they are not combatants of a signatory of a Geneva Convention.
Fine. If they don't abide by the Geneva convention, there's no reason to treat them as if they do.
BTW, the GC addresses the issues of civil wars and guerrillas. the Taliban and their Al Qaida pals don't fit either. They fit as enemy combatants, and they're treated far better in that capacity than what the GC entitles them to.
Quote: timberjim1. You keep making statements "that we invaded their country" like the only people we are fighting are natives.
Most of them are. It's even enough that a lot of them are.
Wait, what would constitute a non-homicide bombing - would it be, like, "embezzlement bombing" or "lewd and lascivious bombing"?Quote: timberjimBe sure to include the ones who practised homicide bombings
Quote: timberjim3. You find it necessary to completely alter what I have said to try and make your point. I clearly stated that the terrorists not captured in the act, or with poor evidence should be repatriated.
Which is cool with me.
The problem is, we have no way of knowing which evidence is solid, which is poor, which is outright fake, and which simply nonexistent. The prisoners are not given trials, and when they are, they are not conducted properly, even though there is a very specific code specifically for military tribunals.
Which is, in turn, why I firmly support proper rights protection and proper trials until guilt is established, and then applying the penalty as and if required - not the other way around, indefinite imprisonment first with charges and trial later and maybe.
Quote: timberjimI find it very illuminating that you refer to terrorists as "guerrillas".
They are guerrillas, except for those actually involved in acts of terrorism (it would be more correct to say "acts of terror", but terrorism is somewhat separate nowadays). It's not me who is changing definitions. Fighting against NATO does not constitute an act of terrorism.
There is no single definition of terrorism is, but the general consensus is that terrorism comprises acts of violence against civilians intended to provoke a state of terror in the general public, and specifically excludes conventional warfare.
Sending planes into a building is an act of terrorism.
Fighting off an assault is not an act of terrorism.
Firing a RPG at a military vehicle is not an act of terrorism.
People planting bombs in civilian buildings are terrorists, while combatants involved in shootouts with occupation forces are guerrillas. Just because some acts of terrorism were perpetrated by some Afghan and Iraqi people does not make the rest of them who don't support the occupation terrorists.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe Nuremberg Trials were held military tribunal style, not in civillian court as you want to have for muslim terrorists. Rules of evidence are different. And everyday German POWs were NOT tried but held until the war was over. Your comparrison to the Gitmo Detainees not getting civillian trials makes no sense.
I think foreigners (bomb plotters and the like) caught on U.S. soil have gone into the civilian court system to be tried. I'm not sure which if any have ever been shipped to Gitmo. That includes the Bush administration.
Quote: NareedFine. If they don't abide by the Geneva convention, there's no reason to treat them as if they do.
The Geneva Convention does not say you should not treat prisoners from nations that are not signatories or not abide by it in a humane manner.
Germans tried that excuse in WWII, and it didn't hold up in Nuremberg.
Quote: NareedThey fit as enemy combatants, and they're treated far better in that capacity than what the GC entitles them to.
Actually, no. The Geneva Convention applies a basic set of provisions that apply universally and include humane treatment, which torture does not qualify as.
There are other provisions that the prisoners taken in occupied territories would fall under:
Article 3. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
* taking of hostages;
* outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
* the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Article 5. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Now, one may argue that the insurgents (if there are objections to the term "guerillas") do not carry arms openly and do not respect the laws of war, but that is not true, because many of them do carry arms openly, and as for respecting the laws, it merely constitutes not violating them. And for all cases where there is any doubt, Article 5 applies - such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention.
A large number of prisoners falls outright under Article 3: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities. Those that have not been caught red-handed, such as people grabbed from the streets or from their homes, fall under the protections of this article. Until such time as they have been tried by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees, they are to be treated in accordance to that article, not tortured and imprisoned for years without trial.
These rules are there for a reason. Many of the Guantanamo detainees were kept for years, until even the quick-tribunals discovered that they were never involved in any terrorist activities and there was no evidence supporting that - basically, that they were imprisoned for no reason. Most prisoners still are being kept, without any examination of whether there is any reason to keep them there, since only a couple percent of them received even such a substandard tribunal.
This would not have happened if US followed the Geneva convention both in letter and in spirit, rather than wiggle out on technicalities, nondisclosure, and just plain "because we can".
It puzzles me why do I even have to argue this - even the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter and concluded that Third Geneva Convention does apply these protections to prisoners held in Guantanamo and that it has been violated.
Quote: rxwineI think foreigners (bomb plotters and the like) caught on U.S. soil have gone into the civilian court system to be tried. I'm not sure which if any have ever been shipped to Gitmo. That includes the Bush administration.
Not yet ones arrested on US soil. But prisoners arrested outside US, Iraq or Afghanistan have been shipped to Gitmo, sometimes via Afghanistan.
There is also Bagram, which is even worse, but much less publicized due to its location keeping the media out.
Quote: rxwineI think foreigners (bomb plotters and the like) caught on U.S. soil have gone into the civilian court system to be tried. I'm not sure which if any have ever been shipped to Gitmo. That includes the Bush administration.
I think that is correct and have no problem with civillian courts for those caught in the USA.
Quote: P90
Wait, what would constitute a non-homicide bombing - would it be, like, "embezzlement bombing" or "lewd and lascivious bombing"?
The prisoners are not given trials, and when they are, they are not conducted properly, even though there is a very specific code specifically for military tribunals.
People planting bombs in civilian buildings are terrorists, while combatants involved in shootouts with occupation forces are guerrillas. Just because some acts of terrorism were perpetrated by some Afghan and Iraqi people does not make the rest of them who don't support the occupation terrorists.
I don't use the term suicide bomber because I feel it connotes some sense of honor to these animals.
Which is it? You state definitely that they are not given trials. Then you follow it up with the trials they get are not up to your standards.
So now the US Military is an occupation force that the noble guerillas are justified in fighting.
I obviously have strong feelings about this. On 9-11 I was watching the unfolding events on TV with group at work. A good friend suddenly ran from the room. We caught him at the elevator. Visibly shaken, he said that his sister, her husband, and their two daughters were flying the route that the plane that flew into the pentagon was reported. Unfortunately they were on that plane and, I believe, the only complete family murdered in that attack.
Then my daughters' unit was put on alert and suddenly left. They could not say anything about where they were going.
Sometime later my son joined the Army and ended up serving multiple tours.
Things like this will help you make up your mind in a very strong manner.
P90 - You and I will not agree on this. I am simply trying to understand your way of thinking.
Quote: timberjimI obviously have strong feelings about this. On 9-11 I was watching the unfolding events on TV with group at work. A good friend suddenly ran from the room. We caught him at the elevator. Visibly shaken, he said that his sister, her husband, and their two daughters were flying the route that the plane that flew into the pentagon was reported. Unfortunately they were on that plane and, I believe, the only complete family murdered in that attack.
Then my daughters' unit was put on alert and suddenly left. They could not say anything about where they were going.
Sometime later my son joined the Army and ended up serving multiple tours.
Things like this will help you make up your mind in a very strong manner.
Please thank your son and daughter for their service for me.
Quote: P90It puzzles me why do I even have to argue this - even the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter and concluded that Third Geneva Convention does apply these protections to prisoners held in Guantanamo and that it has been violated.
Inter arma enim silent leges
And because the Court cannot enforce its decisions on foreign soil, which Guantanamo happens to be.
Gee! I wonder why Obama's kept it open?
And you're defending it because you're very quiet about much worse abuses commited elsewhere.
Quote: timberjimWhich is it? You state definitely that they are not given trials. Then you follow it up with the trials they get are not up to your standards.
Out of over 750, only 12 have been given something close to real trials. And even these trials weren't up to - not mine - but UCMJ standards.
Quote: timberjimSo now the US Military is an occupation force that the noble guerillas are justified in fighting.
It's hard to imagine why wouldn't they fight. Justified or not, but occupation is a reason to resist it by itself. Noble or not, guerrillas or terrorists, Shia or Sunni, but it's only to be expected they would fight back. It's not about being noble and justified, just the way things are.
Quote: timberjimI obviously have strong feelings about this. On 9-11 I was watching the unfolding events on TV with group at work. ...
P90 - You and I will not agree on this. I am simply trying to understand your way of thinking.
My way of thinking is not to let emotions and personal bad memories cloud the judgment, especially the judgment of a system.
However much we would like to go back in time and change things, we are not fighting the hijackers on these planes now. Some members of the insurgency can trace their legacy to being in the same organization these days, but most of them are just people who got conquered and are resisting the occupation the way they can. This is only the normal human response to occupation, and no reason to treat entire nations as subhuman.
Quote: NareedInter arma enim silent leges
And because the Court cannot enforce its decisions on foreign soil, which Guantanamo happens to be.
Which is why Guantanamo and Bagram weren't closed right away.
However, at the very least, the Supreme Court's ruling establishes that the operation of [at least] Guantanamo does violate the Third Geneva Convention. Seeing how this ruling has been made by people with substantial legal knowledge and with proper thoroughness, I only see fit to defer to it in this question.
Quote: P90However, at the very least, the Supreme Court's ruling establishes that the operation of [at least] Guantanamo does violate the Third Geneva Convention. Seeing how this ruling has been made by people with substantial legal knowledge and with proper thoroughness, I only see fit to defer to it in this question.
We're talking about the same court that rendered what can only be called an illiterate decision in Kelo. If a majority can twist the Constitution, then surely they can twist the Geneva Convention the same way.
Quote: NareedWe're talking about the same court that rendered what can only be called an illiterate decision in Kelo. If a majority can twist the Constitution, then surely they can twist the Geneva Convention the same way.
Maybe, but between the opinion of any randomly taken person at most superficially familiar with the case and USSC that reviewed it in depth it's hard not to side with the latter, especially when the violations are quite visible. In the end, the Geneva Convention itself states than where there is doubt, it applies.
That's your prerogative. But you really shouldn't argue about it then.
Quote: NareedSo you defer to authority and give the matter no thought?
As I said, I gave the matter thought. I cited the paragraphs of the convention that do apply to these combatants and require that they be granted certain rights and treated humanely.
That the Supreme Court has independently come to the same conclusion only serves to additionally bolster it.
Quote: P90
My way of thinking is not to let emotions and personal bad memories cloud the judgment, especially the judgment of a system.
.
I have stated my case with some background so people reading my posts can understand me. Your sarcasm you have used in past posts and now your insinuation that my judgement is clouded is simply someone with an argument to weak to support so they resort to personal attacks.
You can make your case without resorting to this.
The people being invaded and occupied have a perfectly valid reason to fight back, namely being invaded and occupied. Whether it is "just" or "unjust" depends on what team one is on, as each team considers its position just. Only a fraction of them is resorting to means of terrorism specifically. They should not be, as a people and as human beings, dehumanized and deprived of basic rights just because we have been at some point physically and emotionally hurt by some other people from their nation driven by different motives. They, or at least most of them, are not resisting the occupation out of malice, only because it is a normal human drive to do so. If we want to maintain our sense of moral superiority, we should at least have the decency of treating them with the same respect to their fundamental rights as we would the populace of any other occupied nation.
Quote: P90I cited the paragraphs of the convention that do apply to these combatants and require that they be granted certain rights and treated humanely.
You did not cite anything that remotely applies to the Taliban and Al Qaida. They wear no uniforms or insignia, they hide among civilian populations, etc. They are enemy combatants, not enemy soldiers, not guerrillas and not covered under the Geneva Convention.
Quote: NareedYou did not cite anything that remotely applies to the Taliban and Al Qaida. They wear no uniforms or insignia, they hide among civilian populations, etc.
Which would be (except for the last part, it isn't relevant) factors in considering whether they qualify under Article 4 provisions, for which uniforms and insignia is only one of the ways to qualify.
Article 4 is only part of the convention.
Under Article 3, all of the persons detained, whether they are considered prisoners of war or not, qualify as:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause
Many if not most Guantanamo and Bagram detainees have been arrested due to hints or data suggesting them having some sort of connection with the insurgency. These arrestees are clear-cut non-combatants, and are granted protections under Article 3.
Furthermore, Article 3 extends these protections to all persons taking no part in the hostilities, even if they have been taken out of
combat by means of wounds or detention, i.e. arrested. It prohibits, in particular the following:
* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(This being the reason active combatants are excepted from it, as they have to attacked in the course of battle)
* outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(Which is their treatment post-capture)
And, finally,
* the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Which requires that they can only be convicted by a proper court
They don't need to be prisoners of war specifically in order to qualify for Article 3 protections. They need to in order to qualify for Article 4 and further, which establish considerably stricter limitations on treatment.
