If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Updated NDAA: 166 prisoners will remain at Guantanamo Bay pretty much forever   (aclu.org) divider line 347
    More: Fail, Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo, ndaa, freedom of conscience, inauguration day, indefinite detention, signing statements, Anthony Romero  
•       •       •

7851 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 3:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



347 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-04 04:44:34 PM

BronyMedic: Okay. I'll bite. What nation's flag were they fighting under, in clearly identifiable uniforms and with a clear hiarchy of command responsibility for their actions?


OK, I'll bite. What declared war were they fighting in?
 
2013-01-04 04:45:32 PM

BigNumber12: Cops keep getting killed in certain neighborhoods in major American cities. Better to play it safe and opt for clean drone strikes instead of trying to serve dangerous high-risk warrants.


Bad comparison since he was not killed in prosecution of criminal action. The laws for military action are different than for criminal action. TMYK ----====*
 
2013-01-04 04:46:01 PM

Wittenberg Dropout: This.

Why the hell do naval authorities bother arresting Somali pirates when they could just blast the shiate out of them and save themselves the paper work?


Because of the international convention of law at sea?
 
2013-01-04 04:48:00 PM
Asymmetrical War was a term created by a soldier with a law degree. The only thing symmetrical about fighting is the transference of kinetic energy into killing you energy.
 
2013-01-04 04:48:22 PM

orbister: OK, I'll bite. What declared war were they fighting in?


This one. The one signed by both the United States House and Senate, and signed by the President of the United States in full accordance with the constitutional authority and requirements there-of for the Government to levee war against it's enemies.
 
2013-01-04 04:49:29 PM

NameDot: Not that I don't understand your comment but... I think they had two goals; one make 'us' pay and the other to cause 'us' to leave 'their' turf.


Their aim was to do to you what the west did to the USSR, and they have succeeded, brilliantly. They have crippled your economy, induced you to spend trillions on pointless overseas adventure and made you look like the bad guys to most of the world. Oh, yes, and they've given you the TSA.

Meanwhile you (and we) have had your (and our) sorry butts kicked out of Iraq and will in due have your (and our) sorry butts kicked out of Afghanistan, about ten minutes after which the Taliban will take over the place again.
 
2013-01-04 04:49:42 PM

sprawl15: No, I called you a moron because you're obviously strutting a massive boner about how smart you are despite nothing in your two word post being correct.


Presenting you with a link to the actual treaty in question and asking you to prove your argument (which is all that I was doing) is incorrect? I wasn't even making a controversial statement - that doesn't even make sense.

It was a fantastic display of idiocy, and even after I've explained your own argument to you, you still don't seem to understand it. That's why you're a moron.

Do you know how to be dispassionate in a debate?

Hell, I wasn't even the one who brought up the Francs-Tieurs in the first place - looks like you got me and BronyMedic mixed up. Remove your emotions and temper your ego a tad and you might not make such an emotional jump to a conclusion next time.
 
2013-01-04 04:50:40 PM

THX 1138: sprawl15: Citizenship has absolutely no bearing on any of this, because rights are considered innate to human beings rather than the grace of the government, and full constitutional protection of rights must be recognized by the US government in any of its actions on individuals of any nationality.

Boom. Favorited.

I've been absolutely horrified over the last few years to see that the vast majority of people seem to think rights only apply to U.S. citizens.


There's a difference between de facto and de jure. US rights only apply to those over whom the US has jurisdiction.
 
2013-01-04 04:52:06 PM

orbister: Goddammit, America, we all want to like you, and that nice coloured boy you elected president, but the death squads, the drone killings and the general tendency to behave like the NKVD on a grumpy day make it very difficult sometimes.


The NKVD would have killed them all and dumped them into an unmarked pit somewhere in Poland by now.
 
2013-01-04 04:52:47 PM

Uncle Tractor: JustFarkinAround: Holy crap... I cant believe anyone actually gives a flying fark about these sand coons in Gitmo. News Flash: constitutional rights dont exist for non-citizens. 98% of the detainees are ENEMY COMBATANTS, and they deserve to eat Big Bob's c0ck meat sandwich until they die.

By your logic, if a US soldier is captured on the field, you're OK if he (or she) is waterboarded, dragged around naked on a leash, and kept imprisoned for the rest of his or her life? What if the conflict takes place on US soil, and the captives may or may not be civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?



By your logic, our US soldiers are given better treatment than our enemies? Tell that to Jessica Lynch and numerous other POWs. Our soldiers are beaten, abused and BEHEADED. Comparable to our enemies, Gitmo guys get the royal treatment.

And the conflict didnt take place on US soil, nor were they citizens - so what's your point? You sound like Chicken Little with your "terrorists arent getting fair treatment so I wont get fair treatment".
 
2013-01-04 04:53:05 PM

JustFarkinAround: Holy crap... I cant believe anyone actually gives a flying fark about these sand coons in Gitmo. News Flash: constitutional rights dont exist for non-citizens.


This may come as a wee bit of a surprise to you, but the US constitution is not generally seen as the only valid statement of human rights anywhere in the world.
 
2013-01-04 04:53:07 PM

This text is now purple: orbister: Goddammit, America, we all want to like you, and that nice coloured boy you elected president, but the death squads, the drone killings and the general tendency to behave like the NKVD on a grumpy day make it very difficult sometimes.

The NKVD would have killed them all and dumped them into an unmarked pit somewhere in Poland by now.


I farking
 
2013-01-04 04:53:18 PM

ManRay: Republicans are not going to do it.
Democrats are not going to do it.

Who is left?


Ralph Nader
 
2013-01-04 04:53:31 PM

BronyMedic: orbister: OK, I'll bite. What declared war were they fighting in?

This one. The one signed by both the United States House and Senate, and signed by the President of the United States in full accordance with the constitutional authority and requirements there-of for the Government to levee war against it's enemies.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-04 04:54:55 PM
love the Ruskies. the classic less than symbol + 3 heart shape bugged my comment out!
/fracking fack!
 
2013-01-04 04:56:46 PM
can't we just all agree to disagree?
 
2013-01-04 04:57:21 PM

Hydra: Presenting you with a link to the actual treaty in question


No, you linked to a different treaty. I thought we just talked about this?

Hydra: Do you know how to be dispassionate in a debate?


For this to be a debate, you would actually have to posit something.

Hydra: Hell, I wasn't even the one who brought up the Francs-Tieurs in the first place - looks like you got me and BronyMedic mixed up.


You asked me to prove my commentary about Francs-Tieurs. I re-explained the argument I was commenting on, then re-explained my argument against it. Are you really this confused as to what was going on? If you don't want to talk about them, don't ask me to prove my argument explaining why they're irrelevant.

Hydra: Remove your emotions


It's not an emotional argument. You're a moron. You're posting nothing but moronic things, getting upset when I'm talking about things you asked me to talk about, and getting generally confused when called out on your non sequitors. If you don't want to be called a moron, you could start by paying attention.

This text is now purple: US rights only apply to those over whom the US has jurisdiction.


You don't think the US is assuming governmental jurisdiction over people they are specifically targeting for a drone strike?

BronyMedic: This one. The one signed by both the United States House and Senate, and signed by the President of the United States in full accordance with the constitutional authority and requirements there-of for the Government to levee war against it's enemies.


And, again, because the 9/11 AUMF is specifically targeting organizations or persons, captured members of those organizations or those persons are POW's per Article 4 Section 1.
 
2013-01-04 04:58:03 PM

Hydra: Considering you would've had to have been at least 21 to vote at that time, you have a very distorted view of how history has unfolded throughout your lifetime.

/people are usually biased towards the events that happened most recently in memory
//Ford and Carter were arguably less effective presidents than Bush 43, and the boondoggle social programs enacted by FDR (not to mention the New Deal follies during his pre-war administration) and later by LBJ are directly responsible for our current fiscal problems as a nation - it wasn't a Bush program that gave us a $222 trillion PV of future obligations


one of us has a distorted view.

1)  ford and carter being less effective would depend on how you define effective. bush rushed into afghanistan and then stood there with no plan to finish the fight and no way out. having done so well there he then rushed into iraq based on lies and once again farked up. this time majorly. we poured money into iraq hand over fist with no accountability and did it off the books. but hey it's only money and he had a lot less since there were not one but two bush tax cuts. if you want to fark up the economy then that's an effective way to do it. add that to bush standing by while deregulation became the order of the day and watch the economy totally implode. yes he was real effective.

2) i had to google it but found your $222 trillion PV. from the CBO website: Many budget analysts believe that the alternative fiscal scenario presents a more realistic picture of the nation's underlying fiscal policies than the extended-baseline scenario does. and many don't. it's a worse case scenario and you should know that. given your FDR and LBJ bashing i'm suspecting you consider yourself a fiscal conservative. yes i used that disdainfully.
 
2013-01-04 05:02:02 PM

hubiestubert: We can't bring many of these folks to trial. Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights. We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause. The issue is that they remain in a legal Limbo, because no one put a lot of thought into chain of custody or chain of evidence in their capture. We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system, and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

THIS was my problem from the get go. THIS. Had we made this into a law enforcement matter, we could have captured, tried, and convicted a good number of folks. There are Supermax facilities where we have terrorists locked up today, and without any contact with their peeps. They have been removed from the field, and were convicted in a real trial. Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk. Free and clear if we even tried.

Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

Is it a travesty?  Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...


There is a solution. Actually, two of them. The first Obama can do all by himself; the second even a Republican Congress could agree to. The first is the morally and constitutionally correct one; the second is a more pragmatic and realistic alternative.

Solution #1:

Obama simply pardons everybody there. Congress can't stop him from doing this; the Presidential power of pardon is absolute according to the Constitution. Now, where do they go from there if he did this? The US proper? The country they came from? Cuba proper? Probably the first, but I'm not posititve.

Of course, Obama is never going to do this. First off, it's electoral sucide for the entire Democratic Party. Second, some of these guys (absolutely not all of them) are actual terrorists, and even if they weren't when we randomly rounded them up, they might be a wee bit pissed off being held without trial for a decade or so and become such.

Solution #2:

We ship them to Saipan (a US territory located in the middle of the Pacific with a population of 48,000 people) and put them on the no-fly list. We give them jobs and the freedom to move around the island but not to leave it. We ship in a thousand FBI agents to watch over them.

There's nothing for a terrorist to blow up on Saipan and the local economy is in a shambles, so having the FBI there plus a bunch of federal funding to build stuff there will smooth over the local population, who don't get to vote in Congress and therefore don't really have a say anyways.

Keeping them in custody makes us no better than any banana republic who jails people without trial, which is exactly what we are doing there. It puts us in the same category as China, as North Korea. It's disgusting and wrong.
 
2013-01-04 05:02:52 PM
either let them go

or kill them

pick which ever one you have the nerve for
 
2013-01-04 05:02:54 PM
What? The military doesn't have 166 bullets?

/i keed , i keed.
 
2013-01-04 05:03:48 PM
Bizarro world on Fark. All of the Obama fans have turned into Fark Independents, circa 2004.
 
2013-01-04 05:04:25 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: The Senate Roll Call:

YEAs ---54

....
Not Voting - 5
DeMint (R-SC)
Heller (R-NV)
Kirk (R-IL)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Wyden (D-OR)

The House

Republicans are 190 to 43 in favor.
Democrats are split 93 to 93

Look at all those R's in front of the YEA votes in both houses.
Look at all those D's in front of the Nay votes in both houses.

Why, if I wasn't a patriot, I would say those Republicans are trying to straight-jacket the President to prevent him from seeing another of his campaign promises fulfilled. But that would be a terrible thing to do with a Defense spending authorization act. No one would be that politically m ...


This is incorrect. Please cite where you found this.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/actions_votes

More dems voted for this than you think. Also, Paul was the one that flipped out on the senate floor because of this bill. If you think he gave it a yea vote after that, you're crazier than a congressman.
 
2013-01-04 05:06:09 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Whether you're wearing a uniform has no bearing on whether you're a prisoner of war. None. Zero. Never has.


Article IV

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
 
2013-01-04 05:06:23 PM

I_C_Weener: So, what..year 12 of violating the Constitution?


No, it's year 12 of you paying attention.
 
2013-01-04 05:07:34 PM

Giltric: The act of taking people who may or may not have intended to harm you on a global battlefield, and putting them in a prison...not so much.


"... or may not have intended to harm you ..."? Really?
 
2013-01-04 05:08:40 PM

sprawl15: And, again, because the 9/11 AUMF is specifically targeting organizations or persons, captured members of those organizations or those persons are POW's per Article 4 Section 1.


Direct from Article 1:

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Most of the nations of origin for members of known terrorist groups are not parties to the Geneva Convention. In addition, protection under the act requires the prisoner to have acted in accordance to the laws and customs of warfare as spelled out in the convention. You know, like not murdering US Soldiers who are captured, and posting the video on youtube?

In addition to this, I think you might want to read Article 4, Section 1. It does not say what you think it says.

[p.46] A. -- ' On the territory of belligerent States: ' protection is accorded under Article 4 to all persons of foreign nationality and to persons without any nationality. The following are, however, excluded:

(1) Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention;

(2) Nationals of a neutral or co-belligerent State, so long as the State
in question has normal diplomatic representation in the State in
whose territory they are;

(3) Persons covered by the definition given above under A who enjoy
protection under one of the other three Geneva Conventions of August
12, 1949.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State. The following are, however, excluded:

(1) Nationals of a State which is not party to the Convention.

(2) Nationals of a co-belligerent State, so long as the State in question
has normal diplomatic representation in the occupying State.

(3) Persons covered by the definition given above under B who enjoy
protection under one of the three other Geneva Conventions of August
12, 1949.
 
2013-01-04 05:09:48 PM

durbnpoisn: I don't understand how and why we have a military prison in Cuba to start with. We've had a trade embargo for decades. I've never actually gotten an explanation for how that makes any sense.


Prior to Castro taking over the country in the 1950's, we leased land for a military base there from the previous Cuban government. We simply never left. We continue to send the lease payments to Castro and he never cashes the checks, but it's not technically US soil.

Putting the prison there made it somewhat easier, legally, to deny the people there the right of a trial, etc., since it's not really the United States technically.
 
2013-01-04 05:10:27 PM

kindms: Spain puts real terrorists on trial, UK, Germany etc etc etc. Only here in the US is it to f-ing scary to actually give someone their due in court to challenge the charges against them.


Britain tried the "lock up people we don't like the look of without trial" tactic as well, during the NI Troubles. A few minutes internet research will show just how well internment worked out. Summary: it was wrong, made us look terrible and radicalised an entire generation.
 
2013-01-04 05:11:24 PM
BronyMedic SmartestFunniest 2013-01-04 04:48:22 PM


orbister: OK, I'll bite. What declared war were they fighting in?

This one. The one signed by both the United States House and Senate, and signed by the President of the United States in full accordance with the constitutional authority and requirements there-of for the Government to levee war against it's enemies.


Authorization for use of force is not a declaration of war.
 
2013-01-04 05:11:43 PM

hubiestubert: We can't bring many of these folks to trial. Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights. We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause. The issue is that they remain in a legal Limbo, because no one put a lot of thought into chain of custody or chain of evidence in their capture. We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system, and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

THIS was my problem from the get go. THIS. Had we made this into a law enforcement matter, we could have captured, tried, and convicted a good number of folks. There are Supermax facilities where we have terrorists locked up today, and without any contact with their peeps. They have been removed from the field, and were convicted in a real trial. Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk. Free and clear if we even tried.

Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

Is it a travesty?  Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...


Fine, then put a farking bullet through their heads and call it done. "We can't stop abusing the rights of these people, because then there would be consequences to our actions" has got to be the biggest pile of hogshiat I've heard in a long damn time. Let them go and deal with the consequences, try them and deal with the consequences, or keep/kill them and admit that you aren't an awesome country. If you're fine with admitting that your a country that has no problem with trampling the rights of people for no provable reason then by all means hold on to them. But don't try to say that you are a country that respects people's rights and does everything to protect them while continuing with this bull.
 
2013-01-04 05:16:32 PM

BronyMedic: Direct from Article 1:

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Most of the nations of origin for members of known terrorist groups are not parties to the Geneva Convention. In addition, protection under the act requires the prisoner to have acted in accordance to the laws and customs of warfare as spelled out in the convention. You know, like not murdering US Soldiers who are captured, and posting the video on youtube?


Again, the 9/11 AUMF authorizes military action on non-state actors. Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that al Qaeda should be assumed to be irregular forces of a state actor upon which the military action is being levied. That's blatantly false - al Qaeda are directly being warred upon.

BronyMedic: In addition to this, I think you might want to read Article 4, Section 1. It does not say what you think it says.


I quoted it to you upthread. It says exactly what I think it says. You may want to check your link since it links to the wrong farking convention. Here, I'll post all of Article 4 for you and save you the trouble:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
I bolded Section 1, the part I'm talking about. Section 2, right after, is what you're talking about. Members of the armed forces of the parties to the conflict are by default - regardless of what Section 2 says - to be considered prisoners of war. They are separate sections and independently applicable.

Gdalescrboz: Authorization for use of force is not a declaration of war.


I would suggest you look up the War Powers Resolution so you don't look a fool.
 
2013-01-04 05:16:36 PM

Giltric: During "the troubles" the UK devised special courts where they could detain you if you were Irish...I think we even used them as a model for the current indefinate detention program in the US....Before that the Brits just used internment.


Not quite. Internment was detention without trial. It was replaced by the use of Diplock Courts, in which a judge alone delivered the verdict. This was because of perceived risks of perverse acquittals and of jury intimidation, though the evidence for those risks was at best sketchy. Diplock Courts did not detain you for being Irish: they were used to try alleged paramilitaries on both sides and had all the usual features of the UK courts system save a jury.
 
2013-01-04 05:17:16 PM

Harry Freakstorm



I gotta do everything around this country.

Near Future Headline

Cargo plane from Gitmo crashes in Atlantic Ocean.

What was supposed to be a joyous occasion for the families of over 100 Gitmo detainees turned sour when they learned that the plane carrying the former prisoners of war crashed in the Atlantic Ocean. Only the crew survived.

"We are sadden by this event" said the President smiling because he was thinking about a recent Simpson episode where Bart and Homer accidentally exchanged bodies and no one noticed. "It is doubley sad because they didn't purchase flight insurance. Now, no one gets nuttin."

The DC-3 was considered dangerously overloaded with it's load of passengers, extra fuel and unloved Pet Rocks that had also been sent to Gitmo back in the 70's. Witnesses say the plane broke up right after the crew bailed. "Witnesses say the valiant crew jumped at the first sign of trouble" says Obama. "But witnesses can be wrong. They can also be audited by the IRS."

The President has requested a moment of silence for the victims. It will happen around 2 in the AM when everyone is pretty much asleep anyhow.

(Updated)
Witnesses claim the crew did everything they could including re-enacting the scene from Hot Shots where Charlie Sheen tries to hold the plane together with his bare hands. "They were heroes. Heroes!" claims John "Please Don't Review My Schedule CR-13" Johnson.



Just like that story that they buried Bin Laden at sea. You just know they got that MFer up on a dart board in the basement of the WH every Saturday night
 
2013-01-04 05:17:45 PM

swahnhennessy: Bizarro world on Fark. All of the Obama fans have turned into Fark Independents, circa 2004.


Well, Obama is kind of farked here. Doing the right thing (simply pardoning everybody in Gitmo) pretty much guarantees Republican control of the entire Federal government.
 
2013-01-04 05:19:44 PM

sprawl15: This text is now purple: US rights only apply to those over whom the US has jurisdiction.

You don't think the US is assuming governmental jurisdiction over people they are specifically targeting for a drone strike?


Likely not.

Did the US have jurisdiction over Tokyo on April 18, 1942?

If they did, it would have come as a complete shock to the Japanese Empire.
 
2013-01-04 05:21:17 PM

sprawl15: No, you linked to a different treaty. I thought we just talked about this?


I admitted as much in one of my previous responses since I had it open in another window, but you knew which treaty was in question (the third Geneva Convention). You're attacking me for making the equivalent of a typo.

It's not an emotional argument. You're a moron. You're posting nothing but moronic things, getting upset when I'm talking about things you asked me to talk about, and getting generally confused when called out on your non sequitors. If you don't want to be called a moron, you could start by paying attention.

None of what I said was a non-sequitor, and your only purpose in insulting anyone HAS to be to stroke your own ego since you never insult anyone whose mind you're actually trying to change (which is the whole objective of debate in the first place). Why are you here in the first place?

And, again, because the 9/11 AUMF is specifically targeting organizations or persons, captured members of those organizations or those persons are POW's per Article 4 Section 1.

Your argument here is tenuous since the treaty itself is somewhat ambiguous about this. From the text itself:

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces"

al Qaeda can hardly be classified as organized armed forces since almost any dictionary definition of armed forces involve affiliation with an officially recognized country of some kind, and no other specific legal definition is offered in the treaty. Given the geopolitical environment at the time of the signing of the treaty, it's fairly clear that they meant organized armies by nation-states - which don't seem to pertain to the combatants we face today.
 
2013-01-04 05:21:24 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Fine, then put a farking bullet through their heads and call it done.


We either need to subject them to the rule of law -- and the possibility that they'll go free, as we didn't do a great job setting up the prosecution -- or declare that they're too dangerous to live and kill them. The idea that it's somehow better to keep them around in jail until they die "naturally" is just us acting like 4-year-olds unwilling to own up to our mistakes.
 
2013-01-04 05:21:27 PM

hubiestubert: We can't bring many of these folks to trial. Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights. We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause. The issue is that they remain in a legal Limbo, because no one put a lot of thought into chain of custody or chain of evidence in their capture. We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system, and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

THIS was my problem from the get go. THIS. Had we made this into a law enforcement matter, we could have captured, tried, and convicted a good number of folks. There are Supermax facilities where we have terrorists locked up today, and without any contact with their peeps. They have been removed from the field, and were convicted in a real trial. Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk. Free and clear if we even tried.

Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

Is it a travesty?  Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...


All of these, plus the fact that the GOP has whipped people into a pants-shiatting frenzy every time anyone even tries to mention bringing them to the US and holding them in US prisons. Everyone screeching about how Gitmo is still open--well, OK, let's put them in YOUR supermax in YOUR state, and watch the fur&feathers fly as your Congressmembers shriek about how we can't possibly keep dangerous terrorists on US soil because blah blah blah. Every. Single.Time. it's been discussed it gets shot down because O it's just too dangerous and everyone buys it because apparently terrorists are some kind of killgods or something.

There are three options. We can move them to US prisons and try them. We can let them go and face the consequences. Or we can execute all of them and watch our leaders go to the Hague for war crimes. That's it. There are no other options. But we're going to have to pick one and live with it. Myself, I'd go with putting them on trial, knowing they're going to walk, and exposing the awful, dirty secrets that have been going on at Gitmo for the last 12 years...and watching our leaders go to the Hague for war crimes. But for f*ck's sake, we need to do something.
 
2013-01-04 05:23:12 PM

This text is now purple: Did the US have jurisdiction over Tokyo on April 18, 1942?


Yes. That's why there was action taken.

This text is now purple: If they did, it would have come as a complete shock to the Japanese Empire.


I'm pretty sure the Japanese Empire knew they were at war with the US by then.
 
2013-01-04 05:24:13 PM

BronyMedic: orbister: OK, I'll bite. What declared war were they fighting in?

This one. The one signed by both the United States House and Senate, and signed by the President of the United States in full accordance with the constitutional authority and requirements there-of for the Government to levee war against it's enemies.


That's not a war. You can't declare war against something as vague as terrorism, and if you do you can't then expect to use that vacuous declaration to justify marching into any country you don't like anywhere around the world.

Or would you agree that had the UK government made a similar declaration in the 70s, UK troops would have been fully entitled to invade the US to find the IRA terrorists you were sheltering, and to kill any civilians who attempted to use their second amendment rights to stop them?

You (an we) didn't declare war on Afghanistan so you (and we) have absolutely no right to treat fighting there as a war.
 
2013-01-04 05:24:16 PM

hubiestubert: Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights.


Then they should go through a trial and be released. Can you imagine if you were accused of murder, and held in prison without trial, on the basis of the fact there wasn't enough evidence to convict??

Geotpf: Well, Obama is kind of farked here. Doing the right thing (simply pardoning everybody in Gitmo) pretty much guarantees Republican control of the entire Federal government.


It's his second term. If there's one thing he could do, once promise he could keep, let it be that. I don't like Obama, and so far, even the things I expected him to do that were good he has completely and utterly failed to do.
 
2013-01-04 05:28:33 PM
 
2013-01-04 05:30:34 PM

Banned on the Run: Solution: Let them all go.

[calitreview.com image 533x300]

GPS in the collar. Must return every few years for a battery change or kaboom.
If they are found misbehaving , either kaboom or a hellfire on their position.
Problem solved.


That is quite literally the stupidest thing I've ever read on Fark.
 
2013-01-04 05:32:29 PM

JustFarkinAround: By your logic, our US soldiers are given better treatment than our enemies? Tell that to Jessica Lynch and numerous other POWs. Our soldiers are beaten, abused and BEHEADED. Comparable to our enemies, Gitmo guys get the royal treatment.


How often has this happened? Besides, being marginally better than the bad guys doesn't make you a good guy.

And the conflict didnt take place on US soil,

The next one might. (yes, I know it's unlikely)

nor were they citizens - so what's your point? You sound like Chicken Little with your "terrorists arent getting fair treatment so I wont get fair treatment".

How do you know the victims at Guantanamo are terrorists? Because Fox News said so?
 
2013-01-04 05:37:40 PM

Hydra: your only purpose in insulting anyone HAS to be to stroke your own ego since you never insult anyone whose mind you're actually trying to change


You underestimate how big an asshole I am.

Hydra: Your argument here is tenuous since the treaty itself is somewhat ambiguous about this. From the text itself:

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces"

al Qaeda can hardly be classified as organized armed forces since almost any dictionary definition of armed forces involve affiliation with an officially recognized country of some kind, and no other specific legal definition is offered in the treaty.


The treaty does not specify that said armed forces need be affiliated with a state actor. Merely that they be armed forces. That can be addressed by a simple rhetorical question: What qualifies an individual as a member of al Qaeda? Aside from the 9/11 AUMF determination, of course.

Hydra: Given the geopolitical environment at the time of the signing of the treaty, it's fairly clear that they meant organized armies by nation-states - which don't seem to pertain to the combatants we face today.


For comparison, Slobodan Milošević was tried for (among other things) violating the Geneva convention in his actions in Kosovo - against non state actors.

orbister: That's not a war. You can't declare war against something as vague as terrorism, and if you do you can't then expect to use that vacuous declaration to justify marching into any country you don't like anywhere around the world.


Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
 
2013-01-04 05:39:18 PM

detritus: Wrong. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liber t y/2012/aug/14/why-does-ron-paul-insist-declaration-war/

Let's not make this a Ron Paul discussion. Argue the facts.


The fact is that the War Powers Resolution is standing legislation and you seem to be totally ignorant of it or its implications.
 
2013-01-04 05:43:02 PM

Uncle Tractor: JustFarkinAround: By your logic, our US soldiers are given better treatment than our enemies? Tell that to Jessica Lynch and numerous other POWs. Our soldiers are beaten, abused and BEHEADED. Comparable to our enemies, Gitmo guys get the royal treatment.

How often has this happened? Besides, being marginally better than the bad guys doesn't make you a good guy.

And the conflict didnt take place on US soil,

The next one might. (yes, I know it's unlikely)

nor were they citizens - so what's your point? You sound like Chicken Little with your "terrorists arent getting fair treatment so I wont get fair treatment".

How do you know the victims at Guantanamo are terrorists? Because Fox News said so?


Look at the list of Gitmo detainees... It's like the Al-Jazeera subscriber list
 
2013-01-04 05:43:44 PM
Any Fark Independents with an affirmative solution? You all clearly have a handle on what will not work. Any thoughts on what would?
 
2013-01-04 05:44:36 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Any Fark Independents with an affirmative solution?


sprawl15: the choice is pretty clear that we must choose the option that is morally just - releasing the ones we won't/can't try.

 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report