Guantanamo vs. Iran

[Darth Rotor]

LOL. What did I do to personally influence the cases at GITMO? Nothing.

Then why were you trying to associate yourself with this successful challenge to the government's policy?

DR

 

[RandFan]

Of course, there is something else to consider here:

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

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 (which is, after all, and as any fule kno, why all wars are started - to strengthen and perpetuate the initiating society's rulers' grip on power and wealth).

As a subject of a country that used to do both of the above, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it.

Sure, screw critical thinking and skepticism. Any CT will do.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Not according to what I understand.

Wiki

1. Before his arrest the Australian police had recorded Habib making threatening phone calls.
2. Habbib was arrested by local police in Pakistan and not kidnapped.
3. Australia, for whatever reason deemed Habib a terrorist and transfered him to Egypt. He later was turned over to US authorities after having confessed to a number of crimes (apparently no one is taking his confessions seriously due to the fact that Habib was tortured)

I now that Wiki can be unreliable so please to provide documentation for alternative version.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. They do now..after years of pressure and law suits.

Wrong once again. They had a review process from the start. What's different now is that Congress has spelled out the details of that process - this was a separation of powers issue (the SC ruling that Congress had to be the ones to decide), not one of inadequate process.

 

[Wat Tyler]

Your stupidity amazes me.

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

You just insult people, don't you?

You cannot offer any actual debate or evidence to back up your viewpoints, so you just throw insults at your opponents in the hope that no-one else will notice your absolute inability to debate anything.

Thank you for playing.

 

[Wat Tyler]

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

Yes.

The question was "does Iran swan around the world telling other countries what to do?".

So far, my opponents in this discussion have managed to recall one instance of the psychos running Iran threatening one individual.

The distinction is absolutely crystal to me.

It's just a shame that no-one on the other side of this discussion has the cojones to admit it.

 

[Wat Tyler]

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?

No, actually your quote shows that you cannot read.

The piece of mine that you quoted clearly refers to American actions.

You, on the other hand, said that I was saying that Oil was Iran's motivation in the Iran-Iraq war, no doubt to try to muddy the waters yet again.

Oh dear.

You're the one ducking the issue.

Why should I bother to dig up a cite when you’ve already shown yourself to be dishonest jackass?

Right, so I have to cite evidence for anything and everything that you disagree with, whereas you can just throw personal insults at your opponents, invariably demand proof from them, and don't have to provide any evidence whatever to support your viewpoint?

What does that say about you?

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.

G.A.L.

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

You are quite right here - so my apologies to you for that.

I asked that question of your fellow-traveller Azure, and he has ducked it twice - you merely jumped in an attempt to distract readers from the fact that he had slipped in his little piece about POW's to try to disguise the issue that the inmates of Gitmo are being held in a legal limbo where they are 'not in any legal jurisdiction' - i.e held beyond the safety of the Law.

How very 'American' and 'just' that is - not.

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

See above.

Azure was the first to mention them, not me.

Of course, this does give you a 'golden' opportunity to obfuscate and throw insults around - which, btw, is not a way to convince anyone of anything - other than your own lack of intelligence.

Why is it that you can only do those things, rather than offering any actual evidence to support your POV?

Is it perhaps because, somewhere deep down in your subconscious mind, you do actually know that you've been had, and it is your sense of embarrassment that sparks such bouts of unfocussed rage every time someone offers evidence to show this?

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”.

Well, let's see - Azure won't answer the question, and apparently you won't either.

You're in the wrong, and you know it - or why else offer only personal insults?

I asked for proof, not circumstantial evidence.

Hmm, let's see - I offer you more proof than has ever been offered by the Cheney regime to justify its illegal actions - or indeed by you and your fellow-travellers on their side - and you just say "that doesn't count!", rather than offering any shred of evidence to discredit what I have offered.

You're no Barrister, are you?

 

[Wat Tyler]

Sure, screw critical thinking and skepticism. Any CT will do.

Got any, you know, evidence of Iran doing any of those things?

Because there's plenty of evidence of us doing it.

Without evidence to back up your assertions, who's the Conspiracy Theorist?

 

[Cylinder]

...the issue that the inmates of Gitmo are being held in a legal limbo where they are 'not in any legal jurisdiction' - i.e held beyond the safety of the Law.

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station are not being held beyond the safety of the law nor in legal limbo. You may not agree with the Commissions Act but it is the law. The US Supreme Court has ruled some years ago that citizen-detainees at least are under the jurisdiction of US federal courts though that jurisdiction need not be enforced to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. The Bush administration had argued that they were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the military tribunal system.

 

[Cylinder]

So if those captured in Afghanistan were wearing green uniforms they would be allowed Geneva Conventions protections? I didnt realize it was that simple.

It's not. As spelled out in the Conventions text, the minimum procedures for some force not party to the Conventions to successfully petetion for their protections they must:

• Inform the opposing party that they intend to abide the provisions.
  
• Wear a fixed device visible from a distance.
  
• Be subject to a command structure that ends in the petitioning party.
  
• Carry arms openly.
  
• Obey the laws and customs of warfare.

 

[Wat Tyler]

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station are not being held beyond the safety of the law nor in legal limbo. You may not agree with the Commissions Act but it is the law. The US Supreme Court has ruled some years ago that citizen-detainees at least are under the jurisdiction of US federal courts though that jurisdiction need not be enforced to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. The Bush administration had argued that they were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the military tribunal system.

What about those detainees at Gitmo who are not U.S. citizens?

I mean, it's NOT U.S. sovereign territory, so as I understand it U.S. Criminal Law does not apply, and it isn't Cuba, so Cuban law doesn't apply, and they aren't (according to the Cheney regime) POW's, so international treaties afford them no protection under 'military' law - so what rights or legal protection do they have?

Sounds like a pretty good 'limbo' to me.

If I'm wrong about their status, please correct me.

 

[Azure]

You just insult people, don't you?

You cannot offer any actual debate or evidence to back up your viewpoints, so you just throw insults at your opponents in the hope that no-one else will notice your absolute inability to debate anything.

Thank you for playing.

Actually no. If you're too dumb to realize that any POWs captured in a war, by LAW they are supposed to be held until the end of said conflicts, then I have no words for you.

Of course, what I just said has absolutely nothing to do with Iran, or with Guantanamo...but rather with this post made by parky, which shows blatant ignorance towards the subject at hand.

Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge,

I NEVER said that there were POWs at Guantanamo. Which you falsely assumed I did, here..

Actually, more than your statement about POW's - after all, there are NO 'POW's at Gitmo -

Now take your stupidity elsewhere.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Except this isn't a real war. That's why they aren't POWs. You can't just grab people, many of whom have silm to no evidence that they were combatants, say we're in a war, then not define the terms of the war in such a way that you can really definitively say it's over at some point and then hold them indefinitely. After all, we're at war with drugs. Why not just lock up everyone who had dreads and see if we can get them to confess to dealing. It may take a few years and require some unusual methods, but hey, we're at war.

 

[WildCat]

Except this isn't a real war. That's why they aren't POWs. You can't just grab people, many of whom have silm to no evidence that they were combatants, say we're in a war, then not define the terms of the war in such a way that you can really definitively say it's over at some point and then hold them indefinitely. After all, we're at war with drugs. Why not just lock up everyone who had dreads and see if we can get them to confess to dealing. It may take a few years and require some unusual methods, but hey, we're at war.

I don't suppose you can show the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force for the "war on drugs"?

Didn't think so, but thanks for playing!

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I don't suppose you can show the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force for the "war on drugs"?

Didn't think so, but thanks for playing!

I see a sarcastic dismissal of a metaphor, but no actually adressing of any points. If this is a war, despite a lack of actual declaration of one, when is it over? After all, it was mission accomplished years ago. Should everyone at Gitmo be released as soon as Congress withdraws authorization?

 

[Azure]

You can't just grab people, many of whom have silm to no evidence that they were combatants,

Sure you can; its written in the Geneva Conventions.

Perhaps you should read it.

And I never called it a real war, nor did I call them POWs.

 

[Azure]

I see a sarcastic dismissal of a metaphor, but no actually adressing of any points. If this is a war, despite a lack of actual declaration of one, when is it over? After all, it was mission accomplished years ago. Should everyone at Gitmo be released as soon as Congress withdraws authorization?

Mission accomplished? Why are we still fighting?

You're referring to talking points, made by a politician who is not actually fighting. I will let the troops involved in this 'war' raise the mission accomplished banner.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Sure you can; its written in the Geneva Conventions.

Perhaps you should read it.

I did. This fourth Geneva convention seem to prohibit this. There is a distinction between civilians and combatants and it isn't up to the warring parties to decide what that is.

And I never called it a real war, nor did I call them POWs.

I specifically said you didn't. If it isn't a war, how is the rule that combatants are held to the end of a war relevant?

Mission accomplished? Why are we still fighting?

You're referring to talking points, made by a politician who is not actually fighting. I will let the troops involved in this 'war' raise the mission accomplished banner.

Troops never make this sort of decision anymore than they make the decision to go to war in the first place. It's always politicians.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I did. This fourth Geneva convention seem to prohibit this. There is a distinction between civilians and combatants and it isn't up to the warring parties to decide what that is.



I specifically said you didn't. If it isn't a war, how is the rule that combatants are held to the end of a war relevant?



Troops never make this sort of decision anymore than they make the decision to go to war in the first place. It's always politicians.

Tell me, Ace, what is a "real" war?

DR

 

[WildCat]

I see a sarcastic dismissal of a metaphor, but no actually adressing of any points. If this is a war, despite a lack of actual declaration of one, when is it over? After all, it was mission accomplished years ago. Should everyone at Gitmo be released as soon as Congress withdraws authorization?

You're not very good at this, are you? There were separate AUMF's for Iraq and the terrorist war - for all intents and purposes this is a declaration of war. I don't think there's anyone in Gitmo as a result of the Iraq war, captured insurgents get turned over to the Iraqi government. And you may be shocked to find that a war isn't over because some admiral hangs a banner on his ship.

AUMF for al Qaeda

AUMF for Iraq

AUMF for drugs