Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

Elind said:
Yes you are claiming! You are claiming that they are innocent until proven, by a court recognized by YOU, that they are not. We say they were captured in circumstances that any reasonable person would consider as an enemy combatant, ENEMY that is, and what's more we tend to believe our own people more than the enemy, which you don't appear to do.

I gave a rational assessment of the practicalities involved some time ago, which I never saw your response to, and I gave your Indonesian friends the benefit of the doubt that they faced the same problems in convicting the instigator of the murder of so many of your people. Why did you not demand that he be extradited to Australia? Because you know you couldn't convict him?

Gitmo is probably the smartest thing that the Bush crowd ever came up with, but that really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

He killed a lot of Indonesians, too. They get first dibs.
 
Elind said:
You suggest that first a case should be made with evidence reviewed by a board, and then go back and see if you can find the perp later?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it might be an idea to show the world the evidence IMMEDIATELY you catch them. Or even SOON AFTER. That might be believeable.

But four years and nothing?? And then released for lack of evidence?? Like Fool has asked - if that's the case, what was the justification, the evidence, for taking them in the first place?

Unless you are in favour of detaining foreigners in close confinement without trial on the suspicion that they maybe, one day, MIGHT do something illegal??
 
Elind said:
Yes you are claiming! You are claiming that they are innocent until proven, by a court recognized by YOU, that they are not. We say they were captured in circumstances that any reasonable person would consider as an enemy combatant, ENEMY that is, and what's more we tend to believe our own people more than the enemy, which you don't appear to do.
Click to expand...
Court I recognise? How about a US military court? Wait...they're already there! That means these people have been charged with something heinous, doesn't it? Oh dear - no trials, and now they are being set free. And the military prosecution teams are objecting to the process too. Hmmmm...

And now you agree they are enemy combatants captured in war. Is that right?

Elind said:
I gave a rational assessment of the practicalities involved some time ago, which I never saw your response to, and I gave your Indonesian friends the benefit of the doubt that they faced the same problems in convicting the instigator of the murder of so many of your people. Why did you not demand that he be extradited to Australia? Because you know you couldn't convict him?
Click to expand...
:confused: WHAT are you talking about?? :confused: Are you suggesting that I said Bashir should be extradited to Australia, but that we would not convict? Or are you suggesting that's what we should do? Want to make yourself less confused?

Elind said:
Gitmo is probably the smartest thing that the Bush crowd ever came up with, but that really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Smart?? :rolleyes: It's mindless fundie thinking backed by oil billions, led by an oil-baron's hopelessly spoiled son. Interestingly, Bin Laden fits that mold too...

No, it doesn't stick in my craw. It actually makes me deeply concerned that you would think it is a good idea. This is like watching your brother take up glue-sniffing as a hobby - he thinks it's really great, while everyone else plus you knows it's not.
 
Last edited:
Zep said:
It's mindless fundie thinking backed by oil billions, led by an oil-baron's hopelessly spoiled son. Interestingly, Bin Laden fits that mold too...
Click to expand...
Also interesting - but probably predictable at this point - is that after you've equated the U.S. justice system to Stalin's and Idi Amin's, you equate Bush with bin Laden. You just can't seem to resist, can you?

I'm expecting your Godwin moment any minute now.
 
Zep said:
This is where we differ, I think.

We ARE "on your side", but we do not agree that your way of dealing with the situation is the best. Or even right or legal. You are talking mindless animal revenge, thus being as immoral and illegal as your enemy.
Click to expand...

I have talked nothing of the sort. That's a complete and utter strawman. If you take exception to what I SAID, rather than what you think (incorrectly) I believe, then quote the part you object to. But what you quoted from my post has absolutely nothing to do with taking "animal revenge" of any kind.

That you choose to call us "useful idiots" and "appeasers" and suchlike, and advocate illegal mindless violence as your only response, only serves to reinforce your place in their lower camp. It drags you down to the same level of infamy as the enemy you despise so much.
Click to expand...

I used neither term. If you have a problem with people who did use those terms, take it up with them, but don't claim I said something I didn't.
 
Earthborn said:
I do not consider anyone my enemy, nobody has comitted a crime against me, and it is not mine to judge because it is not my job to judge people, and I lack the expertise I consider necessary to do so.
Click to expand...

There are people in the world who want to kill you and me both, simply because we do not believe what they believe, and they will kill us if they ever have the chance. They are my enemy. It is not enlightenment on your part, it is not refinement, it is not non-judgmentalism, to not recognize that such people are your enemy too. It is a lack of common sense and what should be a rather basic survival instinct.

No, I would not take offence. I would rather think that it is a silly question: why should I be on anyone's side?
Click to expand...

Because one side will kill you the first chance it gets.

So in your opinion someone is wrong for not taking your side.
Click to expand...

It's not "my" side, and you're not wrong because you're not taking the side that I happen to be on. You're wrong for not taking the side which favors your survival rather than your death.
 
Ziggurat said:
I have talked nothing of the sort. That's a complete and utter strawman. If you take exception to what I SAID, rather than what you think (incorrectly) I believe, then quote the part you object to. But what you quoted from my post has absolutely nothing to do with taking "animal revenge" of any kind.



I used neither term. If you have a problem with people who did use those terms, take it up with them, but don't claim I said something I didn't.
Click to expand...
My apologies - it was after a long day at work when I wrote that. I was obviously thinking of someone else's arguments.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because when your enemy commits a crime against you, and a heinous, immoral one at that, how is it NOT yours to judge?
Click to expand...

Well, ideally a neutral party would be better suited for that. Revenge and all.

BPSCG said:
Excellent. Earlier you compared the U.S. justice system unfavorably with Stalin's, and now with Idi Amin. And this from someone who keeps braying about how his country is our friend.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think it was merely directed at a single poster's comment.
 
BPSCG said:
Also interesting - but probably predictable at this point - is that after you've equated the U.S. justice system to Stalin's and Idi Amin's, you equate Bush with bin Laden. You just can't seem to resist, can you?

I'm expecting your Godwin moment any minute now.
Click to expand...

I take it back, BPSCG. This time it WAS pretty obvious!
 
BPSCG said:
Also interesting - but probably predictable at this point - is that after you've equated the U.S. justice system to Stalin's and Idi Amin's, you equate Bush with bin Laden. You just can't seem to resist, can you?
Click to expand...
*SIGH*

I think you will see I compared them, not equated them. But do go on - make up my scripts for me, if you like. You're certainly not listening to me.

BPSCG said:
I'm expecting your Godwin moment any minute now.
Click to expand...
Well, you mentioned it first, so the honour of leading us down that path clearly belongs to you! I step aside in your favour. ;)
 
a_unique_person said:
You're making things up. Gitmo was specifically designed to operate outside the US justice system.
Click to expand...
After all this, you're still not getting it, are you?

There is no justice system in the world that is equipped to handle this new kind of warfare. When the standard criminal justice systems have attempted to deal with it, at best, the result has been trials that lasted for years and cost untold millions of dollars, and that's for Zacaraias Moussauoui, who pleaded guilty. At worst, it results in terrorists walking free, as in Indonesia and Germany.

The big problem in dealing with them through the military justice system is that these people don't follow the commonly-accepted rules of warfare, and our laws and treaties aren't (yet) designed to deal with that. There aren't (AFAIK) any specific rules, either in the U.S. laws, or in international treaty obligations, that set out exactly what you do with someone captured on a battlefield who isn't a member of a GC signatory. The GC's provide for what to do with POWs and how to treat them, but they say nothing about how to treat combatants not covered by the GC.

So you end up running into issues of consistency whether you treat them as civil criminals or military POWs. If you examine a platypus and base your examinations on your assumption that it is some kind of duck, you run into problems. And if you base your examinations on the assumption that it is some kind of beaver, you run into different problems. And if you base your examinations on the assumption that it is some kind of hoax, you run into entirely different problems. Eventually, you acknowledge that what you are examining is something altogether new, and you need to apply new rules.

That's what you have here - a new kind of beast for which the old rules of engagement are inadequate. Eventually, we'll figure out a way of dealing with them that balances fairly the requirements of justice for them and the requirements of security for the rest of us. But until then, the requirements of security will have to trump the requirements of justice - because you can't even begin to have justice if you can't protect the justice system from physical destruction.

Meanwhile, so-called friends will compare Guantanamo to the gulags, Bush to bin Laden, and the U.S. justice system to Stalin's and Idi Amin's. If you want to really be our friends, why don't you tell us a way to deal with the guys in Guatanamo that frees the innocents and only the innocents, locks up the guilty and only the guilty, and does all of the above expeditiously and without bankrupting the treasury?

I'm all ears.
 
Zep;1712239I think you will see I [B said:
compared[/B] them, not equated them. But do go on - make up my scripts for me, if you like. You're certainly not listening to me.
Click to expand...
Pardon me; I appear to have misunderstood. Elucidate me; your point in comparing Bush to bin Laden was...
 
a_unique_person said:
You just want to beat up on him. How about making your point first.
Click to expand...
Pardon me again; I thought I'd addressed that question to Zep, not you.

I did put up a fairly lengthy post that was addressed to you, and did ask you some questions. How about answering them, instead of Zep's? He's perfectly capable of taking care of himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom