triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Works now, but still not seeing what you're saying. Is there a rate for those that are re-arrested for the SAME conviction that they were originally convicted for?
Hunger strikers protesting indefinite detention at Gitmo
- Thread starter Silhouette
- Start date
Works now, but still not seeing what you're saying. Is there a rate for those that are re-arrested for the SAME conviction that they were originally convicted for?
The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān "students"), alternative spelling Taleban,[6] is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan. It spread into Afghanistan and formed a government, ruling as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001, with Kandahar as the capital
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
torifrog
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 256
Well we don't talk about David Hicks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks ) - and the later ruled INVALID laws that led to his detention ... or Mamdouh Habib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamdouh_Habib ). Both of whom actually had a Govt who gave a crap about them.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
You have a crappy source. Your Wiki link on Habib says that he "was held the longest at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp as an enemy combatant"....not true, that link is from 2006.
As for your lie that he (an Australian citizen) had a government who "gave a crap" about him, well try again. From his own admission, he was tortured by Americans and Egyptians WHILE "Australian intelligence officers were present."
Out of thousands or tens of thousands of cases, there may well be one or two cases in which justice prevails.
Fishstick
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,603
But their actual origin is pakistani, which is a few blocks behind your quote:
The same wiki article said:
More news from the land of freedom, justice and human rights.
EDIT: Actually the same thing rehashed, but hey, it's CNN, what do you expect?
EDIT: Actually the same thing rehashed, but hey, it's CNN, what do you expect?
Last edited:
Why would he want to resolve it?
- His supporters have never and will never hold him accountable for his promise to close Gitmo. The bogey-men Rethuglicans can be scapegoated for everything.
- If he released the prisoners, he would face criticism for the inevitable acts of terrorism linked to them.
Worst case scenario: hunger-strikers die, in which case the Republicans get the blame anyways. The motivation to act just isn't there.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Silhouette
Muse
He can direct Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel to use his authority to issue the certifications or national security waivers required by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2013) to effect transfers from Guantánamo.
He can appoint an individual within his Administration to lead the effort to close Guantánamo and lead the transfer effort.
He can announce a concrete and specific plan to close the facility. As a first step and a clear signal that this is the beginning of a new chapter in Guantánamo’s legacy, he can immediately release Shaker Aamer and Djamel Ameziane.
He can veto the NDAA if it contains language that allows for the continued indefinite detention of prisoners without trial.
He can use his bully pulpit to exhort congress to support funding the closure of the facility, to support the trials of prisoners in a federal court, and to support the release of innocent prisoners into the United States if no other country will take them. He's used it effectively to gain support for Obamacare, the repeal of DADT, and he's using it now to gain support for expanding background checks on gun sales. He could be trying harder with respect to Guantanamo.
I understand why they don't want to release prisoners to certain countries, that there are risks involved with that. However, if there is no evidence to support the allegation that a prisoner is guilty of terrorism, or engaging in war with our forces, then it is unreasonable to maintain that they are a threat and that we are entitled to detain them indefinitely. If there is cause, then they can press charges and make their case in a federal court. Otherwise, we are depriving a human being of their inherent right to freedom. What normally happens to POWs at the end of a war? If we have a global war on terror that by definition has no end, because terrorism is a strategy and a concept and not a country with borders, how will we justify detaining POWs in perpetuity? Would we allow our own soldiers to be treated that way? Why should we expect any different, since we are setting a standard of treatment outside of the Geneva Conventions?
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
They won't, suicide is against Islam. It's nothing but a publicity stunt.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Here is the breakdown Travis:
Obama is the President of the United States. It is his JOB to resolve this. He has not only the power of the presidency but he also has many, many smart people helping him on a daily basis.
Disclosure: Yeah, I voted for Obama (twice).
Praktik
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,244
I thought this was a useful reminder from 2010 submission in a court case from Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, basically demonstrating that Bush admin knew innocents were locked up:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...bush-knew-many-at-gitmo-were-innocent/275327/
I think given the way many of these people were originally detained, on the word of hearsay by rivals and delivered by proxies ("the majority of them had never seen a U.S. soldier in the process of their initial detention"). Add those innocents from that kind of broken process on top of the innocents we would normally predict would be caught due to bad intel, and I think you have a pretty compelling reason to justify some moral outrage.
Apologists for Gitmo almost never tangle with the innocence factor, much like supporters of capital punishment prefer to ignore the problem of innocents being executed when they can...
From the article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...bush-knew-many-at-gitmo-were-innocent/275327/
I think given the way many of these people were originally detained, on the word of hearsay by rivals and delivered by proxies ("the majority of them had never seen a U.S. soldier in the process of their initial detention"). Add those innocents from that kind of broken process on top of the innocents we would normally predict would be caught due to bad intel, and I think you have a pretty compelling reason to justify some moral outrage.
Apologists for Gitmo almost never tangle with the innocence factor, much like supporters of capital punishment prefer to ignore the problem of innocents being executed when they can...
From the article:
Vice President Cheney took the position that the ends justify the means, he "had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees were innocent," and he seemed to believe that "if hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it. That seemed to be the philosophy that ruled the vice president's office."
So are we cool forcing food down the nostrils of innocents that have no expectation of ever being released?Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Me personally, I am cool with it.
They took this publicity stunt (Islam does not condone suicide) from the suffragists in early 20th century U.S. & UK.
Half the population of the world are women and most Muslims don't believe they should have the same rights as men.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Sure.
I'd also be cool with providing two meals a day, and letting them decide for themselves if and when they wanted to eat.
And I'd also be cool with letting them decide for themselves, up to the point where force-feeding them cost me less time/effort/labor/money/etc. than providing medical support to a person who is trying to die of starvation.
But I don't really have any particular preference for (or against) any of the above options.
Belz...
Fiend God
Wow, that's... tremendously stupid.
I'm amazed you didn't Godwin this while you were at it.