Imagine the bastards stealing 7 years of your life

[alienlovechild 75]

It is interesting that we can discount as lies the testimony of a person accused of terrorist activities in order to defend a policy that is an affront to the fundamental values that we supposedly hold dear.

Well the man is as innocent as OJ so I'm not entirely outraged. Now he'll make some money in the UK as a minor celebrity on Big Brother or give lectures at universities. Not bad for a worthless drug addict ready to die on the battlefield or on a terrorist mission.

With your expert interpretation, of course.

Ok, I'm wrong. He would been better off overdosing or dying in the process of killing others.

[HAL 9000 96]

It is interesting that we can discount as lies the testimony of a person accused of terrorist activities in order to defend a policy that is an affront to the fundamental values that we supposedly hold dear.

Well the man is as innocent as OJ so I'm not entirely outraged. Now he'll make some money in the UK as a minor celebrity on Big Brother or give lectures at universities. Not bad for a worthless drug addict ready to die on the battlefield or on a terrorist mission.

With your expert interpretation, of course.

Ok, I'm wrong. He would been better off overdosing or dying in the process of killing others.

Certainly would've been cheaper in the long run.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The case of Binyam Mohamed who returned to Britain after 7 years in Guantanomo without a trial.

Is this the Free World we mean?

We are at war in Afghanistan. A combatant from that theater left to attack the United States, allegedly. Captured combatants have never had trials and were always held indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities. The "Free World" did this during the Second World War.

Do you propose that captured Nazis should have been given a trial then held for a little while, then sent back to Germany to fight again? Or should every man captured from the German army have been sentenced for attempted murder and held until the 1960s?

FYI, were we playing by the "civilized" rules of the Second World War, non-uniformed combatants would be tried under espionage laws and shot.

For a world to be free, we cannot tolerate those who would rob us of our freedom. It's the paradox of freedom.

I'm not suggesting anything - I posted it simply because I knew it would piss some people off and they couldn't restrain themselves

As to your point - WW2 differs from this for the sole reason that there is no specifically identifiable "enemy". Nazi Germany was a specific entity - regional guerila movements and their affiliates and sympathisers are not.

I can assure you that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are identified. The ability of an enemy to remain hidden and ours to pick them out of a crowd seems incidental. Once you are a non-state actor and out-of-uniform, anything goes with international law.

That's certainly the reasoning that was employed. Of course that the administration had to backtrack somewhat over torture issue and whether the Geneva convention could be applied would seem to suggest that their reasoning was at the leest, somewhat flawed.

[Peikko 1,575]

It is interesting that we can discount as lies the testimony of a person accused of terrorist activities in order to defend a policy that is an affront to the fundamental values that we supposedly hold dear.

Well the man is as innocent as OJ so I'm not entirely outraged. Now he'll make some money in the UK as a minor celebrity on Big Brother or give lectures at universities. Not bad for a worthless drug addict ready to die on the battlefield or on a terrorist mission.

Which story do you lead credence to? That he was a drug addict seeking assistance or that he was an Al Quaida trainee? In that sentence you appear to have merged them together creating an entirely new entity.

I am not sure that any of us here are in a position to evaluate the validity of this person, or any of the detainees claims to innocence or otherwise. What was wrong however was:

The use of torture to extract any information.

The indefinite detention of 'suspects' without any possibility of any legal recourse.

That the US resorted either or both have undermined this idea that the US has some moral authority based on the legacy of world war 2 achievements and the notion of public freedom enshrined in its constitution. Quite frankly, it is a bit ludicrous to imagine that one nation can uphold the human rights, hence the institution of the UN. Of course the US never quite got behind that idea and a lot of that has to do with a penchant for brutal punishment, the eye for an eye brigade.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Y's_habibitk 2]

Closing Guantanomo Bay?! Liberal BS!!! Let's see how many more people have to die in terrorist attacks before it's re-opened.

YA! stupid liberals and that lame habeas corpus junk!

[NickD 203]

Well, they certainly took six years of my life, baked me alive in hot places and froze me to death in cold places, stand at attention for hours, and if that isn't torture, I don't know what is.

But with these guys they lock up in the bay, couldn't be too naughty, if they were, just shoot them and get it over with. The ones they should really lock up are these suicide bombers that blew up a bunch of innocent people.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm not suggesting anything - I posted it simply because I knew it would piss some people off and they couldn't restrain themselves

As to your point - WW2 differs from this for the sole reason that there is no specifically identifiable "enemy". Nazi Germany was a specific entity - regional guerila movements and their affiliates and sympathisers are not.

Your are right. During previous conflicts, they were subject to summary execution. and shot as spies.

As far as Guantanamo Bay goes - I was surprised to read that the detention camp was intially set up by a couple of military personel without any specific, tacit guidance from the Bush administration on how to proceed or what legal standards were to be applied (those handed down later).

No kidding... then again... it is Cuba... a tropical island in the Caribbean. You'd think that they'd actually like it and all.

Incidentally the location chosen to house the detainees was chosen arbitrarily. Gitmo was actually near the bottom of the list - they originally wanted to keep them in NYC (no joke).

Cite, please. That might make a good read.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Ban Hammer 13,622]

Some press reports have repeated the claim that Mohamed went to Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks for the purpose of kicking his drug habit. This is a flimsy alibi, to say the least. Why would anyone go to the heroin capital of the world to get away from drugs?

that's kinda like going to st louis to get away from beer.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, they certainly took six years of my life, baked me alive in hot places and froze me to death in cold places, stand at attention for hours, and if that isn't torture, I don't know what is.

But with these guys they lock up in the bay, couldn't be too naughty, if they were, just shoot them and get it over with. The ones they should really lock up are these suicide bombers that blew up a bunch of innocent people.

And the ones they let go must be because the original 'evidence' wasn't strong enough to stick. Of course... stick someone in a cell for a while with evidence that isn't strong enough and you likely increase the chances of them not liking you very much afterwards...

Some press reports have repeated the claim that Mohamed went to Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks for the purpose of kicking his drug habit. This is a flimsy alibi, to say the least. Why would anyone go to the heroin capital of the world to get away from drugs?

that's kinda like going to st louis to get away from beer.

Reminds me I need to avoid Oktoberfest by heading up to Milwaukee.

Then again... evidence is what it is. Certainly not even military justice as stupid as some might want it to seem like.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not suggesting anything - I posted it simply because I knew it would piss some people off and they couldn't restrain themselves

As to your point - WW2 differs from this for the sole reason that there is no specifically identifiable "enemy". Nazi Germany was a specific entity - regional guerila movements and their affiliates and sympathisers are not.

Your are right. During previous conflicts, they were subject to summary execution. and shot as spies.

As far as Guantanamo Bay goes - I was surprised to read that the detention camp was intially set up by a couple of military personel without any specific, tacit guidance from the Bush administration on how to proceed or what legal standards were to be applied (those handed down later).

No kidding... then again... it is Cuba... a tropical island in the Caribbean. You'd think that they'd actually like it and all.

Incidentally the location chosen to house the detainees was chosen arbitrarily. Gitmo was actually near the bottom of the list - they originally wanted to keep them in NYC (no joke).

Cite, please. That might make a good read.

Refer to the link I posted earlier.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm not suggesting anything - I posted it simply because I knew it would piss some people off and they couldn't restrain themselves

As to your point - WW2 differs from this for the sole reason that there is no specifically identifiable "enemy". Nazi Germany was a specific entity - regional guerila movements and their affiliates and sympathisers are not.

Your are right. During previous conflicts, they were subject to summary execution. and shot as spies.

As far as Guantanamo Bay goes - I was surprised to read that the detention camp was intially set up by a couple of military personel without any specific, tacit guidance from the Bush administration on how to proceed or what legal standards were to be applied (those handed down later).

No kidding... then again... it is Cuba... a tropical island in the Caribbean. You'd think that they'd actually like it and all.

Incidentally the location chosen to house the detainees was chosen arbitrarily. Gitmo was actually near the bottom of the list - they originally wanted to keep them in NYC (no joke).

Cite, please. That might make a good read.

Refer to the link I posted earlier.

Case closed.

[Jasman0717 9]

At my age I don't want to loose seven minutes

[alienlovechild 75]

That the US resorted either or both have undermined this idea that the US has some moral authority based on the legacy of world war 2 achievements and the notion of public freedom enshrined in its constitution. Quite frankly, it is a bit ludicrous to imagine that one nation can uphold the human rights, hence the institution of the UN. Of course the US never quite got behind that idea and a lot of that has to do with a penchant for brutal punishment, the eye for an eye brigade.

The UN track record on detainees or POWs? The UN troops did a wonderful job watching 1,000s of men and boys being marched off to be executed in Bosnia. No POWs problems there. Way to go UN!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That the US resorted either or both have undermined this idea that the US has some moral authority based on the legacy of world war 2 achievements and the notion of public freedom enshrined in its constitution. Quite frankly, it is a bit ludicrous to imagine that one nation can uphold the human rights, hence the institution of the UN. Of course the US never quite got behind that idea and a lot of that has to do with a penchant for brutal punishment, the eye for an eye brigade.

The UN track record on detainees or POWs? The UN troops did a wonderful job watching 1,000s of men and boys being marched off to be executed in Bosnia. No POWs problems there. Way to go UN!

Not to mention pedo-rape in the Congo.

[alienlovechild 75]

That the US resorted either or both have undermined this idea that the US has some moral authority based on the legacy of world war 2 achievements and the notion of public freedom enshrined in its constitution. Quite frankly, it is a bit ludicrous to imagine that one nation can uphold the human rights, hence the institution of the UN. Of course the US never quite got behind that idea and a lot of that has to do with a penchant for brutal punishment, the eye for an eye brigade.

The UN track record on detainees or POWs? The UN troops did a wonderful job watching 1,000s of men and boys being marched off to be executed in Bosnia. No POWs problems there. Way to go UN!

Not to mention pedo-rape in the Congo.

Gang rapes are ok as long as no one nation's troops are doing it. The UN flag also doubles a blindfold for media coverage.