• Guantanamo Bay detainee found dead in his cell after 10 years in prison without trial
    68 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37779799]No, they have protection under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, although legally we could not afford them protections under the Geneva Convention and be justified in doing so as AQ does not abide by the convention nor does the organization meet the qualifications for Geneva protection. Funny thing about G-Bay was everyone in the Bush admin knew it was going to look bad, Don Rumsfeld called G-Bay the "least worst choice" when the Bush adimn was discussing how to detain suspected AQ members in a secure, long term facility. In fact we only established G-Bay after the disaster at Qala-i-Jangi and for a short while we held suspected AQ terrorists in the brigs of various US Navy ships. Bush wanted speedy and fair trials, and signed the executive order for military tribunals of suspected terrorists in back in 2001, the system was actually modeled on FDR's system for convicting Nazi saboteurs in 1942. However lawsuits on the legality of military trials, Supreme Court cases, questions over evidence and the use of torture have delayed the trial process greatly and only two detainee's were tried by the time Bush left office. Congress also re-wrote the system for military tribunals in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which also authorized the enhanced interrogation techniques that give G-Bay its infamy.[/QUOTE] That's fine and dandy, but Obama is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and by extension has supreme authority on the allocation of resources in the military. Congress creates the budget, but Obama has to allocate it. If Obama wanted to close Gitmo today, he could, and Congress has no authority to stop him. They can merely just give him the money, or take it from him. It's not like Congress can vote on whether to keep the base open, but they can vote to deny it funding, therefore closing it, which is usually how that sort of thing goes. It's not like we even really own Gitmo anyhow- it's Cuban land, under the jurisdiction of the Cuba government. We technically are illegally occupying the land, both by international and Cuban law, and if they waned they could just march their ass right in there and take it. Same situation with most of our black sites. Gitmo is illegally operated, the detainees are kept there illegally, tortured there illegally, obtained illegally often enough. The whole place is just a shithole that needs to be tackled, but won't be, because the US has its fingers in everyone's pies and on every trigger. Close the place down.
//
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37780693']That's fine and dandy, but Obama is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and by extension has supreme authority on the allocation of resources in the military. Congress creates the budget, but Obama has to allocate it. If Obama wanted to close Gitmo today, he could, and Congress has no authority to stop him. They can merely just give him the money, or take it from him. It's not like Congress can vote on whether to keep the base open, but they can vote to deny it funding, therefore closing it, which is usually how that sort of thing goes. It's not like we even really own Gitmo anyhow- it's Cuban land, under the jurisdiction of the Cuba government. We technically are illegally occupying the land, both by international and Cuban law, and if they waned they could just march their ass right in there and take it. Same situation with most of our black sites. Gitmo is illegally operated, the detainees are kept there illegally, tortured there illegally, obtained illegally often enough. The whole place is just a shithole that needs to be tackled, but won't be, because the US has its fingers in everyone's pies and on every trigger. Close the place down.[/QUOTE]If only it were so easy. The problem is Obama has been trying to ease into the process by moving the prisoners out of Gitmo and on to American soil, but the Republicans won't have any of that. Pretty much his only option would be to just shut it down and release all of the prisoners regardless of whether or not they are legitimate terrorists, which would be political suicide.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37780693'] It's not like we even really own Gitmo anyhow- it's Cuban land, under the jurisdiction of the Cuba government. We technically are illegally occupying the land, both by international and Cuban law, and if they waned they could just march their ass right in there and take it. Same situation with most of our black sites. Gitmo is illegally operated, the detainees are kept there illegally, tortured there illegally, obtained illegally often enough. The whole place is just a shithole that needs to be tackled, but won't be, because the US has its fingers in everyone's pies and on every trigger.[/QUOTE] no it's not. the us lease of the land is perfectly legal under 1903 Cuban-American Treaty and its 1934 reaffirmation, which stipulates the lease stands unless both sides agree to terminate it (and they don't). the agreement was validated when the current cuban administration cashed a rent cheque paid under the terms of the lease - cuba's argument that it did so out of ignorance frankly isn't an excuse. so no, it's land under the legal jurisdiction of the american government, no matter what cuban law stipulates, and they could not just "march their ass right in there and take it" without violating the agreement (and being blown apart by the ensuing american military defence).
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;37780996] Pretty much his only option would be to just shut it down and release all of the prisoners regardless of whether or not they are legitimate terrorists, which would be political suicide.[/QUOTE] lol no, that would just be the most retarded option.
[QUOTE=Falchion;37781128]lol no, that would just be the most retarded option.[/QUOTE] Um yeah that was the point. His other "option" is telling the Republicans to please stop, and them saying no.
Poor man
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvKHncThQf0[/media]
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37779799]No, they have protection under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, although legally we could not afford them protections under the Geneva Convention and be justified in doing so as AQ does not abide by the convention nor does the organization meet the qualifications for Geneva protection. Funny thing about G-Bay was everyone in the Bush admin knew it was going to look bad, Don Rumsfeld called G-Bay the "least worst choice" when the Bush adimn was discussing how to detain suspected AQ members in a secure, long term facility. In fact we only established G-Bay after the disaster at Qala-i-Jangi and for a short while we held suspected AQ terrorists in the brigs of various US Navy ships. Bush wanted speedy and fair trials, and signed the executive order for military tribunals of suspected terrorists in back in 2001, the system was actually modeled on FDR's system for convicting Nazi saboteurs in 1942. However lawsuits on the legality of military trials, Supreme Court cases, questions over evidence and the use of torture have delayed the trial process greatly and only two detainee's were tried by the time Bush left office. Congress also re-wrote the system for military tribunals in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which also authorized the enhanced interrogation techniques that give G-Bay its infamy.[/QUOTE] Oh, Christ, stop calling it G-Bay. That makes it sound like an auction site for rap memorabelia.
[QUOTE=JerryK;37779956]here's the difference german POWs were soldiers fighting in a war these people are [B]alleged[/B] terrorists it's just funny because america is actually no better than the "savages" that we claim to fight[/QUOTE] If we're no better than they are then explain to me why we insist on giving medical support to insurgents who tried to kill U.S. soldiers. I don't see them doing the same.
[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;37781870]If we're no better than they are then explain to me why we insist on giving medical support to insurgents who tried to kill U.S. soldiers. I don't see them doing the same.[/QUOTE] That can have various reasons. For one I find it hard to imagine US media displaying helpful insurgent fighters, that would destroy the carefuly crafted image of the "savages". Secondly the "savages" don't run around with cameras ontop of their helmets (haha maybe because they have no helmets) And thirdly carig for the guy you just shot while waterboarding his brother is so bigoted it makes you even more of an asshole.
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;37781814]Oh, Christ, stop calling it G-Bay. That makes it sound like an auction site for rap memorabelia.[/QUOTE] I refer to it as "Gitmo" in a drawn-out Dale Gribble voice.
[QUOTE=Killuah;37781924] And thirdly carig for the guy you just shot while waterboarding his brother is so bigoted it makes you even more of an asshole.[/QUOTE] that doesn't make any sense
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37781965]that doesn't make any sense[/QUOTE] I thought you'd understand the metaphoric meaning of it.
This is fucking tragic, that letter he wrote is heartbreaking.
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;37777587]It's good Obama kept his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Oh wait[/QUOTE] Not much Obama can do unless the two houses agree with him, which they didn't.
The letter is filled with conviction about the real state of mind of Guantanamo, It Really is sad. A good amount of prisoners in those cells were never part of any terrorist association. Saw a documentary about a British Muslim who lost 7 years of his life at the torture camp and explains how the condition you are forced to accept only breeds more hatred to U.S culture and our own ways of life here. It's like being put on the back burner and forgotten about until we accept that there is no evidence that says your a terrorist. Not to mention you having to accept that you were mentally examined and interrogated, sometimes physically tortured, and all for nothing. A wrong judgement.
Who can claim that they are surprised by anything like this? USA never even accepted the Human Rights.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37781052]no it's not. the us lease of the land is perfectly legal under 1903 Cuban-American Treaty and its 1934 reaffirmation, which stipulates the lease stands unless both sides agree to terminate it (and they don't). the agreement was validated when the current cuban administration cashed a rent cheque paid under the terms of the lease - cuba's argument that it did so out of ignorance frankly isn't an excuse. so no, it's land under the legal jurisdiction of the american government, no matter what cuban law stipulates, and they could not just "march their ass right in there and take it" without violating the agreement (and being blown apart by the ensuing american military defence).[/QUOTE] They cashed one check and so it's now valid? That wouldn't even stand up in a trial court in a contract between a renter and landlord. All contracts between the US and the Cuban government are [I]null and void[/I] when the new government came into power. There was no agreement made with the Castro regime, the agreement was with a separate entity. The fact that America still paid its rent to the new landowner does not automatically meant that the contract is valid. Let's take a real-life example: You're renting an apartment and your lease states that as long as you pay the rent, then you indefinitely rent the property. After a few years, your landlord is shot and a distant relative, for sake of the allegory making sense, takes control of the land. The relative does not recognize the contract. Now you have to ask yourself: Does the exchange of the land entitle both landowner and renter to abide by the terms of the contract? -No. The contract was between two individuals- the landlord and the renter. The landlord is no longer there, therefore the terms of the contract do not translate to another person, even if they own the land. So your next step is to continue to pay your rent, and so you send the new landlord your rent check. He cashes it. Does the payment of rent to an individual who you have no lease with entitle you to a lease at all? -No. Because the contract was void, there was no reason to pay the rent, because you are not a renter. The fact that the individual cashed to check is not grounds to assume that there is a lease agreement: you simply just gave them money. Regardless of any of that, there is no agreement- any contract is null and void because one of the entities involved no longer exists. There is no reason to assume that the landowner is responsible for continuing the contract, and that one side abiding by the terms of the contract by giving its money to the landowner does not guarantee that there is a contract- just that you're an idiot. do you even law?
[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;37781870]If we're no better than they are then explain to me why we insist on giving medical support to insurgents who tried to kill U.S. soldiers. I don't see them doing the same.[/QUOTE] free waterboarding too cant forget that
I hope that Obama will bring Guantanamo down. It's just as bad as terrorism. It's so fucking disgusting.
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;37777587]It's good Obama kept his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Oh wait[/QUOTE] Ahahaha look at this poor chump; he thinks the President runs the country.
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;37777587]It's good Obama kept his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Oh wait[/QUOTE] you think one man can undo all of George Bush's great work?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37783046']They cashed one check and so it's now valid? That wouldn't even stand up in a trial court in a contract between a renter and landlord. All contracts between the US and the Cuban government are [I]null and void[/I] when the new government came into power. There was no agreement made with the Castro regime, the agreement was with a separate entity. The fact that America still paid its rent to the new landowner does not automatically meant that the contract is valid. Let's take a real-life example: You're renting an apartment and your lease states that as long as you pay the rent, then you indefinitely rent the property. After a few years, your landlord is shot and a distant relative, for sake of the allegory making sense, takes control of the land. The relative does not recognize the contract. Now you have to ask yourself: Does the exchange of the land entitle both landowner and renter to abide by the terms of the contract? -No. The contract was between two individuals- the landlord and the renter. The landlord is no longer there, therefore the terms of the contract do not translate to another person, even if they own the land. So your next step is to continue to pay your rent, and so you send the new landlord your rent check. He cashes it. Does the payment of rent to an individual who you have no lease with entitle you to a lease at all? -No. Because the contract was void, there was no reason to pay the rent, because you are not a renter. The fact that the individual cashed to check is not grounds to assume that there is a lease agreement: you simply just gave them money. Regardless of any of that, there is no agreement- any contract is null and void because one of the entities involved no longer exists. There is no reason to assume that the landowner is responsible for continuing the contract, and that one side abiding by the terms of the contract by giving its money to the landowner does not guarantee that there is a contract- just that you're an idiot. do you even law?[/QUOTE] The position of landlord still exists, its just filled by another person. When you sent this new landlord your check and he accepted it, he was abiding by the current agreement. He cashed the check, he recognized the lease. The Cubans were abiding by the treaty. Ignoring completely other details like the fact that the Cubans allowed sewage and water pipes to operate to and from the base for years after the revolution, which we paid for and they accepted payment for up until 1964. And not to mention the Cubans that still worked in the base post-revolution. Although Castro did prohibit new recruitment.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37784190]1. The position of landlord still exists, its just filled by another person. 2. When you sent this new landlord your check and he accepted it, he was abiding by the current agreement. He cashed the check, he recognized the lease. The Cubans were abiding by the treaty. 3. Ignoring completely other details like the fact that the Cubans allowed sewage and water pipes to operate to and from the base for years after the revolution, 4. which we paid for and they accepted payment for up until 1964. 5. And not to mention the Cubans that still worked in the base post-revolution. Although Castro did prohibit new recruitment.[/QUOTE] 1. That other person =/= the same entity who created the contract. 2. The Cubans don't recognize the lease- accepting the check does not mean that they accepted the contract- the US government was paying money to an entity, for one purpose, but the other entity does not have to recognize that purpose. 3. The Cubans can't exactly do anything about the base without bringing WWIII. Cutting off supplies to it would be a declaration of war, possibly still today. 4. Regardless, they still didn't accept the lease payments. 5. Eh, making good out of a bad situation. Also see 3. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;37783050]1v1[/QUOTE] lets go scrub. see you in the courtroom
One reason I probably won't vote for Obama again is that I feel like he didn't even try to shut down Guantanamo Bay. I'd like my liberals with a bit more balls. The idea of being able to detain people without trial indefinitely is disgusting and our lawmakers should be ashamed that they allow it to exist.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;37784822]One reason I probably won't vote for Obama again is that I feel like he didn't even try to shut down Guantanamo Bay. I'd like my liberals with a bit more balls. The idea of being able to detain people without trial indefinitely is disgusting and our lawmakers should be ashamed that they allow it to exist.[/QUOTE] Well I wouldn't say he didn't even try, although he did break the promise of closing it, if only technically. Here's PolitiFact's info on it if you haven't seen it already: [URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/[/URL]
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;37777587]It's good Obama kept his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Oh wait[/QUOTE] Hope and change!
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37784750']1. That other person =/= the same entity who created the contract. 2. The Cubans don't recognize the lease- accepting the check does not mean that they accepted the contract- the US government was paying money to an entity, for one purpose, but the other entity does not have to recognize that purpose. 3. The Cubans can't exactly do anything about the base without bringing WWIII. Cutting off supplies to it would be a declaration of war, possibly still today. 4. Regardless, they still didn't accept the lease payments. 5. Eh, making good out of a bad situation. Also see 3. [/QUOTE] Actually, accepting the check does mean they recognized the contract. When they accepted the cash, they accepted the purpose of the check. Only now they claim it was out of confusion. And the base their legal case by invoking Vienna Convention articles that we didn't even sign. According to US courts, Cuba has sovereignty but the US has jurdisiction. The only problem is that the US doesn't want to give it up an Castro doesn't want to take it. The only way Cuba's going to get the land back is by becoming democratic, as per the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 Castro says the only way he's going to get the land back is when the US collapses. [QUOTE]"If we have to wait for the collapse of the (capitalist) system, we will wait,"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;37777587]It's good Obama kept his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Oh wait[/QUOTE] because obama can go on a whim like a dictator and just do what he wants.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.