Why close Gitmo?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=183354
Printed Date: 31 January 2026 at 1:21pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why close Gitmo?
Posted By: SSOK
Subject: Why close Gitmo?
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 12:39pm
|
Forum, tell me why liberals want to close Gitmo. Do not tell me what you think is right or wrong, this means you FE, and everyone who fights with FE. I just want to know why.
I, for one, think its a terrible idea to close Gitmo. I dont understand why someone would want to close a prison full of Muslim extrimists(note extremists) wanting to kill you, me, FE and Obama alike, but im sure there is a reason.
If I get "they are treating people unfairly" or "innocent people are in there" im just going to facepalm. I do not support the unfair treatment of innocent individuals, but you cannot tell me that everyone in Gitmo is innocent.
You also cant tell me that every extremist will settle his or her differences with Western society, and stop trying to kill us. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 12:56pm
|
Innocence proves nothing..... ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: TinMan
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 1:01pm
|
From a business mans point of view... Close it and turn it into a vacation destination. It is US soil, so you could sun in the carrib care free. and it has a built in airbase if I'm not wrong. Edit* forgot about the prisoners. They can build it.  |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 1:08pm
|
Well I can't speak for the liberals, but I can say I agree with closing it. Why would I like to see it shut down? Simple, I think all the controversy and attention stemming from the inmates there paints an image of our country in a negative light. That doesn't mean I think these detainees are innocent or should be let go. What it does mean is that this has lasted too long and I would like to see these guilty parties tried and sentenced. Get it over with and let's move on. TL;DR I'm tired of hearing about it, quit stalling and decide what to do with the inmates. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 1:11pm
What does that have to do with the criticism that people are being held who are innocent? Also, nobody that I am aware of is supportive of letting everyone there free. Far from it. The consensus for closing it supports moving the prisoners to a maximum-security prison in the states. As Jon Stewart has joked, these people are not warlocks. My opinion on the topic stems from my belief that if we are going to detain someone, we either need to charge them with something in a real court or let them go. The problem is that the location of Gitmo has been keeping them from getting actual legal procedure. If they were to be held int he U.S., the process of trying them as criminals - and subsequently getting them out of this in-between situation - could begin. |
SSOK wrote:Posted By: God
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 1:19pm
|
I think the biggest complaint is that many people feel that all of the prisoners in Gitmo havent had a trial and have not been convicted of anything. In the United States we presume everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I am aware that most of the people being held inside Gitmo are not US citizens, yet I feel they should be given the same rights as the United States offers US citizens. There are no global second class citizens of the world. If the United States expects its citizens should have certain legal rights and legal protections then the US should also offer those same rights to those that they accuse of crimes and detain. I think it hypocritical that the US ask for the return of the two reporters that the North Koreans arrested, tried, and detained, while they have not offered the same to those locked up in Gitmo. All the scare tactics used by some to justify that need there is a need for these "extremist terrorists" to be locked up in Gitmo is not because, if convicted, these detainees would cause terror from within a federal prison but Gitmo is just an attempt to create a loophole to prevent these detainees from being given due process because they are not being held on US soil.
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 1:32pm
Besides, how long do you think these suspected terrorists will last in the company of our convicted felons? -------------
|
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 2:47pm
Unsubstantiated. Do you know that they are all muslim extremists wanting to kill you, or are some innocent? Not to mention Im pretty sure that nobody in their right mind argues that we should just close the prison and set them free......... I dont care what they do with gitmo, I just think they should try them and get it over with. A REAL trial, not some rubber-stamp kangaroo court. Because IMHO, I dont care what someone stands accused of, they deserve a fair trial in a swift manner. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 3:25pm
|
Yea, moving a suspected terrorist to a max security prison might as well be a death sentence...
------------- 
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 4:13pm
| Why the hell would terrorists deserve a fair trial? Thats like giving Hitler a trial. |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 4:15pm
Get out of my country. -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 4:16pm
|
Why do certain forum members think that the terrorists would have it so bad in the prison system? It's prime recruiting territory. http://sheikyermami.com/2009/09/30/prison-jihad-radical-islam%E2%80%99s-recruiting-station/ - LInk Not the only article out there, just the one that happened to be at the top of the first page when I searched. Do a search of the topic yourselves and check it out. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 4:19pm
ooohhhhhooo lmfao feisty! Edit: also, I don't think a person who is attempting to kill hundreds should be allowed to live, because if they are given a "fair" trial in our court system they would be set free with lack of evidence and then go right back to what they were doing before: making bombs and crap. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 4:35pm
|
Apparently in rofl's world, trials are perfect. Seriously, without fair trials we're no better than them. What's the point then? ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 7:24pm
|
SUSPECTED terrorists, thats the bloody point of having a trial. I never thought it was such a difficult concept. Should I just be allowed to say "Rofl Mao robbed my house and stole my stuff" and you just get locked up for a year, no chance to defend yourself? -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 7:55pm
|
Just put them in GP at FCI Lewisburg, USP Lewisburg, USP leavenworth, USP Atlanta and the problem will self correct in a matter of days. Will save a lot of taxpayer money on trials, lawyers, etc.
The Aryan Brotherhood, The Family, and a few other groups need target practice, to vent thier frustrations, and assist in the Defense of America. The Italian Family members I met while a Marshall are fiercly protective of America, the fight among themselvs, but attack America, the will "make them an offer they can not refuse." And lets see how arrogant Achmed is his first day on the rec-yard. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 8:00pm
|
except they would be put in protective custody, but whatev.
------------- 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 8:39pm
I did enjoy EE's (I believe it was him) suggestion he gave to me when I when I was working on my senior thesis on the topic. Drop them off where we picked them up in a decked out escalade and a few grand in cash and let the problem sort itself out. I giggled. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 10:42pm
I have a question before I answer your initial one: How can you support unfair treatment to those who are guilty, then? If the treatment is unfair, then, to use a tautology, it isn't fair, and the individual should not be treated that way. As to why Gitmo should be closed down, I think it should be shut down because it is a giant symbol for why people dislike the US, and it only garners more support for the very extremists we are trying to neutralize. It also alienates us from our allies and other developed nations, which does no foreseeable good. And it's not even a high security prison.
If there is no evidence, on what grounds to you make the claim they are a terrorist? The color of their skin? Their religion? Name? Their misfortune of being detained in Gitmo?
Strange that you, a self-proclaimed constitutionalist, have no problem practically advocating vigilante justice instead of ensuring the rights guaranteed to all people by the US constitution. ------------- 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:16pm
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:20pm
| Man you guys really love those guys. Its alright, I guess i'm the only one who hates people trying to destroy the way we live. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:23pm
|
Stop trying to troll. You are bad at it. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:25pm
| Good, cause I'm not trolling. Its my honest opinion. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:26pm
Right, because they have a different religion and ethnicity than you, they aren't as important, they have no rights. They don't deserve a fair trial to see if they really are terrorists or not, they just deserve to die because their names Ahkmed or Muhammad or Abduhl. Right, gotcha.
By saying they don't deserve a trial, not only do you look like a bigot and a tool, you also spit on "the way we live."
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:27pm
Well then you are a sad child. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:31pm
How did this turn into a race issue? I think if they even made it to Gitmo then obviously they must have some major conviction against them. Do you think that they would give us a fair trial if we were caught trying to bomb them? No, they cut our freaking throats. I'm not saying they are there at gitmo "just because" im saying they must be major terrorists if they are there. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:34pm
|
I didn't spend six months of my life in that hellhole looking for IEDs and trying to establish conditions to improve a crappy part of the world so that our collective western society could start whittling away legal and civil rights while my back was turned. What we would visit on our enemies, soon enough we would visit on our perceived enemies. What we would do to perceived enemies, the nation will soon convince itself of the necessity to do it to its own citizens. If western civilization ever slides into tyranny it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign threat. Terrorism cannot genuinely harm our society. It can kill a few people and destroy some small value of physical property, but it CANNOT take away the principles, rights and freedoms that define who and what we are. Sadly, we seem all too willing to do this of our own volition for the illusion of a bit more security. We already have many legitimate systems- military, legal, law enforcement and judicial - with which extremism can be fought in a legal manner. We will never completely defeat or destroy it. 'terrorism', or 'extremism' is a military tactic and a sociological phenomenon. ITts as assinine as the 'war on drugs' or the 'war on poverty'. These conditions won't be ended through combat and destruction, but by building up the societies from which these individuals come. And in the mean time, we shall have to kill a few of them who remain in our way while doing so. Most extremists will never actually do anything. Most of the rest will talk about it and not act, and will draw the attention of intelligence assets. Some few will plan inept or amateurish operations, most will be caught or foiled through law enforcement and policing. Some very, very few will be a genuine tangible threat to us requiring military action to take them out., We can't let ourselves get wrapped around the axle over the Jihadist monster under the bed though. The only real harm they can do is to convince us to harm ourselves. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:35pm
|
Then you have absolutely know idea how the system works, and should probably just shut up and do some research before you make a bigger fool out of yourself.
-------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:35pm
You are as blind as you are foolish.
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:37pm
| I'm quivering in my shoes. |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:42pm
|
God, i love these threads. lulz were had. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:47pm
|
Once again Rofl's lack of maturity is showing. If we were to treat them like you say they would treat us then we would be no better than they are. Not to derail this thread but it seems eerily similar to the death penalty threads we've seen in the past. Their behavior is wrong and it isn't suddenly right if we do it too. -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:54pm
| I don't mean literally kill them,and I was using the way they treat us as an example. We shouldn't stoop down to their level but do you honestly think if we give them a fair trial (which we should) that will change the minds of the terrorists? "Oh they gave our friends a fair trial, we should treat them better now!" No. They still want to cut our throats and bomb us. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:58pm
Will it stop them from bombing us? No. Will we have done the right thing regardless? Yes.
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 October 2009 at 11:59pm
| I never said we should kill them, ffs, im saying leave them in Gitmo away from society. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:00am
It is more for the opinion of our peers and the rest of the international community. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:01am
| Without any trial what so ever. Still not seeing how this is fair. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:03am
Okay I see your point, but still why would they want us to not have them in Gitmo and how is that affecting them in the slightest bit? |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:04am
| k, lets lock you in San Quintin for 2 years, see if you hold the same opinion afterward. Even if they don't get shanked while they are there, is it fair for us to take them away from their family, friends, everyday lives, to hold them in a cell for years on end? |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:07am
| Not if they are innocent. I was ranting in the previous posts because I thought you guys were inferring that they were all innocent, my mistake. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:07am
No. If we do not adhere to our own laws we lose the moral high ground that legitimizes subjecting other nations to our military force in the first place. This means due process and fair trials- because after all, if a fair trial finds one innocent, why the hell are we holding him in the first place? Do your research, and look up how many have been found not culpable of any wrongdoing and have been released. There are some stories of a few of them taking up arms against us, but the majority have not. We are in more danger from inflicting tyranny on ourselves than we will ever be from a relative handful of radicals. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:14am
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:15am
|
Also Bri I get what you are a saying now. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:29am
You are either backtracking so that you do not appear foolish by holding on to the same silly stance, or you are quite possibly worse at reading comprehension than anyone I have ever seen on the internet. Also, Brihard has this whole subject on lockdown. -------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:31am
|
Also, learn some proper usage of imply and infer.
-------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:33am
Is there really a question of which one it is? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:53am
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 1:06am
Now that I reread my post, it's probably both. Also, now that I reread my post, I need to stop thinking two things at once while I type. Especially when I am criticizing someone. -------------
|
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 1:18am
|
I'm not in favor of bring these terrorists state side, then again I'm not in favor of taking them alive to begin with(go ahead flame away).
I think I have this part right...This all could have been advoided if we just declared war after 9/11. If we did then the terrorist would be POWs and could be held until the war was over. This war isn't going to end in our lifetime, or theirs. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 1:26am
|
GITMO is one of the most secure and isolated confinement facilities we can house them in. Examnple, in WW2 all German, Italian and Japanese were shipped to camps in the middle of nowhere here in the US, to prevent any organized assistance in an escape attempt from the outside.
GITMO is a prison within a prison essentially, a holding facility inside a small confined area where the major population is military, hewnse little risk of escape or civilian casualities in the event of an organized attempt at a rescue/breakout. The Geneva Convention as well as the Laws of War revised in 1949 in the definition of a POW, or Political Prisoner is quite clear. The precident was established in WW2 where German Armed Forces (Wehrmacht, Lufwaffe, Kriegsmarine) were housed seperately in differant security level camps than those from the ranks of "political prisoners" (SS, Waffen SS, and Gestapo). As well as the British Internment of the Jewish Resistance in Palestine, a new definition wqas needed to seperate "enemy combatants" from the traditional "flagged" fighting forces. Even the Viet-Cong and Khemer Rouge understood the rules and wore a uniform (the red scarf around the neck) a universally recognized symbol of flagging of thier uniform. SO when captured would be held under the POW rules established by the Geneva Convention of 1949. Al-Queda by thier spokesman Osama Bin Laden has officially declared war on America, The West and The Infidel, and under the Geneva Convention even though we have not declared war in return officially, we are allowed by the convention to hold any "fighters" or anyone suspected of contributing acts of war on our Counntry. These individuals caqn be held for the duration as enemy combatants, POW's or suspected colaborators, and do not have a right to a trail, only the legal recourse allowed under the Geneve Convention. We have many precedents to choose from, The American Indian males wherther within a warrior band or an elderly man, was routinely rounded up, placed or shipped to a confinment area (Geronimo is a classic example). Like Al-Queda the American Indian was not a united fiighting force, each warrior was free to choose to join the War Parties or not, because thier culture was a culture of the individual. If the "Chief" signed a treaty it only bound the "Chief" not the group, for he under thier culture could not sign for all of his people. The reservation system still in exsistance is actually more illegal than GITMO. The Nisie (Japanese Americans) from the west coast had thier property confiscated, and were thrown in camps from 1942-1945 no matter how long they were American citizens. And only years later did they recieve a $20,000 check for property in California worth millions. There are also North Koreans interned in Guam, for we are still at war with North Korea (and get this thie Allie The Peoples Republic of China, only a "Cease Fire" was signed at Panmunjom in 1953. Any North Korean infiltrator into the South if captured go to this camp. The last group was an intelligence team captured among fishing boats in SOuth Korean territorial waters, and they were sent to the camp in Guam. A few days later the North Koreans go into China and grab those two American woman, have a show trial and release them (no doubt as a trade for the intelligence team). GITMO serves a purpose, keeps these individuals out of the continental US, assuring thier dafty, imagine these individuals in GenPop at USP Lewisberg, or San Quentin, the AB would love to have a heart to shiv talk with them. This entire episode is justa muddy the waters by the Democrats, and Libs, and if they were so sure of the innocense of these individuals put an ankle braclet on them and send them home with the local ACLU lawyer to just be "one of the family these poor souls from an oppressed and misunderstood populace" till trial. Put them on actual US territory and they are now just an easier objective for a rescue operation by armed "followers", or creatring hostage situations threatening the local populace, ask Isreal how the hostages for political prisoner game is played with thier confinees. We are at war as per Osama Bin Laden, and since this is our first war on a ideology instead of a Nation State we need to work our the details within the confines of the Geneva Convention, not in a court of law within the United States, for to have a jury of thier peers opens up a whjole nother can of worms. Define "peers" that can be provided here in the US for an appeal proof trial. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 1:50am
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 5:55am
If convicted none of the detainees would ever make it into a General Population cell or yard and would always be 100 percent of the time isolated from other prisoners.(Real life doesnt play out like episodes of OZ.) Also any and all correspondences would be monitored at all times (so the terror plots the US are so afraid of arent going anywhere but around and around in their heads).So unless some Federal prison employee wanted to do something to one of the detainees, which is very unlikely, there is no real threat holding the detainees on US soil. A detainee in a Federal Prison is going be be in the same isolated bubble that they are already held in at Gitmo. Sure the detainees can be held indefinitely using the POW logic but why does the US use that avenue if the US has the evidence and case they claim to have instead of using the less popular Gitmo option? P.S. San Quentin is not a federal prison. It is a California State Prison so the detainees would not end up there. More information on SuperMax Prisions. Please Note there is only one Federal SuperMax Prison and please note some if its famous terrorist inmates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 8:35am
| I know, I was using it to illustrate a point. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 8:40am
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 8:47am
It's interesting that you chose to use Native Americans, who after 1800 or so were absolutely hunted down by United States soldiers in order to take their land, as an analogy to modern Al-Qaeda. That reeks of self-righteousness. Also, the likelihood of terrorists breaking their friends out of the most heavily guarded prisons in the country seems highly unlikely to me. I can imagine perhaps some escaping, but if we can keep them from escaping from Gitmo, I have a feeling we can keep them from escaping Leavenworth. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 10:17am
The facility at Gitmo is nothing at all compared to the ADX Florence facility. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 10:26am
|
um, because you promised to close it within a year, during the campaign... ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 10:30am
|
I think we should meet them halfway. (I.e. we should fly them half the distance from Gitmo to their home continent then let them out to find their own transportation for the rest of the journey.) /trolling -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 10:47am
While I understand the complaint, and It frustrates me that this has gotten stalled, it's not 100 percent Obama's fault. He called for it to be closed and the prisoners transferred already, if I recall it was done within a few weeks of him taking office. Then it turned into this moronic game of NIMBY where governors, even ones who supported the closing of Gitmo, have decided that somehow a bunch of 20 and 30-year-old desert fighters from Afghanistan can break out of a maximum security lock-down facility. I think Obama should call them all out on it, because their fears are ridiculous. My frustration comes from him not pointing out their idiocy. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 10:58am
|
Give them all to Joe Arapio. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 11:07am
I did LOL at FE's comment -- because it is definitely legitimate. Personally, I don't understand why Obama is listening to the governors. Put them in a federal penitentiary, the governors don't have control over that, right? ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:09pm
 No right-minded person is sure of their innocence, and none of us (so far as I can tell) are advocating general release. For most of us, our problem is that Gitmo allows for the US government to do things they should not, on both moral and constitutional grounds, be able to do. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 12:47pm
|
There is one problem if these individuals are housed in a USP. Space. There is no Segregation Unit large enough to house the numbers, and to rework the exsisting housing units, mess halls, and recreation facilities would be impractical.
Another issue is the Federal Regulations that USP's, and FCI's must operate under according to US Code and BOP internal regulations. There is no clause or seperate set of regs for mass numbers of high security detainees or hostile "combatants". (Look what happened with the Cuban "refugee" detainees at USP Atlanta, and the Arkansas facility) Another issue is the actual left leaning interpatation of the Constitution once these individuals leave GITMO (A Military Facility operated under UCMJ as compared to civil law), by regulation and Law they would have the "right" to full legal council (not a bad thing), but the security requirements for these "legal" visits would be extensive, as well as jeopardizing the safety of the Lawyer, Staff, fellow inmates and any and all visitors within range of a chance encounter. NOW FOR THE FUN PART MANY DO NOT THINK ABOUT: My primary concern in an open society the potential of organized forces on the outside of these stateside facilities co-ordinating an escape attempt jeopardizing the surrounding community. And the potential of civilian or prison staff hostages taken within the local community (see Isreal) demanding the release of certian detainees. The local communities where the hostages will be taken from will go crazy, and the response by community and staff will be overwhealmingly bad (see Attica, NY). And the Law does not allow the military (who is best trained for these situations) to be involved, and this action is well above the skill level of the FBI, SORT, SWAT whoever. Remmember most of these detainees for the most part are highly trained "soldiers" not a loose group of criminals/inmates organizing an escape or riot. So the level of resistance and the cause itself will be way above the level the civilian law enforcement community can handle. GITMO conforms as it is to the Geneva Convention of 1949, as per UCMJ officials and Civil Law, for the confinment of hostile combatants and suspected colaberators during a time of War. Understand the US does not need to declare war, if one of the parties has officially declared a state of war the detention of hostile forces for the duration by the other side is legal under the Geneva Convention. Nowhere in the Convention does it state the "hostile force" detainees are entitled to a trial in any shape. meaqns. manner or form. THE INDIAN REFERENCE: To further clearify, I brought up the treatment of American Indian "detainees" and reservations to highlight the exsisting laws as they stand in reference still to the American Indian. Another interesting tidbit on the American Indian is the double jeopardy exclusion. An American Indian can be tried for the same offense twice, Once under the Tribal Judicial System (if offense is committed on the "Rez"), then again for the same offense in the Federal or State Courts, and the sentences can run concurrant. The GITMO detainees have more rights than a true Native American today. I respect the American Indian as true warriors, and even today, I think thier Casino run in an attempt to be "independant" of Government dependance is great, and then have the US Government if the Casino is too successfull step in and again change the rules (to keep them dependant). The Onedaga Nation in NY is a classic example. The US Government has yet to fully accept the "Nation within a Nation" clauses it placed in many of the "treaties" signed in the 1800's. These treaties are still legal, but "overturned" on every instance used in a legal defense or civil suit by the Federal Courts. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 1:03pm
| ^tl;dr? |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 1:05pm
|
To add to OS's comments on unfair treatment of Native Americans: Anyone who is interested should look up the Winters Supreme Court decision (related to reservation water rights) and the way the State and Federal governments have freely ignored it for about the past 100 years.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 1:49pm
If only there was some establishment that could decide if these people were innocent or not. Maybe some kind of deciding group. Maybe even some branch of government or something. Nah, that's crazy. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 1:52pm
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 2:01pm
Whale, I can't believe you're courting ideas like that; what is wrong with your judgment? -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 2:09pm
HERESY!!!! Commissar, your bolt pistol please! ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 2:22pm
|
Why are we so worried on the innocense or guilt. Again under the Geneva Convention 1949, the UCMJ, hostile enemy armed forces, or thier collaborators captured during a time of war can be held until the ceasation of hostilities. Even though we have not declared war on "Al-Queda, they by thier spokesman Osama Bin Ladin has declared a state of war between Al-Queda and America, The West, and The Infidel, satisfying the Geneva Convention needs for legal detention of combatants and collaborators.
POW's, EPW's or political detainees from a hostile faction in a declared war (check the Box, Bin Ladin did that) are not entitled to trail by the captors, nor legal representation under the Geneva Convention. The detainee can by submitting evidense in his/her defense argue that they are not "combatants" or "collaborators" in front of a military tribunial of the holding party. And if found "not involved" not innocent, they can be repatriated to the country of origin through a neutral party. We are in a war, like it or not, this is not a civil legal issue, the UCMJ and acting under the limits of the Geneva Convention 1949, we are doing as required. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 3:23pm
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 3:45pm
|
The detainee is issued with a complete handbook in thier native language detailing thir "rights" and responsibilities while in detention. By law they are issued a copy of the Geneva Convention chapters refering to being interned as a POW, EPW, or Political detainee of a hostile power. SO unless they are totally ignorant they know, and I would bet under pressure by fellow detainees not to give up any information that can escolate into further American intervention in the terror networks. To prove they are "not involved" the obvious method would be to identify those who are, and any other information on others to exonerate themselves. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 6:11pm
| What does that have to do with proving you were not involved?^ |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 6:16pm
|
Answers the question right above the post, read son......stop assuming -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 6:22pm
No, I got that part, this is the part that I dont quite get
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 6:32pm
|
OK, lets review, you live in a neighborhood where you know of gang activity and the individuals involved, but you are not. The police arrest you on suspition of being involved in a robbery, you were not but know who was. How do you clear yourself?
Either "ratting" out the true perps, or stay quiet and take the heat knowing once you get back on the street, and the local gang now knows you are the one the "ratted" out the group by giving up the invividuals or information on thier activities in the neighborhood. Odds on a long and happy life are? Got it now. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 6:35pm
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 7:52pm
What !?! If I was arrested and didnt commit the crime I would be arraigned within 72 hours and given a lawyer. The DA office would have to present evidence against me and make their case stick which they wouldnt be able to do if I didnt commit the crime I am accused. The detainees should be afforded the same opportunity. Again in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty. Not rot in jail until you squeal. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 October 2009 at 8:11pm
|
But in the detainee situation the detainee is under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ under the Rules of War and the Geneva Convention pertaining to the confinment and treatment of combatants during a time of war.
And obviously you have not been arrested and spent a little time before attorney arrival under questioning. Comman practice is to ask questions after the Miranda reading until attorney shows. And many will roll on buds before they will take the heat themselves, and usually pretty quickly if they are truely innocent. Problem with God here and the defense lawyers of the country is that they can know deep down the guilt of those they are defending, and defend them using every "trick" in the book, but will not let the one the just defended successfully live next door to them. For they know they let a guilty or violent individual back on the streets. They are offered in thier inbriefing to provide evidense of thier not being a combatant or colaborator, as well as given the required documentation. But as in my example, to be detained by US forces, proving you are not involved and then returned to the streets of Bagdad or Islamabad. Once the first Al-Queda cell has a member caught or an operation foiled, you having just returned from GITMO are the first ones the torture troops go after to explain the failings of thier operation, and do not expect a happy ending. So many an individual will in an act of survival not respond or attempt to prove themselves not involved. These detainees are not covered under our Penal Laws, they do not have the rights of citizens of the US, they are covered under the Rules of War, the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. And can be held for the duration of hostilities. It is only fools that pretend that this is not a war, and that POW's, EPW's, or hostile political detainees deserve the "benifit" of our legal system. -------------
|