Many of them come from countries with similar laws and rights to America. Such as Britain. Yet America doesn't even treat them with the level of privilege they would receive from their own countries.

Are they British citizens? I haven't heard anything about the British government standing up for these people.

A trial is the best possible way to determine who "deserves it." Not a military commander or even a military tribunal.

Yeah, but a trial by civilians wouldn;t work very well either.

also omg burgerboys

You're right. They'd be inable to be impartial. But it's still the best possible option in my opinion.

So what would end up happening is little different than the current situation, only at a greater cost.

No.

For one, the detainees would be told what they were charged with.
Secondly, they would be given a sentence, rather than being (as far as they know) indefinitely imprisoned.
Third, they wouldn't be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

To compare the two methods of detention is ludicrous. Please don't do it again.

Why is a military tribunal so bad?

People take issue with tribunals because the decision is made by a single person, sometimes three people, who also serve as the judge in the case. instead of a group of people. However, the judge wouldn;t just be some random officer pulled of a base somewhere. They'd be military judges.




So, you think that if they went on trial, the military wouldn't continue to interrogate them? You think they'd be in a regualr prison with the general population? No, they'd be put in a special prison, away from the general population, just like they are now.

Personally I would put the decision in the hand of the military then handing it over towards 12 people who are for sure going to be biased one way or another. The military commanders might have some bias but they can end up in deep **** if they are proven to rule w/o examining case (i.e. show trial).

Hahahaha, ORJ had to get one of his lame clan buddies in on it.

Pfff, I had nothing to do with it. And if you'd read what he posted, you'd see he wasn't even supporting me.

The debate is not off-topic. I'm trying to demonstrate why I think there is more than enough reason to doubt the US government's sincerity. On page 1 we were discussing why one would even have reason to doubt their sincerity, and this has been a continuation of all that.





1. There are international laws and conventions regarding human rights and treatment of prisoners of war to which America is bound.

2. They are not proven terrorists untill they've had a fair trial. The entire debate about military tribunals is pretty futile considering the fact that the largest part of the people being held haven't even been officially charged, and only a handful have been judged by military tribunal, which have been called show trials by inside sources.

Plus: (posted previously in another topic, sorry if you've read it before, but I think this information is very relevant if you haven't)

[quote=Dutch News Article]

According to a report that was published in February 2006 by two lawyers of suspected terrorists, more than half (55%) of some 500 suspected terrorists imprisoned on the American Navy Base in Guantanamo Bay did not commit any acts of hostility against the US.

The vast majority of people being held in Camp Delta have never been officially charged with anything, although many of them have been locked up for several years.

The two councillors have been closely studying documents of the American Government, about the argumentations against the suspects. Some turn out to be imprisoned based on suspected ties with organizations that do not appear on any official list of terrorist organizations. Only 8% percent of them are booked as 'Al Qaida warrior'.

The lawyers further write that of all the prisoners, only 7% have been arrested by the Americans themselves, or their allies.

Pakistan arrested 36% of the detainees, warlords of the Northern Alliance 11%. Of 44% of all the prisoners, it is unknown how they fell into American hands.

According to the lawyers, the Americans are offering huge rewards for arresting possible terrorists and enemy combatants. Often they pay first, and ask questions later. The reliability of the bounty hunters and the prisoners they turn in, are not sufficiently checked out, is their conclusion.[/quote]



Yes sir, British citizens. And yes, you're not the only one to be surprised about the British Government doing nothing.

That's definitely shady, unless they were caught in the act and there is no doubt. Same goes for anyone who is a US citizen.

International law, at best, is a suggestion, until there is an actual good way enforce it. There currently is not. Also, the people being held are not prisoners of war. They do not fit definition given in international laws. A prisoner of war is someone who wears the uniform and fights for a specific country. The enemy combatants do not wear military uniforms and fight for a specific country.

Actually, I think you called him in here, and even he decided you're an ***.

Was it something I said about Axl Rose?





That's what they're making from it. False excuses for violating someone's human rights. Again I say: not even an ununiformed soldier should be locked up without fair trial or subjected to torture. Especially not when the way in which these people were caught is extremely questionable in most cases.

Maybe or maybe not. But hopefully they'd cease. All the information the military should need would come out of the trial. By the way, the cruel and unusual punishment thing is just icing on the cake compared to my other two points.

If they were arrested in their home or whatever, then yes. If they were captured in a firefight with US soldiers, then no.

So Avenger. Please tell me. What shall be done with these "terrorists" in the long term? Something tells me your side hasn't thought this aspect through very well.

I sure as hell don't want them set free to take up their previous hobbies.

So they are to spend life rotting in prison without a trial, a sentence, or formal charges?

Okay.

Until they come up with a decent and effective way to put them on trial, yeah.

That utterly sickens me to the core. I am ashamed of this country if that is in fact the case.

I already fully explained how those people were caught, numbers included.

I'm well aware of that. Addressed it in the previous thread.

Ok. Some of these guys may not have been linked to any sort of terrorist plot. But I sure as hell think that they have NO love or respect for you. You offer them a hand and they slap it away and then proceed to plot your death. They hate you. They hate every fiber of your being because they were seduced into believing that. Where you offer a hand, I offer a gun, pointing at their foreheads with saying "shut up and sit down." They're only going to understand force.

We keep them under our thumb. We try to convince them that their former occupation sucks and there's a better life than blowing yourself up. Some might be receptive to that. I'm with Avenger. I do not want them to be released after a trial where they are found not guilty. Terrorists are not just some random criminal that goes on trial.

i dont know if any of you know about david hicks.
he is an australian prisoner in Guantanamo Bay he has been there for 4 1/2 years
and there is no justification for it.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/i-cant-take-much-more-hicks-tells-his-father/2006/07/07/1152240494011.html

http://www.fairgofordavid.org/

this is one example of complete disregard for international law.

they have no legal justification for imprisoning him.

I don't know why I'm arguing with you two, JG and Avenger, because the Supreme Court agrees with me anyway. Period.

All you guys seem to think that a moral compass still works properly when there are metal machines of war about.

It's naive and dangerous to think that we should play it safe and respect human rights (in cases of possible knowledgable enemies), when if we happen to treat someone too nice, and they take advantage of us and don't tell us what we need to know, lots of innocent people could die.

Think on it for a while, and then go enjoy life OUTSIDE of the internet and see what the real world is like. Theres a lot of metal out there, if you take my meaning.

See what happens if you keep holding that gun to their heads. Do you think the situation will improve? I don't.

Alternatively, see what happens if you treat them with some dignity. Over time, the situation will improve, saving many more lives than if you had continuted to risk a case-by-case, violent ideology.

If we treat our enemies like we treat our own people (fair trials, sentences, etc.), they will garner a seed of respect for us which could go a long way in easing our tensions. They will sense that we are not hypocrites and that we have high moral integrity, and they will want to be a part of it themselves.

You're assuming they're reasonable when they aren't. If they were reasonable to begin with, the current situation wouldn't exist.

Invalid argument.

Unreasonable is a vast over-simplification which is nothing but an inaccurate label, like terrorist. Calling them unreasonable does nothing to make them amicable toward us. It does the opposite.

It boggles my mind how you can simply call everyone who hates the United States "unreasonable," as if that's any kind of meaningful statement. They aren't mindless animals, Avenger. They have reasons for doing what they do. It is our moral obligation to find out the root cause and try to fix it the best way possible, but so far, all we've done is put a gun to their heads. The situation won't improve if we keep giving them reasons to hate us.

Well, you know, there is this thing called the United Nations. And then there's the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, the Netherlands. Ironically, the US are one of the few countries (Israel was another) that refused to recognize this court. So there you go.

Did you know the American government even passed a resolution which enables them to invade the Netherlands in case an American citizen has to appear before this court? Can you imagine what kind of uproar stuff like that is causing over here?

They also put severe pressure on several countries, amongst which Rumania, by telling them they wouldn't be allowed to join the NATO if they ratified the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. (If you don't want to take my word for it, I'll cite sources.)

Some who hate the U.S. can be reasonable. Usually those people are the ones who were spoonfed "lol bush sux warcriminal" i.e. been listening to the Michael Moores of the world too much. I bet you if a Democrat is elected in 08, we're gonna see somewhat of a boost in world popularity.

The SCOTUS overstepped their bounds. This was a wholly political decision. They lose LOTS of points to me.

And we all know how effective the UN is. Pretty good at identifying problems, talking about it, then doing nothing, or not enough. Quite good atpicking up and leaving when it gets too hot.

I don't really believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, but seeing as this thread has drifted, i guess I'll throw my Nebraskan two cents in (WARNING: these views run counter to the vast majority of Nebraskans). My main problem with the whole situation is that the Bush administration is basically saying to us, "Trust us. We know what's best, and we won't do anything wrong." They seek to exploit loopholes (Gitmo is not on US soil, the people are not technically fighting for a party to the Geneva convention) to put these people into a category that has no guarunteed rights. This category doesn't lack rights for any particular reason other than it was just invented. This parallels the attitude of this administration on many issues; they try to escape preexisting regulation and keep as much information from us as they can, then tell us to trust them to not exploit their position. I, for one, do not trust them.

Holding people indefinitely without trial or charge goes against everything we stand for. Yes, there are bad people after us, and I'm 100% sure that the people held at Gitmo have a negative view of us (whether they did before they were captured, I don't know). Should people who have committed acts of terrorism against the US be punished harshly? Of course. But the people held have not necessarily committed terrorism. They were captured in an extremely chaotic country by other people (to err is human) who most likely didn't speak their language and whose lives were in danger at the time. In America, even a serial child-molester/murderer who is arrested while in the act has a chance to defend himself in a public trial and is ostensibly presumed innocent. You may say that this is because U.S. citizens are entitled to constitutional rights, but I like to think that those rights stem from what we as a nation believe is just, not merely special privileges afforded to those lucky enough to be our citizens.

Wow, nicely put. Couldn't have said it better myself, and I agree with everything you say.

Bush understands that the only way to fight terrorism is to INTERGRATE IT INTO THE BEUROCRACY. The terrorists released from Gitmo will be so brainwashed by the bureaucracy that they will infect Al Quedia, and Al Quedia will become so bureaucratic it will fall form with it. :p

Latest news: The American ministery of defense has finally issued a change of course in reaction to the decision by the Supreme Court two weeks ago.

All military prisoners (including the ones in Guantanamo Bay) will be treated along the lines of the Geneva Convention from now on. With exception of the ones being held by the CIA.

Too bad about that last bit, but at least it's good news. Yay for more justice, I say!


(On a sidenote: Admins, hasn't Yoshi been banned long enough now?)