Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[Zep]

Y'all are free to treat the illegal combatants you apprehend any way you wish. If you deem them subject only to your civil courts, go for it.

And, as a sovereign nation, you can borrow all the territory your politicians can grab and hold using your armed forces.




What actually bothers you is that some of us can actually sort out fact from fiction.

Re your response, I believe I have it now ... we are doing what you what do, just not fast enough to suit your sensibilities of good-fellowship and fair-play.

Nothing about you bothers me. I hope you are having fun just a-rockin' on yer chair on the porch and spittin'.

 

[Elind]

If you allow that such a process might be feasible, what are YOUR thoughts on how it might be implemented?

I don't allow it is feasible, or necessary, which I thought was the point of my post. *snort*

 

[Ziggurat]

And why can you NOT get a multinational tribunal of this style going right away to deal with these people?

There's another factor which has been neglected so far in this thread, but which is actually rather critical: Nuremburg happened after WWII was over. The war against Al Qaeda is not over, and probably won't be over for a long time. Issues like protecting an intelligence source matter quite a bit more when the conflict is ongoing, but recede in importance once the conflict is over. Even were we to decide that Nurenburg is the appropriate model, that wouldn't automatically mean that we should be bringing people to trial at this point in time.

The point remains - there is a precedent, a very similar precedent. It's an example worth studying and emulating, surely.

Studying, sure. Emulating, not necessarily. And even if we were to emulate it, that doesn't necessarily translate into trials while the conflict is ongoing.

 

[Zep]

I don't allow it is feasible, or necessary, which I thought was the point of my post. *snort*

Are we to be honoured with any reasons WHY it's not feasible?

All you have listed is a set of questions/problems that would seem to be irrelevant, have self-evident answers, or could be easily resolved with just a bit of effort by the appropriate parties. In short, speculative reasons NOT to do anything about it.

This sort of thing has been done successfully before; so it can be done again today. In a similar fashion, if necessary - doesn't have to be identical to the past.

But hey - if you won't be budged from thinking any change is necessary, then what's left to discuss? Recipes? Puns? Kitties?

 

[Zep]

There's another factor which has been neglected so far in this thread, but which is actually rather critical: Nuremburg happened after WWII was over. The war against Al Qaeda is not over, and probably won't be over for a long time. Issues like protecting an intelligence source matter quite a bit more when the conflict is ongoing, but recede in importance once the conflict is over. Even were we to decide that Nurenburg is the appropriate model, that wouldn't automatically mean that we should be bringing people to trial at this point in time.

Why does the fact the conflict is still ongoing rule out action on war crimes now a la Nuremberg? Is that a "rule" or something? I don't think so, but I stand to be educated on that.

There are perfectly valid regulations and precedents for dealing with captured intel sources too. However I repeat an earlier comment: After four years in the pokey, the intel value of these people is surely nil - they would have been squeezed dry by now. They have been out of the game for years, their friends are dead or in hiding somewhere else entirely, their plans and contacts have probably changed dozens of times, whatever they DO know is probably useless. So why not convict and jail them if they are crims? And if you ever want them again for intel studies, you know where they will still be...

Studying, sure. Emulating, not necessarily. And even if we were to emulate it, that doesn't necessarily translate into trials while the conflict is ongoing.

Why not? Wartime trials of captives are hardly a rare thing at all.

My point about the Nuremberg trials is to do with the scope of reference and methodologies for dealing with the sort of criminals you allegedly have in custody in Gitmo. Gitmo is not an entirely new situation, there IS a previous legal model to work from, and it might even lend an air of legitimacy if it was made clear any policy was based on such a model ("We are going to treat them like the Nazis were treated at Nuremberg - strict but fair.").

 

[hammegk]

Nothing about you bothers me. I hope you are having fun just a-rockin' on yer chair on the porch and spittin'.

Why thanks youngun'. Actually I keep re-reading the Koran, trying to understand why AussieNuts like it so much as a guide to lifestyle and worldview. That would be a meaningful and interesting "discussion".

I'm glad also you have solved all your little challenges at home and are so able and willing to assist other people.

Praise Allah.

 

[Elind]

Are we to be honoured with any reasons WHY it's not feasible?

*snort* I did, in the form of questions, whose rational answers show just how schoolboyishly naive your proposal is. What's the matter with you? Read the posts.

All you have listed is a set of questions/problems that would seem to be irrelevant, have self-evident answers, or could be easily resolved with just a bit of effort by the appropriate parties. In short, speculative reasons NOT to do anything about it.

*snort again* You might just as well suggest we let the UN deal with these matters. You have an agenda buddy. Issues are being deal with right now, but not according to your agenda which is primarily to bitch about anything the US, or even your own elected government does. You are a wannabe. Wannabe this wannabe that (rhymes with wallaby).

This sort of thing has been done successfully before; so it can be done again today. In a similar fashion, if necessary - doesn't have to be identical to the past.

Not identical, just similar ehh? That little distinction should be good for a few post pages if someone has the time to waste. I don't.

But hey - if you won't be budged from thinking any change is necessary, then what's left to discuss? Recipes? Puns? Kitties?

You are getting close, at least as far as engaging you. Join your other two bores in the club. Not very exclusive though.

 

[Zep]

Why thanks youngun'. Actually I keep re-reading the Koran, trying to understand why AussieNuts like it so much as a guide to lifestyle and worldview. That would be a meaningful and interesting "discussion".

I'm glad also you have solved all your little challenges at home and are so able and willing to assist other people.

Praise Allah.

Oh. you. have. wounded. me. so. How. will. I. ever. get. over. it. I. can't. stand. this. fierce. rhetoric. any. longer.

Whatever.

 

[Zep]

*snort* I did, in the form of questions, whose rational answers show just how schoolboyishly naive your proposal is. What's the matter with you? Read the posts.

*snort again* You might just as well suggest we let the UN deal with these matters. You have an agenda buddy. Issues are being deal with right now, but not according to your agenda which is primarily to bitch about anything the US, or even your own elected government does. You are a wannabe. Wannabe this wannabe that (rhymes with wallaby).

Not identical, just similar ehh? That little distinction should be good for a few post pages if someone has the time to waste. I don't.

You are getting close, at least as far as engaging you. Join your other two bores in the club. Not very exclusive though.

So what were those rational answers?

And you haven't got an agenda?

And now you've resorted to name-calling. And you've run out of cogent responses too, I see.

Like to join Hammy on his porch? You make a nice pair. You can play the banjo, he's already having a fiddle.

 

[hammegk]

And you've run out of cogent responses too, I see.

If any of you triplets ever presented a cogent idea more substantive than what a bright grade-schooler might dream up, you might get a cogent response. How are the wifeys taking to the burkas? Is the arabic coming along ok too?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why does the fact the conflict is still ongoing rule out action on war crimes now a la Nuremberg? Is that a "rule" or something? I don't think so, but I stand to be educated on that.

I'm not claiming it rules out trials before the conflict is over, I'm saying it's a lot easier to have such trials after the conflict is over.

There are perfectly valid regulations and precedents for dealing with captured intel sources too.

I'm not talking about captured intel sources. I'm talking about revealing intel sources at trial. Yes, yes, you can have the trials in secret with only judges who have security clearance. But that kind of removes the purpose of having such trials (rather than what we currently have), which is to be SEEN to be doing justice.

However I repeat an earlier comment: After four years in the pokey, the intel value of these people is surely nil - they would have been squeezed dry by now.

Not my point: the intel sources and techniques we used to nab such people may still be in play.