7 ex-Gitmo prisoners return to terror
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Re: Re: Re: 7 ex-Gitmo prisoners return to terror
They are not being held and treated according to the Geneva convention for POVs.
Try again.
Hans
Then YOU don't get it. They are NOT prisoners of war. They have specifically been declared not prisoners of war by the US govt. Otherwise they should have been released because the war ended officially moths ago.Elind said:
They are not being held and treated according to the Geneva convention for POVs.
Try again.
Hans
Flo
Illuminator
Re: Re: Re: 7 ex-Gitmo prisoners return to terror
If you say so ...
Elind said:
If you say so ...
Elind
Philosopher
Kerberos said:
Nit picking apologist forgot to mention that this was over 2 years ago and that the sentence following says: "But he acknowledged he was still considering the "legal ramifications" of whether the Geneva Conventions apply to them."
Since then they have been visited regularly by the Red Cross, had communication with family, had their status and circumstances of capture reviewed by military court and had a chance to contest their detention (many chose not to).
It is "people like you" who will always support the loser, terrorist or not.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Mmokay. So, let's say they're POVs. Then why are they not released, since the war officially ended months ago? And why are some of them released? If they are POVs, then they should be released collectively at the end of the war.Elind said:
Try AGAIN.
Hans
You might want to look up what apologist means.Elind said:
Bush hasn't changed his position since then.Elind said:
I hadn't heard they could contact their family; please provide a link, in any case that doesn't make them POWs.Elind said:
After SC said that they had to, the Bush-administration has begun reviewing the cases. Have they reviewed all cases?Elind said:
You seem to know an awful lot about “people like meâ€, please explain how you’ve reached this fascinating conclusion.Elind said:
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
Elind said:
Common criminals or POWs really makes no difference.
If criminal suspects, provide evidence, bring charges, have a trial, if found guilty - incarcerate.
If POWs, detain under the rules of Geneva.
As enemy combatants, nobody really knew what to do with these guys, so they were released after years of treatment that may have included beatings and abuse and torture. This special 'enemy combatant' status dreamed up by the Bush admin is the reason these guys are back in action. Sounds like Elind is a classic Bush apologist.
evildave
Unregistered
E
If 'apologism' means I believe that people who are suspected of crimes should be investigated, charged and tried for their crimes, then 'apologist' I am.
What's the 'special word' for someone who believes people should be rounded up and branded, then imprisoned indefinitely, tortured and left to rot in prison, if they're not accidentally tortured to death there?
What can we say about a character who is actually beneath 'terrorists', because they seem to think we should dismantle justice, freedom and democracy FOR the terrorists, and make the basest armpit of a government in the Middle East look like utopian, rather than preserve the things that make America great?
I guess we can call them an 'Elind'.
What's the 'special word' for someone who believes people should be rounded up and branded, then imprisoned indefinitely, tortured and left to rot in prison, if they're not accidentally tortured to death there?
What can we say about a character who is actually beneath 'terrorists', because they seem to think we should dismantle justice, freedom and democracy FOR the terrorists, and make the basest armpit of a government in the Middle East look like utopian, rather than preserve the things that make America great?
I guess we can call them an 'Elind'.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Apologies if this point has been made, but how do we know these guys returned to terror? As opposed to taking to it after release? Presumably they wouldn't have been released if there was any actual evidence of them being at it before. Unless, of course, they were known to be stupid bad guys that could be tagged, released and busted to give Gitmo apologists something to work with. I'm a skeptic; I don't dismiss any possibility out of hand.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
from evildave:
Around here, it used to be "sir". (It hurts less if you spell it "cur".)
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Apologies specifically to Flo.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,508
Earlier in this thread Elind was getting all the facts wrong, I assumed it was ignorance....It now appears obvious that the fact manufacture is deliberate. Stand by for his next claim that the prisoners voted to stay at gitmo because the food is so good.....
Elind
Philosopher
Kerberos said:
You are an apologist for muslim fanatics/terrorists/jackasses or anyone who wants to kill us (presumably not you). That is the definition although the categories are relevant to this thread only. You could also be an apologist for pedophiles or news anchors or misbehaving teenagers; but that would be irrelevant, would it not? Did you have a point to make in that regard?
I don't know squat about you, except that you are extremely concerned about the well-being of anyone captured on the field of battle to the exclusion of anything else that is relevant; like all the other apologist who chose to respond pavlovianly to this post and I find many similarities between Randi's discourses with dowsers, for example, who simply can't understand why the check wasn't earned. Needless to say, they all think it was Randi's fault.
Do you find that a fascinating explanation for a fascinating conclusion?
Elind
Philosopher
CapelDodger said:
You call that skepticism? This forum deserves better.
Elind
Philosopher
evildave said:
Cheap; but classic for the category.
Elind
Philosopher
fishbob said:
You know, if the terrorists were smart, and the apologists had their way, then the best strategy (for them) would just be for all of them to surrender and demand a trial ala OJ. The legal system would collapse, Court TV would buy up all the other channels and the rest of us would suffer terribly and vote The Fool as president.
Why is so hard for apologists to recognize the difference between war and criminal behaviour within a civil society? Perhaps because we have not faced this scenario before, and they can't cope with the change from WWII movies?
Elind
Philosopher
MRC_Hans said:
OK. You make your nitpick point. You think the war is over on a semantic quote technicality, and you consider that a serious response to the topic? Bye Hans.
evildave
Unregistered
E
CapelDodger said:
That's just the problem, isn't it?
If someone claimed Elind was a baby raper, DUE PROCESS means that we investigate those charges, and if they appear to have merit, Elind gets his day in court, and after that, if they had enough merit to convince a jury of his peers, he is convicted and put away where he can't reach any more babies. What Elind seems to want is the assumption that Elind is a baby raper because the charge is so terrible, and that he should be punished for it outright without troubling to investigate, try or convict. This all seems fair to Elind's POV, so obviously we should brand him a baby raper and be happy if he's forever imprisoned.
Because the United States of America has abandoned due process and simple investigation of crimes (except for torturing victims until they would confess to well, anything at places like at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib), we have no way to determine whether they were 'terrorists' before they were rounded up.
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/terr18e_20041018.htm
All I see is evidence that el presidente's security directives are not working. We lazily round up 'whoever' and we just as lazily (eventually) release them back into the wild as willy-nilly as we round them up. Just wonderful. This is simply evidence that our 'anti-terror' policies are garbage. Of 'about 146 people' released, 4% have returned to (or turned to) terrorism.
No due process means no justice. Our administration's policy seems to be just randomly flailing around and not doing anything effective, while making martyrs of people (some of whom MAY be dangerous, but we have no way of knowing that, because they don't bother with realistic investigation or trials) at the same time.
The vcery dangerous precedent is that once you begin making exceptions to human rights, you've driven in the wedge that allows these 'exceptions' to grow. Perhaps until eventually the exception is people who are treated as human beings should be treated. (A bit of 'slippery slope' argument, but I'd rather not give scoundrels the excuse to experiment and 'find out' for sure.)
But what does that mean to unprincipled idiots who believe that their own rights are inviolate, while they happily watch other people stripped of the same rights? Nothing at all. They are immune to any sense, including common sense.