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?
orbister: OK, I'll bite. What declared war were they fighting in?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
ManRay: Republicans are not going to do it.Democrats are not going to do it.Who is left?
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.
Hydra: Presenting you with a link to the actual treaty in question
Hydra: Do you know how to be dispassionate in a debate?
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.
Hydra: Remove your emotions
This text is now purple: US rights only apply to those over whom the US has jurisdiction.
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.
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
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 ...
Boudica's War Tampon: The Senate Roll Call:YEAs ---54....Not Voting - 5DeMint (R-SC)Heller (R-NV)Kirk (R-IL)Rockefeller (D-WV)Wyden (D-OR)The HouseRepublicans are 190 to 43 in favor.Democrats are split 93 to 93Look 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 ...
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.
I_C_Weener: So, what..year 12 of violating the Constitution?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
(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.
Gdalescrboz: Authorization for use of force is not a declaration of war.
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.
swahnhennessy: Bizarro world on Fark. All of the Obama fans have turned into Fark Independents, circa 2004.
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?
sprawl15: No, you linked to a different treaty. I thought we just talked about this?
Noticeably F.A.T.: Fine, then put a farking bullet through their heads and call it done.
This text is now purple: Did the US have jurisdiction over Tokyo on April 18, 1942?
This text is now purple: If they did, it would have come as a complete shock to the Japanese Empire.
hubiestubert: Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Curious: 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.
If you like these links, you'll love
Total accessTotal knowledgeTotal Fark
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 12 2017 00:09:19
Runtime: 0.485 sec (484 ms)