stpickrell

So why not accord them the privileges of Prisoners of War, or try them for crimes against the USA or Afghanistan?

The second part -- I don't know. The first part -- because they aren't soldiers in the way that would afford them protection under the Geneva Conventions. They are not uniformed soldiers of a nation or state, but they are not criminals either. Maybe we need another convention.

//your momma is fat

judging from what i saw at teh strip club last night, yours has a nice set of knockers
;)

2005-06-15 12:34:20 PM BlindMan


Have you ever heard of the concept of credibility?

"What do you mean I can't get a loan, just because I never paid back my $8,000 in credit card debt?"

If somebody is a proven liar and makes a claim with no evidence, the burden of proof is on them, especially when it comes at a politically convenient time.

Any takers that we're watching the same thing happen here?

Considering that's been the MO for the Bush administration for the past 4+ years, I wouldn't take that bet for 1 million earth dollars.

McCain? Certifiable becuase he was a POW.
Kerry? Flip-flopper on war. Can you believe he doesn't want to defend America??!!onelol!!eleven.
Bin Laden? No! Saddam is the true world-wide threat.
War? We wanted to liberate them brownies, remember!

Tyee:

1. Put micro chips in these GITMO guys under sedation.
2. let them go in Mid east.
3. Wait 4-6 months.
4. Fire a series of Tomahawks honed in on all chips.
5. Profit.


This is the best idea . EVAR.

Tyee for Secretary of Defense

studebaker
That means we need more defense contractors and better weapons.

albo
Thanks for going to the strip club. Your girlfriend and I enjoyed our time together. She said I was like you, only with rockets.

}liter's rule
}} I kid because I love

At least they aren't flip floppers.

Apparently we need to switch from Christina Aguilera to Ashley Simpson.

TORTURE!

AAAAAIIIIEEEEE! Dirka dirka Aguilera dirka!

Your girlfriend and I enjoyed our time together

great. now i'll get herpes

Blindman
It certainly would make that someone a liar. "Ad hominem" also applies to Bush's "justification" for going into this war in the first place.

Hyernel

Once you take away all that a man has, he's got nothing left to lose....

Isn't that the beginning of the A-Team?

No, no it was Renegade with Lorenzo Llamas! (Good place to get your political philosophy).

Anyway, speaking of 'torture'...

a girl put panties on my head on time when I was drunk, moreover when I was in junior high in the locker room someone pointed at my penis and laughed (note: probably due to the humorous incongruity of its huge size) (second note: this didn't really happen, my penis is obviously large because I don't drive an SUV) and despite their taking away ALL A MAN HAS(!) I haven't to this day strapped a bomb on and blown up innocent civilians.

/Nor have I got on a motorcycle and become a spanish heartthrob cruising the west bringing my special brand of vigilante justice.

atomsmoosher
Correct. I think what people are objecting to is how we believe we can create international law, unilaterally, and on the fly.

While our doing so is nowhere near as harmful as other nations having done so, it still leaves a bad taste in most mouths.

Again, there is the central question, "What (net) good is being done by Gitmo?"

If I had been held for 3 years without charges, while being tortured the whole time, I would be very motivated to take up arms against my captors the first chance I got.

The question is whether Gitmo is holding terrorists, or creating them.

2005-06-15 12:34:56 PM atomsmoosher

stpickrell

So why not accord them the privileges of Prisoners of War, or try them for crimes against the USA or Afghanistan?

The second part -- I don't know. The first part -- because they aren't soldiers in the way that would afford them protection under the Geneva Conventions. They are not uniformed soldiers of a nation or state, but they are not criminals either. Maybe we need another convention.

that's exactly it

the europeans want to try them as criminals and treat them as such, but they're not

the americans want to treat them as prisoners of war from a foreing nation, but they're not

we need a new legal definition, and a new course of treatment, unlike either what the americans or europeans want to do with them

personally i vote for calling them "asshats"

and then chop off their testicles

but that's just me

2005-06-15 12:32:05 PM BlindMan

angusyoung

And we sympathize with the Gitmo prisoners WHY, exactly?

Because

america = bad

ergo

everyone else = good, right?

RIGHT?

Wait, no it doesn't? Hmm... Then how come I see that posted a hundred times a day in various iterations?

Tu Quoque?

Tu Quoque Tu Quoque Tu Quoque Tu Quoque Tu..........


Never mind. I'm sure you already know this.

albo
Hey, look your sister had sworn they were cleared up last month so I figured she was greenlit. How was I to know she was a lying little biatch? Sorry man.

}feelin' about 12 is kind of amusing.

2005-06-15 10:46:49 AM 2wheeljunkie [TotalFark]

Good. Now, try, convict, and sentence them. It's not that complicated.

You want to convict people for fighting against an illegal war started by the US?

Ah the sweet, sweet scent of hypocritical irony is in the air today.

It's just like fishing.

If they aren't big enough, throw them back in. You're trying to catch the big ones, and there's a quota.

"you're just a little insurgent. we don't want you. now go home and quit getting captured."

what? 167 comments on what a tard the submitter is, right? no need to read them all.

I like how this story comes out just when there also happen to be some rumblings from the administration about closing Camp X-Ray. Media manipulation at its most common.

This sounds awful familiar; haven't we heard this before. Oh wait, yes we have.

Saddam may have weapons of mass destruction. Let's invade and find out!

}feelin' about 12 is kind of amusing

hey, i told you that's illegal. wait until she's 18 until you start feelin'

Greg Rebellion

Blindman
It certainly would make that someone a liar. "Ad hominem" also applies to Bush's "justification" for going into this war in the first place.

I don't know if 'liar' is accurate or not. It appears to me now, as it appeared to me then, that the case for the war in Iraq was being obviously overstated for propagandistic purposes. Nonetheless I think the real (mostly legitimate, and surprisingly perhaps encouraging) purposes were also quite obvious.

Most people that claim to be so upset about being 'lied to', didn't believe it in the first place, and those that aren't upset knew that the questionable case of WMDs wasn't all there was to it anyway. Basically never have I met anyone outraged about the propaganda that wasn't outraged before anyway. I think that's telling.

It's the same general principle which resulted in people that hate Bush as a rule hating him before Iraq anyway, and people that liked him liking him before it too.

The spin was a little unfortunate, but I fear that's a tradition with long precendent (lusitania?) and is necessitated by the remarkable and almost universal ignorance of the voting public in america.

Ah, so if someone (arguably) lies once, that means everything they say thereafter is also untrue. That would be the holy logical principle of ad hominem, wouldn't it?

But in this case, they have said nothing that isn't untrue.
a) WMDs. Untrue.
b) immenent threat. Untrue.
c) Mission Accomplished. Untrue.
d) War will pay for itself. Untrue
e) Iraqis will throw flowers at our feet. Untrue.
f) We will need only X number of troops. Untrue.
g) I smoked pot. Well, that one was true, but only because it was secretly recorded.

Asshats:"They aren't american! They shouldn't have the same rights we do!"

---------------------------------------------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
----------------------------------------------------

Sound familar?

So unless you take this to ONLY mean white, anglo-saxon, Christians, you need to STFU.

torture, give me a farking break. No one is being tortured I did worse shait back in college and I wasint even a well fed. The people at gitmo had that resentment and hatred for the US inculcated from the get go, they always have had nothing to loose, they have always hated the US. Im not saying that the left doesn't raise some good issues, but it seems that they do it without rational thought or opinions. Shut up you liberal biatches and accept the fact that theses are not nice people who will kill Americans if given the chance. And here's the kicker it wasn't a result of their "detainment" in Gitmo. quite being jackasses.

RTFA...the AG said these 12 "may" have been killed or recaptured. Not "were". Sounds like BS to me.

Now to answer all the Gitmo supporters. You don't hold someone in communicado without specific charges because it is morally wrong to do so. End of discussion.

Key words in this article are "He said 12 people may have been recaptured or killed."

Then again, they may not have been. There MAY HAVE BEEN a lot of pressure on the government to justify Gitmo. A scary story like this one MAY HAVE BEEN a perfect way to spike up the fear meter, and justify anything they want to do.

iwasrobot

Actually, no one is saying anything about the submitter, because the headline bashes the insurgents.

we'd be better off if the military would just "lose" half of these detainees somwhere in the atlantic. half on the way over, the other half on the way back.

PC/sensitive is no way to win a war.

albo
Sorry but I need my third wife so I can get into heaven, and the leaders have all the teenage hotties staked out.

studebaker
Nice. We need more!

Even if one were to adopt the legal fiction of "unlawful combatant", there is always the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment which requires that: [a]nyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time of his arrest of the reason for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

cannibolic

I like how this story comes out just when there also happen to be some rumblings from the administration about closing Camp X-Ray. Media manipulation at its most common.

It's the illuminati dude, they like, totally control everything! Dude!

Identify them by their secret handshake:

djmed:

we'd be better off if the military would just "lose" half of these detainees somwhere in the atlantic. half on the way over, the other half on the way back.

PC/sensitive is no way to win a war.


I say we just fly them back to Afghanistan and push them out while flying low.

we should teach these guys a lesson by flushing a couple of korans down the toilet.

why do they hate our freedom?

Why exactly is our government releasing these terrorists to go do as they please? Haven't they learned anything since 9/11?

So unless you take this to ONLY mean white, anglo-saxon, Christians, you need to STFU.

I believe he meant Americans not W/AS/C, as the Preamble was also refering to. Our forfathers weren't arrogant enough to speak for everone in the world, as you seem to want to do. they don't want those rights! haven't you heard.

Does this article remind anyone of those Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes envelopes?

"YOU may HAVE JUST WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS"

PC/sensitive is no way to win a war.

No, but it might win some countries that are on the fence as to whether what we are doing is legal and ethical or not. Going at it alone is no way to win a war, either.

albo:

no, no. they were innocent, then the US torture and high-fat meals made them change their mind and want to kill US soldiers.

So that's why they became terrorists after being released. it's not their fault. they are blameless

Don't forget having women in close physical proximity. That turned them into rabid dogs.

I hold in my hand a list with the names of 12 communi..err... recaptured insurgents, yes insurgents. Be very afraid!


albo: we've gone main page. farewell, rational discourse

Based on what I've read here over the last couple of years I'd say you are waving a bit long after the train has left the station.

baraqel
The US and allied action in Afghanistan was fully legal. It was in response to an act of war by an organization that was protected by Afghanistan's de facto government and was given the approval of the UNSEC through Resolution 1373. So unless you wish to argue that the Taliban did, in fact, follow resolution 1373, there can be no argument that the US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal. All known prisoners at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan.

Sounds like a bunch of detainees were doing a Br'er Rabbit.

You know those bleeding hearts, they'll believe anything said by "the oppressed" as long as it fits their agenda.

Maybe the "insurgents" just want to get back to good old days, where the rivers run with chocolate and children run carefree through the streets?