Guantanamo vs. Iran

[Ziggurat]

We need new rules to govern our conduct during this new era. Otherwise, a perpetual state of war can exist, until the President or whoever decides "war is over".

Once again, you betray your ignorance of the issues. Congress authorized a war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Congress can repeal that authorization if it so chooses. That isn't up to the president, and Congress isn't just "whoever". Congress has always had the power to declare war for however long it's felt like.

 

[The Fool]

1. Individual taken to Guantanamo where combatants in a military conflict involving America and the combatants.

1. 
   Sorry...
   Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, was kidnapped in Pakistan and given to Egypt for a while..then on to Gitmo. He was released when no evidence was produced of him ever doing anything . He was not a combatant , he was a fruit shop owner from Sydney.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It is my best guess that if Iran, or Syria, or any other country actually did capture covert ops Americans out of uniform, the USA would still insist that they be treated under Geneva Convention guidelines. But we will have to wait for that to happen.

No, we won't. Gary Powers as sentenced to hard labor, even though he was in uniform. There are plenty of spies who were not afforded the protections of the GC.

Iran does NOT swan around the globe telling other countries what to do and calling itself 'the Land of the Free'.

They most certainly do tell other countries what to do, going so far as to hire hitmen to kill citizens of other countries that publish books that they don't like.

Nor does it insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms' on them, when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources

So during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran wasn't after Iraq's oil?

Actually, more than your statement about POW's - after all, there are NO 'POW's at Gitmo - only a hitherto unheard-of category of detainee created by the US Executive, which they nominate 'Enemy Combatant'.

Who 'doesn't know what they're talking about' now?

Seeing as how the category of "illegal combatant" is not hitherto unheard-of, you would be the one who "doesn't know what they're talking about".

My point about the Cheney regime lying about their motivations for invading Iraq is in the same vein

What proof do you have that he lied?

 

[Thunder]

The London bombers were not Al Qaeda members. The Madrib bombers were not Al Qaeda members. Are you suggesting that this "war" is only against Al Qaeda and the Taliban? How do you identify someone as being Al Qaeda? Do they carry a membership card?

 

[Ziggurat]

The London bombers were not Al Qaeda members. The Madrib bombers were not Al Qaeda members.

And they aren't in Guantanamo either. You've been incoherent and clueless from the start of this thread. What the hell is your point?

 

[Wat Tyler]

They most certainly do tell other countries what to do, going so far as to hire hitmen to kill citizens of other countries that publish books that they don't like.

Right, so a 'Religious Leader' telling his followers that it's OK/'a Good Thing' to murder an individual (however reprehensible this is) is the same thing as threatening nation States with the might of your Armed Forces is it?

Don't think so.

[Sidebar]
Could you let me have your opinon of the 'conservative Christian' preacher (Pat Buchanan, IIRC?) who called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez?
[/Sidebar]

So during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran wasn't after Iraq's oil?

Either show me where I have alleged that, or please stop trying to 'put words in my mouth' in order to obfuscate the issue, OK?

It's bloody puerile, it convinces no-one, and it's becoming more than a little annoying.

Seeing as how the category of "illegal combatant" is not hitherto unheard-of, you would be the one who "doesn't know what they're talking about".

Really?
Cite please.

Oh, and lastly, I repeat my earlier question:

Why the Vorsprung dürch Technik did you mention Prisoners of War in this thread at all?
Or does your refusal to answer this simple question indicate an admission that you were merely trying to muddy the waters because you lack the facts to be able to refute your opponents' assertions?

What proof do you have that he lied?

How about the ones I cited earlier?

E.g. - his speech in 1999 to the Institute of Petroleum?
(Example quote:
"So where is this oil going to come from?" he asked. His answer: the Middle East was "where the prize ultimately lies". The problem was that "governments and national oil companies" controlled almost all of the "assets", and "even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow".)

How about the stated aims of the PNAC?

How about the Production Sharing Agreements for the exploitation of the Iraqi oilfields - the ones that rule-out any involvement of regional experts like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and leave the way open to exclusive exploitation by firms like say, I dunno - Halliburton?
For contracts twice the length of Industry Standard ones, at TWICE the shares-of-profits for the Companies involved?

How about the way that the 'Iraq reconstruction' contracts were GIVEN to certain Corporations with absolutely no competition?

How about the way that Cheney et al overruled the Pentagon, CIA & DIA analysts who told them that they had not allowed enough time to plan for an occupation, or allowed sufficient numbers of troops to run it?

How about the fact that the ONLY facilities that the US Military was ordered to guard after the toppling of Saddam were the Oil production facilities and the Oil Ministry?

How about the fact that Halliburton was charging the US Military twice the going rate for gas in Iraq - when the facilities producing it had been 'liberated' for Halliburton by that same US Military, who are also now guarding them for it?

Or, if you'd like some evidence of the man's character, how about you look up his role in the 'whiter-than-white' Nixon administration - or how about the fact that that famous 'shy and retiring ingenue' Henry Kissinger described him as a 'Black Belt in the arts of Bureaucratic warfare'?

I explain these nuggets by saying that Dick Cheney is a liar - you appear to put these 'failures' down to him being peerlessly stupid.

I put it to you that a man does not get as far in Life® as he has done if he is that thick.

Anyway, I needs-must be off to climb the wooden hill to Bedfordshire now - catch you tomorrow.

 

[The Painter]

The London bombers were not Al Qaeda members. The Madrib bombers were not Al Qaeda members. Are you suggesting that this "war" is only against Al Qaeda and the Taliban? How do you identify someone as being Al Qaeda? Do they carry a membership card?

How do you know they weren't Al Qaeda?

Two of the four suicide bombers who attacked London a year ago had spent time at an al Qaeda camp to prepare themselves for a suicide attack, the deputy leader of al Qaeda claimed in new video excerpts released Friday.

http://kdka.com/homepage/topstories_story_188182021.html

Investigators believe the train bombings that killed 200 people here last week were the work of a multinational cell of al Qaeda loyalists, some of whom entered Spain specifically to carry out the attacks and who are now the target of an international effort to identify and capture them, according to European and Arab intelligence officials.
The officials said the preliminary investigation and interrogation of five arrested suspects -- three Moroccans and two Indians -- as well as other evidence indicated that the Thursday morning rush-hour bombings were carried out by the al Qaeda network, marking the first time the group has struck in Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58697-2004Mar14?language=printer


Looks like they may have been associated with Al Qaeda.

 

[Thunder]

Zig- the London bombers and the Madrid bombers are not in Guantanamo. They are dead. But the copycat bombers are on trial and this is a good thing. They will be convincted but they will have the right to defend themselves and actual evidence will be presented against them. I hope this is the same outcome with the folks at GITMO.

 

[Azure]

They are NOT POW's, so why mention the treatment of POW's at all, other than to try to muddy the waters?

Your stupidity amazes me.

Keep it up. You just might qualify for a Darwin award.

 

[Azure]

The London bombers were not Al Qaeda members. The Madrib bombers were not Al Qaeda members. Are you suggesting that this "war" is only against Al Qaeda and the Taliban? How do you identify someone as being Al Qaeda? Do they carry a membership card?

There were extremists. This war is against Islamic extremism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig- the London bombers and the Madrid bombers are not in Guantanamo. They are dead. But the copycat bombers are on trial and this is a good thing. They will be convincted but they will have the right to defend themselves and actual evidence will be presented against them. I hope this is the same outcome with the folks at GITMO.

The Gitmo detainees do indeed get to defend themselves. So what's your point?

 

[Thunder]

Yes. They do now..after years of pressure and law suits. Thanks to people like me who value true justice and dont want to perpetually imprison possibly innocent individuals. America still works. Thank God.

 

[Darth Rotor]

[Sidebar]
Could you let me have your opinon of the 'conservative Christian' preacher (Pat Buchanan, IIRC?) who called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez?
[/Sidebar]

The Ayatollah Khomeni was the leader of his government (at least the Islamic High Council element of the Islamic Republic) while Pat Robertson is not a member of any government. Ayatollah Khomeni had to power to assign government assets via official channels to whatever hit he ordered. Pat Robertson could only suggest a hit, or try to hire his own hit men out of his own pocket, which I suspect he was too cheap to do.

Is that distinction clear enough for you?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes. They do now..after years of pressure and law suits. Thanks to people like me who value true justice and dont want to perpetually imprison possibly innocent individuals. America still works. Thank God.

What did you do to influence the cases at Gitmo, personally?

DR

 

[Cylinder]

Yes. They do now..after years of pressure and law suits. Thanks to people like me who value true justice and dont want to perpetually imprison possibly innocent individuals. America still works. Thank God.

Who holds responsibility for the blurring of the distinction between combatant and non-combatant?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Right, so a 'Religious Leader' telling his followers that it's OK/'a Good Thing' to murder an individual (however reprehensible this is) is the same thing as threatening nation States with the might of your Armed Forces is it?

http://blog.lextext.com/_photos/DSCN0126.JPG

Either show me where I have alleged that, or please stop trying to 'put words in my mouth' in order to obfuscate the issue, OK?

I already quoted where you suggested it, and then I asked whether that’s actually what you meant. Do you have an answer, or are you just going to duck the issue with dishonest personal attacks?

Really?
Cite please.

Why should I bother to dig up a cite when you’ve already shown yourself to be dishonest jackass? Tell you what. You admit that you acted with blatant disregard for the truth, and apologize, and I’ll give a cite that the concept of illegal combatants predates the Bush Administration.

Oh, and lastly, I repeat my earlier question:

And by “repeat”, you mean “ask for the first time”.

Why the Vorsprung dürch Technik did you mention Prisoners of War in this thread at all?

You were the one who mentioned them, not me. Perhaps you should see a doctor to be screened for dementia.

Or does your refusal to answer this simple question indicate an admission that you were merely trying to muddy the waters because you lack the facts to be able to refute your opponents' assertions?

And by “refuse to answer”, you mean “not read my mind and give an answer to a question that I haven’t even asked yet”. And by “simple”, you mean “based-on-false-premises”.

How about the ones I cited earlier?

I asked for proof, not circumstantial evidence.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The Ayatollah Khomeni was the leader of his government (at least the Islamic High Council element of the Islamic Republic) while Pat Robertson is not a member of any government. Ayatollah Khomeni had to power to assign government assets via official channels to whatever hit he ordered. Pat Robertson could only suggest a hit, or try to hire his own hit men out of his own pocket, which I suspect he was too cheap to do.

Is that distinction clear enough for you?

DR

Also, Khomeni ordered a hit over an "offense" to Islam. Robertson wants Chavez killed for alleged violations of human rights. More importantly, Robertson merely expressed an opinion regarding whether Chavez should be killed. Khomeni actually participated in attempted murder.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Also, Khomeni ordered a hit over an "offense" to Islam. Robertson wants Chavez killed for alleged violations of human rights. More importantly, Robertson merely expressed an opinion regarding whether Chavez should be killed. Khomeni actually participated in attempted murder.

In any event, Pat Robertson is a man in severe need of a bottle of STFU pills.

DR

 

[Thunder]

LOL. What did I do to personally influence the cases at GITMO? Nothing. I said people LIKE me...not me. Im am not a member of the ACLU or any other group that has sued the Feds over this issue.

 

[Dorian Gray]

So the Iranians blindfolded, shackled, isolated, and used psychological pressure on the 15 Brits. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans or the Brits treat "enemy combatants"?

What could we possibly say to Iran? "Only we can declare people enemy combatants and withhold Geneva Conventions protections. You do not have this discretion."

Perphaps things are coming full circle. Perhaps we are seeing the danger of legalizing the suspension of legal and humanitarian protections during wartime. If its ok for the USA to do it...then its also ok for Iran.

One way it's different is that Iran released the Brits after about 2 weeks, while we still hold hundreds of people we captured up to 4 years ago.