• Wikileaks publishes secret files on Gitmo prisoners
    81 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;29449572]I have provided it multiple times, you just don't understand how laws work. Laws have a jurisdiction. The location of the prisoner doesn't matter. The location of the CRIME matters. We could move them to the moon and it wouldn't change anything. Many may have committed crimes, but the crimes likely occurred outside of our jurisdiction. But that is irrelevant because they are ultimately enemy combatants. You don't charge enemy saboteurs under civilian law. You detain them until the end of the conflict, at which point they are repatriated. Terrorist factions have elected to forgo the protections provided by such engagements and are now subject to the other side of the rope. They have failed to adhere to past agreements placed on conflict for the benefit of all parties. Now they suffer the consequences of those actions. The consequences aren't intentional, they are what nations, the United States included, tried to avoid by making rules for PoW's. This isn't saying that "they aren't following the rules so we shouldn't either" it is saying "they aren't following the rules so the SYSTEM BREAKS". BOTH parties have to play to some semblance of the same tune if they wish to engage in warfare and not have PoW's treated like shit.[/QUOTE] Lol, you don't just ignore international law just because the other party ignored it. It's a little hard to repatriate people when the US keeps going into foreign countries and creating terrorists. The amount of bullshit that is floating around who exactly the US is fighting makes Military law THAT much more obsolete. If they want to stretch and BREAK international law on an almost daily occasion. who's going to stop the US from actually treating POW's like humans. As opposed to torturing and detaining people, most of whom are actually innocent? [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] And yes, you ARE saying "they aren't following the rules so we shouldn't either" there's really no other way to spin it other then that.
What international law is being broken here?
[QUOTE=GunFox;29428033]It isn't a legal case at all. It is a military one. They are basically prisoners of war, but because they lack a parent nation, they lack the protections provided to prisoners of war. Okay, I am not doing this to equate terrorists to Nazis, but simply because it is a convenient comparison: Imagine it is World War II and whatever intelligence agency in your nation has managed to intercept that someone in Austria is planning on hitting a civilian shipping depot with a bomb in your nation. Basically a saboteur. He intends on killing the civilian workers and damaging the facility in order to disrupt ammunition supply lines. The intelligence agency deploys, grabs the saboteur, and hauls him back to prison in order to obtain more information. He is never put on trial because he hasn't broken any laws. At the conclusion of the war he is released and he goes on living his life because the conflict is now resolved. Now back to the present. All of that matches up with combating terrorism, except for the last part. The conflict doesn't end because there isn't a way for it to end. You intercept a saboteur before he hits his target and now you have to basically hold him indefinitely. You do NOT have the right to put him on trial. Putting him on trial trivializes the justice system by violating its fundamental rules. I'm not saying that I like the system, I'm saying that there are not a lot of options. I say this without sarcasm: If you have a better alternative, I am all ears.[/QUOTE] Since I can't say it any better I'm gonna link an article that completely counters any of your points: [url]http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/2011425182559745235.html[/url] [editline]27th April 2011[/editline] Basically it says that people who read and cross referenced the leaks found that most people did't do Jack Shit. My favourite quote: "Heads I win, Tails you lose" This completely counters the "but they are military prisoners" argument since they shouldn't be prisoners in the first place.
I don't really care a shit about who is who in guantanamo if they are like they say, "unpleasant folks". The speak about use of torturing in interrogation and as a routine part of handling the prisoners is where the shit hits the fan.
[quote=files]Abd al-Hakim Bukhari (ISN 493), a Saudi imprisoned by al-Qaeda as a spy, who was liberated by US forces from a Taliban jail before being sent, inexplicably, to Guantánamo (along with four other men liberated from the jail) is regarded in the files as a member of al-Qaeda, and a trustworthy witness.[/quote] So they sent this man to gitmo just because he was a spy imprisoned by al-Qaeda? What the fuck?
Didn't they capture (and possibly torture) some random Swedish guy who happened to end up a tad close to the prison?
It's my impression that the main problem with Guantanamo is that a small, but significant, number of people were arrested, taken there and held for a long time with little or no actual evidence. Indeed quite a few people seem to have been taken there simply because they had valuable intelligence, not because they had done anything wrong. A vast number of the people sent to Guantanamo should be there (or locked up somewhere) but clearly something is wrong when it is so easy to arrest someone, fly them to the other side of the world and detain them indefinitely simply because they are useful to you.
[QUOTE=Carne;29466546]Didn't they capture (and possibly torture) some random Swedish guy who happened to end up a tad close to the prison?[/QUOTE] I heard they (arrested and swiftly) extracted "terrorist suspects" from sweden in a plane directly to US soil at night against all possible criminal transfer conduct.
[QUOTE=Falchion;29466846]I heard they (arrested and swiftly) extracted "terrorist suspects" from sweden in a plane directly to US soil at night against all possible criminal transfer conduct.[/QUOTE] This allegation is thrown around quite a bit, I wonder how much truth there is it to it. (Its the reason that Assange is fighting so hard to stay in the UK and not be extradited to Sweden)
How is Guantanamo Bay shortened to "gitmo"
[QUOTE=Hezzy;29478677]How is Guantanamo Bay shortened to "gitmo"[/QUOTE] Guatmo. Gitmo is a bit catchier though.
[QUOTE=GunFox;29432528] It isn't backwater at all, it is simply practical. Do you believe for one instant that if China started a war with Canada, that you wouldn't utilize every possible weapon at your disposal? That you wouldn't seek to stop their armored advance with a mix of anti-personnel mines and AT mines? Or that you wouldn't immediately agree to the US using our full arsenal of weapons to defend you?[/quote] Kind of a different scenario, the landmines we're talking about here aren't even in America so you can't really say they're for defence. [QUOTE=GunFox;29432528] And again, in regards to the detainees, if you have a better alternative, I would seriously be glad to hear it. For the record, I do not advocate torture or abuse of the detainees.[/QUOTE] Give them trials.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29479216]Kind of a different scenario, the landmines we're talking about here aren't even in America so you can't really say they're for defence. [/quote] Except GTMO has no landmines. So they aren't really being used for anything. [quote]Give them trials.[/QUOTE] Okay I don't know how many ways I can put this. You can't put people on trial unless they are a part of the body which consents. This is the basis behind Jurisdictions. They exist because those are the people who have collectively agreed to follow the rules. This is how law works. If you ignore this part, then you aren't doing anything except making yourself feel better and cheapening the rule of law. County A can't deploy sheriff's deputies to county B and arrest someone for drinking alcohol because county A is a dry county. County B doesn't vote for the leaders of county A and thus are not subject to their laws. Furthermore, how how would these juries be constructed? Who are their peers? Can't be non-us citizens because the trial is US. That leaves military tribunals. Which is what they already have and are frankly there for administrative purposes mostly. They determine if someone can be returned home or not. How would evidence be obtained? How would search warrants work? Would search warrants be remotely valid in your target country? How would the crime scene be preserved? What would constitute a guilty verdict? How would the investigation play out when your investigator is blown up by an IED or shot in the face when he questioned the wrong person? Again, consent of the governed. Can't put people on trial for crimes that they committed outside of the jurisdiction. Since the United States is still threatened by their actions, and waiting for them to enter US soil would be a bad idea of unimaginable proportions, the military takes them. You. Can't. Have. Trials.
Well gunfox either they are military prisoners and entitled to a military trial or the US has no business arresting them in the first place You pretty much stated in your post that there is no way to obtain evidence against them so perhaps the latter is the only moral and legal option
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29479216]Kind of a different scenario, the landmines we're talking about here aren't even in America so you can't really say they're for defence. Give them trials.[/QUOTE] It'd be a human rights violation to do so. He's said that five times at least, just read his goddamn posts.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29479835]Well gunfox either they are military prisoners and entitled to a military trial or the US has no business arresting them in the first place You pretty much stated in your post that there is no way to obtain evidence against them so perhaps the latter is the only moral and legal option[/QUOTE] Except for the part where enemy soldiers are given trials. They aren't. The only exceptions may be enemy troops captured on your soil. Things like the Nuremberg trials were possible because the allied forces now owned, and thus had total jurisdictional control, over the nations from which these people were captured. Even then they weren't real trials. They were military tribunals. Beyond that, even if they were entitled to any rights, they are in turn broken by the fact that they aren't enemy soldiers. There isn't always a place to return them to. These people aren't being arrested. The military is KIDNAPPING THEM. This is an inherently illegal act that you are attempting to apply laws to. THEY ARE BEING KIDNAPPED. It is a MILITARY ACTION. Not a POLICE ACTION.
How about returning them?
[QUOTE=Jsm;29469344]This allegation is thrown around quite a bit, I wonder how much truth there is it to it. (Its the reason that Assange is fighting so hard to stay in the UK and not be extradited to Sweden)[/QUOTE] I read about it when it happened in the first place and later understood why Julian didn't want to go to sweden because of it.
[QUOTE=Hezzy;29478677]How is Guantanamo Bay shortened to "gitmo"[/QUOTE] It appears to be a pronounceable version of the name the US gave it (GTMO, which almost makes sense). I suspect somewhere some American is just unable to say or spell Guantanamo.
[QUOTE=GunFox;29479821]Except GTMO has no landmines. So they aren't really being used for anything. Okay I don't know how many ways I can put this. You can't put people on trial unless they are a part of the body which consents. This is the basis behind Jurisdictions. They exist because those are the people who have collectively agreed to follow the rules. This is how law works. If you ignore this part, then you aren't doing anything except making yourself feel better and cheapening the rule of law. County A can't deploy sheriff's deputies to county B and arrest someone for drinking alcohol because county A is a dry county. County B doesn't vote for the leaders of county A and thus are not subject to their laws. Furthermore, how how would these juries be constructed? Who are their peers? Can't be non-us citizens because the trial is US. That leaves military tribunals. Which is what they already have and are frankly there for administrative purposes mostly. They determine if someone can be returned home or not. How would evidence be obtained? How would search warrants work? Would search warrants be remotely valid in your target country? How would the crime scene be preserved? What would constitute a guilty verdict? How would the investigation play out when your investigator is blown up by an IED or shot in the face when he questioned the wrong person? Again, consent of the governed. Can't put people on trial for crimes that they committed outside of the jurisdiction. Since the United States is still threatened by their actions, and waiting for them to enter US soil would be a bad idea of unimaginable proportions, the military takes them. You. Can't. Have. Trials.[/QUOTE] So you want to bend international law enough so you do things like waterboarding and imprisoning innocent people without substance. but you don't want to bend the law anymore to get them fair trials? The only thing stopping them from putting them on Trial and imprisoning them in a non-military prison is symbolism. You want to respect the justice system, but only when it helps them. But you want to say fuck it and ignore it when it does the opposite Hoookay, have fun in assbackwards land.
[QUOTE=amute;29486625]So you want to bend international law enough so you do things like waterboarding and imprisoning innocent people without substance. but you don't want to bend the law anymore to get them fair trials? The only thing stopping them from putting them on Trial and imprisoning them in a non-military prison is symbolism. You want to respect the justice system, but only when it helps them. But you want to say fuck it and ignore it when it does the opposite Hoookay, have fun in assbackwards land.[/QUOTE] Again, show me which "international law" this violates. While you are at it, also explain the enforcement system and judicial system for it as well. Again, tell me how the trials would work. What warrants are valid, when evidence is obtained illegally, who has legal jurisdiction where, how the trial will be conducted, etc etc. Trials are complicated and require a lot of moving parts. Again, this has nothing to do with law. You don't understand how laws work at all. This is exactly the same thing that I said at the very start. Give me a reasonable alternative. I do not like the current situation and it is not a sustainable plan in the long run, but I do not see a workable alternative.
Even if its not against the law its against what america stands for and just plain wrong to send people to prison without a trail.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.