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
 
2013-01-04 01:04:48 PM
Fail tag completely appropriate.
 
2013-01-04 01:08:44 PM
Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.
 
2013-01-04 01:09:47 PM
So, what..year 12 of violating the Constitution?
 
2013-01-04 01:48:39 PM
I figure the only choice is they can live there or cease to exist.  The ones that are left are not going to walk away from it.
 
2013-01-04 01:51:15 PM
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.
 
2013-01-04 02:01:38 PM
The terrorists have won  :(
 
2013-01-04 02:17:43 PM

Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.


This is actually a case where most everyone comes off badly.  The GOP thinks that a key component to winning the war on terror is to lock every suspect up and then compete to see who can come up with the toughest sounding way to make them confess.  Democratic politicians are scared of being labeled appeasers or soft on terror, and the only critic of this  with any sort of a megaphone is Glenn Greenwald, who comes with his own (mostly self-induced) set of flaws that cost him credibility.
 
2013-01-04 03:20:58 PM
Same shiat different asshole. I guess Obama wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.
 
2013-01-04 03:20:59 PM

BSABSVR: the only critic of this with any sort of a megaphone is Glenn Greenwald, who comes with his own (mostly self-induced) set of flaws that cost him credibility


Not being an elected official is a pretty big flaw. So is not having millions of dollars.
 
2013-01-04 03:21:10 PM
Forever doesn't mean much when your lifespan is less than 100 years,
 
2013-01-04 03:21:18 PM
Lemme guess, Fark:

Bush kept Gitmo open because he's an EVIL REPUBLICAN
Obama keeps Gitmo open because those EVIL REPUBLICANS give him no choice.

Right? Right...
 
2013-01-04 03:22:30 PM
Not forever, I predict they will all be dead within 100 years .
 
2013-01-04 03:22:35 PM
i.imgur.com

U.S.A!!!! U.S.A!!!!
 U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!

/someone had to do it.
 
2013-01-04 03:22:47 PM

hubiestubert: We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system


We very well can. Many of the detainees - and others captured in the war on terror - have been tried and convicted in civilian courts.

hubiestubert: and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.


They're only being kept there due to the 9/11 AUMF - an exercise of Congressional war powers. If the 9/11 AUMF were repealed today, every one of those people would need to be released asap.

A big problem is that we are holding them under war powers for civilian crimes - so we treat them as if they were suspected criminals, avoiding protections and rights granted to POWs - while refusing to try them because they are detainees under war powers rather than those arrested for purpose of a trial.

hubiestubert: Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter.


Problem is, keeping them, trying them, or releasing them are all terrible decisions, practically speaking. And when they're all horrible decisions in terms of practicality, the choice is pretty clear that we must choose the option that is morally just - releasing the ones we won't/can't try.
 
2013-01-04 03:22:51 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The terrorists have won  :(


By getting labeled as terrorists and handed down a de facto life sentence in a foreign jail?

You have an odd definition of "#winning", Lionel.
 
2013-01-04 03:23:07 PM
Unless they choose to wage asymmetrical warfare. That's a (relatively) easy out.
 
2013-01-04 03:24:07 PM
Obama's just a corporate whore like 99.9% of the other politicians in Washington. How is this still surprising anyone?
 
2013-01-04 03:24:09 PM
So when you become president and have access to ALL the information, it's actually the best option... It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.
 
2013-01-04 03:24:27 PM
How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?

Don't understand the liberal outrage here. And why not just close it down? Obama can do that whenever he wants to.
 
2013-01-04 03:25:03 PM
and THIS is why you dont 'capture' irregulars. Dealing with stateless nobodies in an undeclared war has always been a PITA. Thats why, historically, we just shot the arseholes...
 
2013-01-04 03:26:13 PM
I am worried about the religious prevision in this new bill. Some general forces his subordinates to take Christian Bible classes and the subordinates would comply because of the chain of command that they're under.
 
2013-01-04 03:26:17 PM
166 prisoners? Small potatoes - how many non-violent drug offenders were locked up nationwide today?
 
2013-01-04 03:26:23 PM

russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.


Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.
 
2013-01-04 03:27:42 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 .


Or the fact that, you know, they didn't actually break any U.S. laws.
 
2013-01-04 03:28:13 PM
movie-reviews.com.au
 
2013-01-04 03:28:28 PM
Perspective #1: New boss same as old boss

Perspective #2: Let 'em go, get crucified when they kill again. Let 'em stay, get crucified for running a police state.
 
2013-01-04 03:28:40 PM

Subtle_Canary: and THIS is why you dont 'capture' irregulars. Dealing with stateless nobodies in an undeclared war has always been a PITA. Thats why, historically, we just shot the arseholes...


Shhh. You're going to troll the pseudo-legal scholars who think the Geneva Convention protects them, and that America is really the big, bad Nazi Monsters..
 
2013-01-04 03:28:53 PM
assets.nydailynews.com

Coming soon to your neighborhood!
 
2013-01-04 03:29:10 PM

Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?

Don't understand the liberal outrage here. And why not just close it down? Obama can do that whenever he wants to.


Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.
 
2013-01-04 03:29:49 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.


Happy 12th birthday!
 
2013-01-04 03:30:22 PM

Subtle_Canary: and THIS is why you dont 'capture' irregulars. Dealing with stateless nobodies in an undeclared war has always been a PITA. Thats why, historically, we just shot the arseholes...


And the best part is the Geneva Convention allows you to do just that.  It's very explicit about soldiers being in uniform and combatants who run around with guns dressed as civilians.
 
2013-01-04 03:30:22 PM
This place should be a black mark on american history and never forgotten. It is a very shameful thing that has been done here. And Im sure the people there are no angels, they dont deserve to be treated like this. The legal limbo they have been in is horrible. They would have been better off just being executed in the field.
 
2013-01-04 03:30:25 PM
Nobel Peace Prison Prize
 
2013-01-04 03:30:56 PM

russsssman: So when you become president and have access to ALL the information, it's actually the best option... It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.


The one redeeming feature of Obama's Presidency has been continuing Bush's foreign policy.
 
2013-01-04 03:31:23 PM
You could use the Chinese solution and buy a case of 9mm. Each prisoner gets one in the head and you'll even have 334 rounds left over.

/what to do with dangerous terrorists becomes easy if you don't worry about their human rights.
 
2013-01-04 03:31:32 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.


History will say differently. The new Normal after Obama is done is going to be a complete disaster. We can never recover fiscally either, we are to far gone. Democrats breed like rabbits, so it will never get better. Obama will be remembered as the President who destroyed the country.
 
2013-01-04 03:31:50 PM
www.jessicaswell.com
 
2013-01-04 03:32:01 PM

Hydra: Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.

Happy 12th birthday!


Hilarious.

/No, really, that was actually pretty good.
 
2013-01-04 03:32:21 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.


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?

They're not POWs, they're Franc-Tieurs. The Geneva Convention is VERY clear what they have to do to qualify as a prisoner of war, and not as a saboteur/spy. Regardless of your personal feelings of the morality of the matter, the later can be summarily executed upon discovery, and it be completely legit according to the laws and customs of warfare.
 
2013-01-04 03:32:37 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?

Don't understand the liberal outrage here. And why not just close it down? Obama can do that whenever he wants to.

Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.


I think he referring to Geneva Convention protections.
 
2013-01-04 03:33:48 PM

Thunderpipes: Obama will be remembered as the President who destroyed the country.


Nah, sorry. Reality has a liberal bias.

/"Romney's gonna win with, like, 340 EV. I can just feel it."
 
2013-01-04 03:34:52 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?

Don't understand the liberal outrage here. And why not just close it down? Obama can do that whenever he wants to.

Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.


It matters as they apply to the Geneva Convention (which was drawn up basically for 19th century-style warfare between nation-states with uniformed armies marching in straight lines meeting in meadows 30 yards apart then kneeling and shooting each other). This was always a favorite progressive/libertarian criticism of the Bush administration - that holding them in Gitmo violated the Geneva Convention because they were POWs when, in reality, they fail to meet the requirements to be classified formally as POWs under the treaty.

/international rules of warfare need an update
 
2013-01-04 03:34:54 PM
Funny seeing die hard conservative tea-partiers agreeing with Obama. Yeah, he's a real liberal president.
 
2013-01-04 03:35:40 PM

duffblue: Same shiat different asshole. I guess Obama wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.


This, Bart, is a crazy person
 
2013-01-04 03:36:38 PM
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.
 
2013-01-04 03:37:00 PM
The US government didn't bring Jefferson Davis to trial because he might have won. He, though, still had some influential friends who got him released. These folks? Not so much.
 
2013-01-04 03:37:47 PM

hubiestubert: 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.


Yes you can. The US can do the right thing with the Guantanamo Bay victimsterrorists, just for once, even if it means putting them on trial only to have them released, consequences be damned. There's nothing those abductees torture victims evil muslins can do as free men that is worse than the damage they're doing to the US by remaining captives of the US.

(yes, *victims.* The way the US has treated them has made victims of them. It no longer matters what they may or may not have done. The US has lost all moral claims on those people)
 
2013-01-04 03:38:33 PM
scrapetv.com

At least the members of his torture regime are afraid to leave the country.
 
2013-01-04 03:38:45 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The terrorists have won  :(


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. Looks like lose all around to me. Not that I have or had any better plan that what we did.
 
2013-01-04 03:38:46 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.


WOW you're like a regular Miss Farking CLEO or sumpin.
 
2013-01-04 03:40:26 PM
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.

On top of that, here, we are at war, in two countries half way around the world. There are means of keeping them in prisons there (that torture incident should be set aside). Yet, we pick them up and fly them to Cuba.

We don't even know who these people are. They could be Ahkmed the local butcher as easily as a terrorist. Who made the decision to just round them up and send them away?

Again, doesn't make any sense. Come to think of it, it never really made sense why Bush 43 sent us to war to start with. Nice move, jerk.
 
2013-01-04 03:40:38 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: They're P.O.W.s either way.


Nope. They're abductees. They could be a bunch of goat-herders for all we know.
 
2013-01-04 03:41:05 PM
Are any of the 166 prisoners American citizens charged with terrorism ?
Being serious.
 
2013-01-04 03:41:27 PM

ChipNASA: [i.imgur.com image 250x250]

U.S.A!!!! U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!
/someone had to do it.


Oh hai, crazy person who I like. Would you like some nice PCP so you can go mow your lawn?
 
2013-01-04 03:41:59 PM
This is my surprised face.
-_-
 
2013-01-04 03:42:47 PM

Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.


Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.
 
2013-01-04 03:43:02 PM

sprawl15: hubiestubert: We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system

We very well can. Many of the detainees - and others captured in the war on terror - have been tried and convicted in civilian courts.

hubiestubert: and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

They're only being kept there due to the 9/11 AUMF - an exercise of Congressional war powers. If the 9/11 AUMF were repealed today, every one of those people would need to be released asap.

A big problem is that we are holding them under war powers for civilian crimes - so we treat them as if they were suspected criminals, avoiding protections and rights granted to POWs - while refusing to try them because they are detainees under war powers rather than those arrested for purpose of a trial.

hubiestubert: Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter.

Problem is, keeping them, trying them, or releasing them are all terrible decisions, practically speaking. And when they're all horrible decisions in terms of practicality, the choice is pretty clear that we must choose the option that is morally just - releasing the ones we won't/can't try.


That's what a moral citizen would do, not what a pragmatic leader would do.
Congress and the President will keep these guys locked up until they die or until they've been forgotten completely and no one here or abroad cares about them anymore.
They'll do that because they can justify dirtying themselves in order to protect their own citizens. And because it's politically risky to release them.

shiat like this is one of many reasons why it's so farking important to follow strict rules from the get-go, and not just toss people in prison for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Because once someone is behind bars for no substantial reason, someone is going to catch hell for that oversight - even if that someone is the person being held unjustly.
 
2013-01-04 03:43:25 PM
"The law also contains a troubling provision compelling the military to accommodate the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of all members of the armed forces without accounting for the effect an accommodation would have."

I also find this to be troubling.
 
2013-01-04 03:43:49 PM

Kittypie070: ChipNASA: [i.imgur.com image 250x250]

U.S.A!!!! U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!
/someone had to do it.

Oh hai, crazy person who I like. Would you like some nice PCP so you can go mow your lawn?


Cat Nip would be fine....or some good bud. {:-D

/probably farkied as "Crazy Republican NAZI Freak!" or something like that.
 
2013-01-04 03:44:37 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.


Ha! This made me laugh.
 
2013-01-04 03:44:46 PM

Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?


Because they're human rights. You know, the whole "we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights" thing? (Not that I believe in a creator.)
 
2013-01-04 03:45:22 PM

OgreMagi: It's very explicit about soldiers being in uniform and combatants who run around with guns dressed as civilians.


Are you claiming that every person held in Guantanamo Bay prison is there because they engaged in armed combat against the USA without uniforms?
 
2013-01-04 03:45:23 PM
Yes, but we're not torturing them.

Remember: Obama promised to stop torturing and not much else, read the fine print before electing a politician.
 
2013-01-04 03:45:52 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The terrorists have won  :(


...with the collaboration of the GOP.
 
2013-01-04 03:46:47 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.


How did closing gitmo become clodding titmouse? Fark you android!
 
2013-01-04 03:47:03 PM
hubiestubert: Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk.

Let them walk. All undesirable consequences are the price we pay for farking up so monumentally.
 
2013-01-04 03:47:48 PM

Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?


Unless you think that only US citizens have the right to due process, your question makes no sense.
 
2013-01-04 03:47:53 PM

Hydra: 19th century-style warfare between nation-states with uniformed armies marching in straight lines meeting in meadows 30 yards apart then kneeling and shooting each other


Considering the Geneva Convention was updated to offer some protection to ununiformed combatants in 1949 due to their treatment in WWII, I'd say it's a little more modern than that.
 
2013-01-04 03:47:59 PM

BronyMedic: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.

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?

They're not POWs, they're Franc-Tieurs. The Geneva Convention is VERY clear what they have to do to qualify as a prisoner of war, and not as a saboteur/spy. Regardless of your personal feelings of the morality of the matter, the later can be summarily executed upon discovery, and it be completely legit according to the laws and customs of warfare.


That only works if they are considered not the main party to the conflict, which isn't true since the 9/11 AUMF exercises war powers (in al Qaeda's case) not on a nation, but upon groups.

Since they qualify under Article 4, Section 1 as POW's, Section 2 is irrelevant.
 
2013-01-04 03:48:21 PM
CLODDING TITMOUSE!!!
 
2013-01-04 03:48:37 PM

THX 1138: OgreMagi: It's very explicit about soldiers being in uniform and combatants who run around with guns dressed as civilians.

Are you claiming that every person held in Guantanamo Bay prison is there because they engaged in armed combat against the USA without uniforms?


No.

Next question.
 
2013-01-04 03:48:46 PM
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.

I wonder what the 16 Chinese dudes did to get a free meal?
Link
 
2013-01-04 03:50:02 PM

BSABSVR: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

This is actually a case where most everyone comes off badly.  The GOP thinks that a key component to winning the war on terror is to lock every suspect up and then compete to see who can come up with the toughest sounding way to make them confess.  Democratic politicians are scared of being labeled appeasers or soft on terror, and the only critic of this  with any sort of a megaphone is Glenn Greenwald, who comes with his own (mostly self-induced) set of flaws that cost him credibility.


I'm a little curious about what the Democrats are supposed to do in this situation then, considering they know they don't have the majority they'd need to push through legislation needed to close Gitmo considering the inevitable resistance from Boehner & Co. I'd hate for your handle to stop being ironical there.
 
2013-01-04 03:50:50 PM
shoulda ended them in accordance with the geneva convention

but I like that so many of you are sticking up for your hero president

obaaaaaamaaaaaaa
 
2013-01-04 03:50:51 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 ...



But there is a solution, and that is to give them a trial. Even if it means you will have to let them go and give them generous amounts of compensation, it is still the only right thing to do. That is what justice is all about. If you cannot prove a case, or do not follow the right procedures, the suspects walks away free. Too bad, it will serve as a lesson for future generations to do it right.

So, give them a trial, let them walk, and then give the people responsible for this shameful travesty a trial as well and put them in prison instead.
 
2013-01-04 03:54:04 PM
Good, until death seems about right.

/lude
 
2013-01-04 03:54:13 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: clodding titmouse


I think you're on to something there.

Clodding titmouse - I like it.
 
2013-01-04 03:55:11 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: BSABSVR: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

This is actually a case where most everyone comes off badly.  The GOP thinks that a key component to winning the war on terror is to lock every suspect up and then compete to see who can come up with the toughest sounding way to make them confess.  Democratic politicians are scared of being labeled appeasers or soft on terror, and the only critic of this  with any sort of a megaphone is Glenn Greenwald, who comes with his own (mostly self-induced) set of flaws that cost him credibility.

I'm a little curious about what the Democrats are supposed to do in this situation then, considering they know they don't have the majority they'd need to push through legislation needed to close Gitmo considering the inevitable resistance from Boehner & Co. I'd hate for your handle to stop being ironical there.


Obama is the commander in chief of the united states military and the prisoners are held in military custody. If Congress wont fund an official transfer he could just order the navy to dump them off in Florida and just tell the FBI when so they can decide whether to show up and arrest people or not.
 
2013-01-04 03:55:47 PM

AndreMA: Lionel Mandrake: The terrorists have won  :(

...with the collaboration of the GOP.


FTFA: " President Obama has signed the National Defense Authorization Act..."
 
2013-01-04 03:56:05 PM

BronyMedic: Considering the Geneva Convention was updated to offer some protection to ununiformed combatants in 1949 due to their treatment in WWII, I'd say it's a little more modern than that.


Meh, not by much. Sure, they were updated after WWII, but it is still written for nation-state warfare rather than the terrorist networks against which we're waging war nowadays. It wasn't the standing army of Afghanistan that razed the Twin Towers to the ground in a formally declared war against the United States.

sprawl15: BronyMedic: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.

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?

They're not POWs, they're Franc-Tieurs. The Geneva Convention is VERY clear what they have to do to qualify as a prisoner of war, and not as a saboteur/spy. Regardless of your personal feelings of the morality of the matter, the later can be summarily executed upon discovery, and it be completely legit according to the laws and customs of warfare.

That only works if they are considered not the main party to the conflict, which isn't true since the 9/11 AUMF exercises war powers (in al Qaeda's case) not on a nation, but upon groups.

Since they qualify under Article 4, Section 1 as POW's, Section 2 is irrelevant.


Prove it.
 
2013-01-04 03:57:56 PM
"Don't start nothin'... won't *BE* nothin' ! "

www.blogcdn.com
 
2013-01-04 03:58:13 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. 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?
 
2013-01-04 03:58:57 PM
The Senate Roll Call:

YEAs ---54

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---41

Akaka (D-HI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

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 motivated, would they? Nah.

And I thought it was those damn socialist Democrats that were hell bent on taking away rights from gun owners and other people who like to shoot fast, often and with fewer interruptions.
 
2013-01-04 03:59:19 PM
If you are going to play war with legalities that differentiate between legal and non-legal combatants then why the fark would you arrest illegal combatants? Should have shot the mother farkers...still can
 
2013-01-04 03:59:27 PM
It's like a farking victor hugo novel down there.
We're no better than napoleon.
 
2013-01-04 04:00:27 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?


Like most things it isn't that black and white.
 
2013-01-04 04:00:42 PM

Phony_Soldier: Holocaust Agnostic: clodding titmouse

I think you're on to something there.

Clodding titmouse - I like it.


I just find it funny that those were the words his autocorrect changed to - how many times do you have to type "clodding titmouse" for it to learn that THOSE were the ones you might've meant?

/have been known to clod a few titmice in my day...
//or something
 
2013-01-04 04:00:52 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: 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.


Shh. It's because he's black.
 
2013-01-04 04:01:14 PM
Solution: Let them all go.

calitreview.com

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.
 
2013-01-04 04:01:16 PM

Hydra: sprawl15: That only works if they are considered not the main party to the conflict, which isn't true since the 9/11 AUMF exercises war powers (in al Qaeda's case) not on a nation, but upon groups.

Since they qualify under Article 4, Section 1 as POW's, Section 2 is irrelevant.

Prove it.


Wrong convention, moron. The argument is that Article 4, Section 2 defines certain requirements for disorganized forces to qualify as prisoners of war rather than Franc-Tieurs.
 
2013-01-04 04:01:51 PM

Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.


Usually thats called politics when a white guy is president.

Why so mad?
 
2013-01-04 04:02:39 PM

Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.


This is the dumbest argument. Obama only wanted to close GITMO (he was just going to move it). He was NEVER and has NEVER been opposed to indefinite detention. He has had his DOJ back and argue for every power Bush granted himself and the same arguments that the Bush admin have used to block court challenges are being used and pushed forward by the Obama DOJ

Obama's record on transparency. civil liberties, etc is atrocious. the only difference is the SILENCE in the democratic party. all the tribalists bury their head in the sand when Obama does this because it doesn't jive with the concocted idea of " AWESOMEST PRESIDENT EVA"
 
2013-01-04 04:02:45 PM
The anti-war Left must be pretty red-faced by now. Hopefully nobody caught them on video shedding tears of joy back on Election Day 2008.
 
2013-01-04 04:02:59 PM

Uncle Tractor: The Jami Turman Fan Club: They're P.O.W.s either way.

Nope. They're abductees. They could be a bunch of goat-herders for all we know.


And OJ is still looking for the real killer
 
2013-01-04 04:03:47 PM

BigNumber12: The anti-war Left must be pretty red-faced by now. Hopefully nobody caught them on video shedding tears of joy back on Election Day 2008.


Technically we never declared war. So it's all kosher, especially when a dem is in the White House.
 
2013-01-04 04:04:02 PM

hubiestubert: 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.


HORSEshiat

we release them to become heroic symbols, good. we caused that we should be accountable for it and the downside. same with taking them to court. we pride our selves on being a nation of laws. we brag about it. we beat other countries up over not being it -- so now we just walk away when it isn't convenient? fark that.

obama can rot in hell for this along side bush, cheney, john yoo and some others. some talking head on MSNBC a little while ago was saying that obama better get his shiat together here or liberals will be just as culpable as conservatives for this cluster fark. ok they didn't phrase it like that.
 
2013-01-04 04:04:24 PM
A Democrat's in office now, so it's okay.

Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.


By the second post. Well done.

Having said that, I think it's absurd that if a politician changes his mind on something over the course of time we consider it flipflopping and hypocrisy of the highest order.

If someone you meet in real life changes their mind on something over the course of time, we call it "learning".
 
2013-01-04 04:05:19 PM
Banned on the Run: GPS in the collar.

yeah well you're rightly farked if the perimeter goes back up
 
2013-01-04 04:05:59 PM

Thunderpipes: Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.

History will say differently. The new Normal after Obama is done is going to be a complete disaster. We can never recover fiscally either, we are to far gone. Democrats breed like rabbits, so it will never get better. Obama will be remembered as the President who destroyed the country.


(Republucan talking points) BINGO!!!

Please tell me I won the hot cocoa sampler box!
 
2013-01-04 04:06:44 PM

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


A bit longer than that, and it's bipartisan. Isn't that grand?
 
2013-01-04 04:07:19 PM

Hydra: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?

Don't understand the liberal outrage here. And why not just close it down? Obama can do that whenever he wants to.

Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.

It matters as they apply to the Geneva Convention (which was drawn up basically for 19th century-style warfare between nation-states with uniformed armies marching in straight lines meeting in meadows 30 yards apart then kneeling and shooting each other). This was always a favorite progressive/libertarian criticism of the Bush administration - that holding them in Gitmo violated the Geneva Convention because they were POWs when, in reality, they fail to meet the requirements to be classified formally as POWs under the treaty.

/international rules of warfare need an update


No, they don't. People just need to read them.

This is what defines a prisoner of war:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a 3 517b75ac125641e004a9e68

The only mention of uniforms is

Art 27. Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war in sufficient quantities by the Detaining Power, which shall make allowance for the climate of the region where the prisoners are detained. Uniforms of enemy armed forces captured by the Detaining Power should, if suitable for the climate, be made available to clothe prisoners of war.

Whether you're wearing a uniform has no bearing on whether you're a prisoner of war. None. Zero. Never has.

It's a fiction created by Bush apologists for why these guys shouldn't be POWs.
 
2013-01-04 04:07:44 PM

groppet: This place should be a black mark on american history and never forgotten. It is a very shameful thing that has been done here. And Im sure the people there are no angels, they dont deserve to be treated like this. The legal limbo they have been in is horrible. They would have been better off just being executed in the field.


No. The Tuskeegee syphyllis experiment was very shameful and a black mark on our history.

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.
 
2013-01-04 04:07:48 PM

vudukungfu: Boudica's War Tampon: 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.

Shh. It's because he's black.


I keep forgetting he's black. I have to watch more Chris Matthews.
 
2013-01-04 04:07:51 PM

Rindred: Thunderpipes: Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.

History will say differently. The new Normal after Obama is done is going to be a complete disaster. We can never recover fiscally either, we are to far gone. Democrats breed like rabbits, so it will never get better. Obama will be remembered as the President who destroyed the country.

(Republucan talking points) BINGO!!!

Please tell me I won the hot cocoa sampler box!


Sorry, its actually an instant coffee sampler box.
 
2013-01-04 04:09:00 PM
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-04 04:09:24 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.


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:

(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 04:09:29 PM
Republicans are not going to do it.
Democrats are not going to do it.

Who is left?
 
2013-01-04 04:09:31 PM

Giltric: groppet: This place should be a black mark on american history and never forgotten. It is a very shameful thing that has been done here. And Im sure the people there are no angels, they dont deserve to be treated like this. The legal limbo they have been in is horrible. They would have been better off just being executed in the field.

No. The Tuskeegee syphyllis experiment was very shameful and a black mark on our history.

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.


Do you still believe that talking point? The whole notion that the world is out to get us because of our FREEDUMBZ?
 
2013-01-04 04:09:46 PM

Banned on the Run: Uncle Tractor: The Jami Turman Fan Club: They're P.O.W.s either way.

Nope. They're abductees. They could be a bunch of goat-herders for all we know.

And OJ is still looking for the real killer


And how do you jive that a large majority of the people who were held in GITMO for YEARS were released. That the most of the folks still there have been cleared of any wrong doing by the Bush admin but they still are held in cages w/o charges

I remember not that long ago when we purported to be better than the rest of the world. That rule of law and all men created equal actually meant something. Now the US just does whatever is convenient and guarantees the political outcome du jour.

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.
 
2013-01-04 04:10:30 PM
Actually, I'm more bothered by American citizens being killed without due process: Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen.
 
2013-01-04 04:10:35 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Holocaust Agnostic: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.

How did closing gitmo become clodding titmouse? Fark you android!


I was about to google clodding titmouse to see wtf kind of metaphor or legaleese that was.
Thanks for the clarification
 
2013-01-04 04:12:28 PM

russsssman: So when you become president and have access to ALL the information, it's actually the best option... It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.


horseshiat again. bush was a farking mess. and not just for this.

it's not a lack of info but a lack of guts. or political will, not quite the same, that's stopping fixing this.
 
2013-01-04 04:12:58 PM

Thunderpipes: Democrats breed like rabbits


wat
 
2013-01-04 04:14:15 PM

super_grass: Giltric: groppet: This place should be a black mark on american history and never forgotten. It is a very shameful thing that has been done here. And Im sure the people there are no angels, they dont deserve to be treated like this. The legal limbo they have been in is horrible. They would have been better off just being executed in the field.

No. The Tuskeegee syphyllis experiment was very shameful and a black mark on our history.

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.

Do you still believe that talking point? The whole notion that the world is out to get us because of our FREEDUMBZ?


Huh?
 
2013-01-04 04:14:20 PM

evaned: Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?

Because they're human rights. You know, the whole "we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights" thing? (Not that I believe in a creator.)


Silly Lib. Non-Republicans aren't human.
 
2013-01-04 04:14:23 PM

Rindred: Thunderpipes: Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.

History will say differently. The new Normal after Obama is done is going to be a complete disaster. We can never recover fiscally either, we are to far gone. Democrats breed like rabbits, so it will never get better. Obama will be remembered as the President who destroyed the country.

(Republucan talking points) BINGO!!!

Please tell me I won the hot cocoa sampler box!


What I really liked about that one is that it exists in the same opinionverse as "Democrats are for birth control and abortion so Republicans will eventually outbreed them." Truly a refined level of derp.
 
2013-01-04 04:14:26 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.

On top of that, here, we are at war, in two countries half way around the world. There are means of keeping them in prisons there (that torture incident should be set aside). Yet, we pick them up and fly them to Cuba.

We don't even know who these people are. They could be Ahkmed the local butcher as easily as a terrorist. Who made the decision to just round them up and send them away?

Again, doesn't make any sense. Come to think of it, it never really made sense why Bush 43 sent us to war to start with. Nice move, jerk.


It goes back to the turn of the 20th century when the US had control over Cuba (before they had their communist revolution).

Link
 
2013-01-04 04:14:29 PM

Giltric: Holocaust Agnostic: Holocaust Agnostic: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.

How did closing gitmo become clodding titmouse? Fark you android!

I was about to google clodding titmouse to see wtf kind of metaphor or legaleese that was.
Thanks for the clarification


ecx.images-amazon.comfarm6.staticflickr.com
 
2013-01-04 04:14:35 PM

Hydra: Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.

Happy 12th birthday!


he's the worst in mine and i voted for Goldwater.
 
2013-01-04 04:15:23 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The terrorists have won  :(


Pretty much, this...
 
2013-01-04 04:15:27 PM

sprawl15: Wrong convention, moron.


Ooooo, you really got me since I posted the wrong link (a simple mistake if you have multiple windows open) and called me a moron! What a big man you are!

The argument is that Article 4, Section 2 defines certain requirements for disorganized forces to qualify as prisoners of war rather than Franc-Tieurs.

Under none of those conditions do they qualify either under Section 2 OR Section 1.

/2003 called and wants its argument back
 
2013-01-04 04:16:02 PM

Phony_Soldier: Actually, I'm more bothered by American citizens being killed without due process


'Due process' does not mean a court trial. It literally means the process that you are due - that what is done to you must be in accordance with the law. If you are on a violent rampage and a policeman kills you, they are legally empowered to do so and your life is taken while satisfying your due process rights. If the laws are changed such that policemen are not legally allowed to use lethal force, then in the same situation your due process rights would have been violated.

In the case of military killings, due process is simply a requirement to follow the laws of war - we must provide some poor bastard sitting in an Afghani ammo dump 'due process' before dropping a bomb on him. 'Due process' in this case obviously doesn't mean a jury trial. al Awlaki was killed per the rules we have set for operation of the war on terror.

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.
 
2013-01-04 04:16:52 PM

Giltric: super_grass: Giltric: groppet: This place should be a black mark on american history and never forgotten. It is a very shameful thing that has been done here. And Im sure the people there are no angels, they dont deserve to be treated like this. The legal limbo they have been in is horrible. They would have been better off just being executed in the field.

No. The Tuskeegee syphyllis experiment was very shameful and a black mark on our history.

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.

Do you still believe that talking point? The whole notion that the world is out to get us because of our FREEDUMBZ?

Huh?


>>> I'm going to pretend to miss the point and make you look dumb

What a useful idiot you are.
 
2013-01-04 04:18:10 PM

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

Who is left?

 
2013-01-04 04:18:27 PM

kindms: Banned on the Run: Uncle Tractor: The Jami Turman Fan Club: They're P.O.W.s either way.

Nope. They're abductees. They could be a bunch of goat-herders for all we know.

And OJ is still looking for the real killer

And how do you jive that a large majority of the people who were held in GITMO for YEARS were released. That the most of the folks still there have been cleared of any wrong doing by the Bush admin but they still are held in cages w/o charges

I remember not that long ago when we purported to be better than the rest of the world. That rule of law and all men created equal actually meant something. Now the US just does whatever is convenient and guarantees the political outcome du jour.

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.


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.
 
2013-01-04 04:20:22 PM

super_grass: Giltric: super_grass: Giltric: groppet: This place should be a black mark on american history and never forgotten. It is a very shameful thing that has been done here. And Im sure the people there are no angels, they dont deserve to be treated like this. The legal limbo they have been in is horrible. They would have been better off just being executed in the field.

No. The Tuskeegee syphyllis experiment was very shameful and a black mark on our history.

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.

Do you still believe that talking point? The whole notion that the world is out to get us because of our FREEDUMBZ?

Huh?

>>> I'm going to pretend to miss the point and make you look dumb

What a useful idiot you are.


Is that real? I thought that was a meme and you got confused thinking it was real.

I was giving you an out, so to speak.
 
2013-01-04 04:22:26 PM

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

Who is left?


WHOM
 
2013-01-04 04:22:30 PM

Giltric: super_grass: Giltric: super_grass: Giltric: groppet: This place should be a black mark on american history and never forgotten. It is a very shameful thing that has been done here. And Im sure the people there are no angels, they dont deserve to be treated like this. The legal limbo they have been in is horrible. They would have been better off just being executed in the field.

No. The Tuskeegee syphyllis experiment was very shameful and a black mark on our history.

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.

Do you still believe that talking point? The whole notion that the world is out to get us because of our FREEDUMBZ?

Huh?

>>> I'm going to pretend to miss the point and make you look dumb

What a useful idiot you are.

Is that real? I thought that was a meme and you got confused thinking it was real.

I was giving you an out, so to speak.


I'm sorry, but ironic shiatposting is still shiatposting.

0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-01-04 04:22:56 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.

On top of that, here, we are at war, in two countries half way around the world. There are means of keeping them in prisons there (that torture incident should be set aside). Yet, we pick them up and fly them to Cuba.


I believe our weird relationship with Cuba is why we have to keep them there. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan or any other country that we have some sort of diplomatic relationship, we don't have to obey Cuba's criminal laws since we have no treaty with them, but we are "renting" that land from them (against their will). Holding "enemy combatants" there for eternity means that any improvement in our relationship with Cuba would work against maintaining Guantanamo.
 
2013-01-04 04:23:49 PM

sprawl15: 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.

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:

(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.


sprawl15: 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.

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:

(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.


You seem to be rather selective in your editing:

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.


And the most important one of all...

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


Has there been a tribunal? No? Then they're prisoners of war.
 
2013-01-04 04:24:02 PM

Hydra: Phony_Soldier: Holocaust Agnostic: clodding titmouse

I think you're on to something there.

Clodding titmouse - I like it.

I just find it funny that those were the words his autocorrect changed to - how many times do you have to type "clodding titmouse" for it to learn that THOSE were the ones you might've meant?

/have been known to clod a few titmice in my day...
//or something


What, would you prefer uncloded titmice?
Whatever floats you boat, wierdo.
 
2013-01-04 04:24:20 PM

Curious: Hydra: Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.

Happy 12th birthday!

he's the worst in mine and i voted for Goldwater.


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
 
2013-01-04 04:26:28 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.

It's a fiction created by Bush apologists for why these guys shouldn't be POWs.


What the fark are you talking about?

Straight from Article 4

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, fulfill 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 04:26:31 PM

Hydra: Ooooo, you really got me since I posted the wrong link (a simple mistake if you have multiple windows open) and called me a moron! What a big man you are!


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. 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.

Hydra: Under none of those conditions do they qualify either under Section 2 OR Section 1.


The 9/11 AUMF exercises war powers directly on non-state actors ("organizations, or persons"). That means that per Section 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.), these forces are members of the armed forces of a party to a conflict and thus qualify as prisoners of war by default. Franc-Tieurs specifically refer to forces that do not qualify for POW status under Section 2.

Hydra: 2003 called and wants its argument back


I didn't realize the argument that every prisoner in Guantanamo should receive full POW protections was the trending argument in 2003. Could you source any of that?

I doubt it, because you're still totally full of shiat and now you're just going to tantrum about how I'm making fun of you and come up with some hilarious non sequitor.
 
2013-01-04 04:27:34 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


You seem to be forgetting that little caveat.
 
2013-01-04 04:29:38 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: You seem to be rather selective in your editing:


Your argument is that there is no reference to uniform other than the selection you picked ("The only mention of uniforms is:"). How selective my editing is happens to be totally farking irrelevant.

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Has there been a tribunal?


The Bush administration declared that those captured in the war on terror are essentially non-persons and have thus determined their status as non-POW's, removing the doubt that would create a requirement for individual tribunals.
 
2013-01-04 04:31:22 PM

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.
 
2013-01-04 04:33:04 PM
I'm just about as concerned for the welfare of these prisoners as they would be of mine were they in control.

/Rent is cheap at Gitmo
 
2013-01-04 04:34:10 PM
Phony_Soldier
Actually, I'm more bothered by American citizens being killed without due process: Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen.


Why didnt you go to Yemen and arrest him then? Being an American doesnt mean you can move to another country and wage war w/out being targeted. Im the most badass American you will ever meet but even i expect a hellfire through my car window if im hiding out in a 3rd world country running a jihad against the worlds only super power
 
2013-01-04 04:35:15 PM

hubiestubert: We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause


This is bullshiat.

They are already martyrs. The longer they remain, the more martyred they become. If they die, they become permanent martyrs.

Send them home.

Your argument stinks.
 
2013-01-04 04:35:58 PM

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

Who is left?



Democrats.
 
2013-01-04 04:36:26 PM

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

Who is left?

WHOM


Ahh what? The correct word there is who.
 
2013-01-04 04:39:20 PM
move to another country and wage war

Celestial narwhalcitation needed
 
2013-01-04 04:39:57 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.


Is that a general principle of the US legal system? That it's wrong to try people if they might be found innocent, so instead you should just keep them locked up for life without trial instead.

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.
 
2013-01-04 04:40:13 PM

Gdalescrboz: Why didnt you go to Yemen and arrest him then?


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.
 
2013-01-04 04:42:12 PM

orbister: 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.

Is that a general principle of the US legal system? That it's wrong to try people if they might be found innocent, so instead you should just keep them locked up for life without trial instead.

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.


It's a general principle of the US political system. People that are locked up forever aren't free to terrorize us again and cause the person in charge to take the blame for it.
 
2013-01-04 04:42:32 PM

Gdalescrboz: If you are going to play war with legalities that differentiate between legal and non-legal combatants then why the fark would you arrest illegal combatants? Should have shot the mother farkers...still can


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?
 
2013-01-04 04:42:41 PM

Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?


So your theory is that non-Americans have no rights of any sort?
 
2013-01-04 04:43:18 PM
Just shoot them and be done with it. They were not official soldiers of any state army, thus they can be treated as spies under the Geneva convention, which entitles us to execute them as spies.
 
2013-01-04 04:44:00 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.


The US received Guantanamo under permanent lease based on a treaty with the previous government of Cuba, so long as it was continuously occupied. When Castro came to power, the US asserted that as Cuba never ceased to exist, the treaty was still in force. As the US has never left, it's still considered theirs to use under international law.

Cuba has never really wanted the shooting war that would be required to reclaim it, especially once the Russians decided they were too crazy to have their own nukes.
 
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.

 
2013-01-04 05:46:03 PM

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.


You must not remember the stagflation of the 1970s, which is why I specifically brought up Ford and Carter (though I suppose I could've included LBJ and Nixon since their policies helped sow those inflationary seeds - with a little help from William McChesney Martin and Arthur Burns, of course).

You think the economy is bad now? Do you have any idea how bad things would've been then had Volcker not gotten inflation under control?

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.

Here's a link to the economists who calculated that present value. Even if they are off by 75% and the true figure is $55.5 trillion, that's still an astronomical number that cannot possibly be serviced through tax increases on the rich alone. Even with the rose-colored glasses that CBO static scoring is forced by law to view future spending, the PV of future obligations are still within the $30 - $50 trillion range, which again are absolutely impossible to service without severe tax increases on everyone that would cripple the economy.
 
2013-01-04 05:48:04 PM
I wouldn't feel one little bit in danger if every prisoner in Gitmo was kicked out the front door with a ticket to their country of origin tomorrow.

I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.
 
2013-01-04 05:51:46 PM
Those meatbags can't possibly have any more relevant intel for us to water board out of them. If seeing them locked up bothers people so much, march their shackled asses into the Atlantic. Wash hands. We need to stop worrying about being "better" and focus more on being "winners". Besides even if 100% of them are completely innocent goat herders, there arent enough of them to matter when compared to the thousands of innocents those sandy shiat stains murdered in New York.
 
2013-01-04 05:53:27 PM

cefm: I wouldn't feel one little bit in danger if every prisoner in Gitmo was kicked out the front door with a ticket to their country of origin tomorrow.

I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.


Gitmo, is why you think our justice system is farked?!
 
2013-01-04 05:57:18 PM

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

Who is left?

WHOM


weren"t mE

- - - -

This is what I meant to post. Better late than never.

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

Who is left?


Punchline:

pit.dirty.ru
 
2013-01-04 05:59:51 PM

sprawl15: 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.


I said 'Fark Independents'. 'Morally just' is clearly just coded commie talk.
 
2013-01-04 06:01:27 PM

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.


I know you'll never admit you're wrong, but you are. Congress declared war against a new type of enemy - that of an extra-governmental organization with the ability to wage war on the level of a national entity, something the framers of even the Geneva Convention never imagined.

orbister: You (an we) didn't declare war on Afghanistan so you (and we) have absolutely no right to treat fighting there as a war.


You're right. We're at war with the Taliban, the Government of Afghanistan at the time of which action was authorized under the War Powers Resolution by the United States Congress.

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


Facts and Ron Paul are mutually exclusive.
 
2013-01-04 06:02:38 PM

sprawl15: The fact is that the War Powers Resolution is standing legislation and you seem to be totally ignorant of it or its implications.


Your internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. You are at war with no countries; you are therefore not permitted by international law to behave as if you were.
 
2013-01-04 06:04:10 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Any Fark Independents with an affirmative solution? You all clearly have a handle on what will not work. Any thoughts on what would?


Let the lot of them go. Even if they're guilty, if we're unwilling to prosecute within a month to maybe a year of an arrest (well, "a short period", but that's how it's usually interpreted), the appropriate course of action is to release them. In fact, it's a legal requirement.

Why is it a legal requirement? Because, by not giving them the rights of POWs under the Geneva convention and so on, we've declared that they're not soldiers. If they're not soldiers, they're civilian criminals, no matter how hard the government wishes on a star those are the only two legitimate categories recognized by either US or international law. If you use war powers to capture people, they're subject to international law. If not, they're subject to US law. The grey area the feds are pretending to use does not exist.
 
2013-01-04 06:06:01 PM

cefm: I wouldn't feel one little bit in danger if every prisoner in Gitmo was kicked out the front door with a ticket to their country of origin tomorrow.

I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.


I agree with you. Some of the people in Guantanamo may have been dangerous men and some of them may be dangerous men. You are, however, creating a lot more dangerous men by keeping them there and stoking fires of injustice, resentment and fury in countries which were none too keen on you in the first place.

Releasing them might put 100 terrorists bad on the ground - keeping them there will produce hundreds or thousands more, year after year after year.
 
2013-01-04 06:07:47 PM

thisisarepeat: We need to stop worrying about being "better" and focus more on being "winners". Besides even if 100% of them are completely innocent goat herders, there arent enough of them to matter when compared to the thousands of innocents those sandy shiat stains murdered in New York.


By the same token, of course, three thousand dead in New York pales into insignificance compared to the number of civilians your armed forces (and ours) killed in Iraq.

Moral equivalence with terrorists doesn't work. You're the nice guys; be the nice guys.
 
2013-01-04 06:07:57 PM

russsssman: So when you become president and have access to ALL the information, it's actually the best option... It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.


Yes he was. Remember, he's the one who started this clusterf*ck in the first place.
Has he not done so, or at least done so in a way that was legal (as in "there's laws on the books that could be used here to solve this problem that we should use"), maybe the next guy might have better options on the table from which to choose.
 
2013-01-04 06:08:56 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 ...

LET THEM GO.

If they start anything, we'll kill them with our collective arsenals of freedom. I personally weigh more than many of them; not that hard to squish a human being.
 
2013-01-04 06:08:58 PM

JustFarkinAround: Our soldiers are beaten, abused and BEHEADED. Comparable to our enemies,


Okay. This is true.

Hitler gassed 6 million Jews. Are you saying America should have done the same thing? (I'm aware of the Japanese internment)

If we're the good guys, we should be acting like it. It doesn't excuse evil actions by the other side, but if we're just as bad, why the hell are we even bothering to make war contractors rich?

I have a solution: We could save all the lives on both sides and just have all Americans mail monthly checks to the military contractors. It'll be a win/win for everyone: It'll save a lot of lives and will save the contractors the cost of R&D to maximize profits. It'll still be the same thing, just without all the bombs and guns and stuff.
 
2013-01-04 06:09:37 PM
LET THEM GO.
 
2013-01-04 06:11:06 PM

orbister: 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?

"The war on ______."

 
2013-01-04 06:12:18 PM

BronyMedic: 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.

I know you'll never admit you're wrong, but you are. Congress declared war against a new type of enemy - that of an extra-governmental organization with the ability to wage war on the level of a national entity, something the framers of even the Geneva Convention never imagined.


Rubbish. Congress may have decided to declare war against a concept, but that bit of domestic grandstanding has no relevance to international war at all. You couldn't decided to declare war on lefthandedness and then expect the rest of the world to applaud as you killed every southpaw you could find around the world.

You're right. We're at war with the Taliban, the Government of Afghanistan at the time of which action was authorized under the War Powers Resolution by the United States Congress.

War is declared against countries, not against political parties. You need, with all due respect, to learn that there is a big world out there and that American law and politics does not trump international law or the behaviour of civilised states.

Would you have been OK, by the way, if we'd send in the SAS to retrieve IRA terrorists and their supporters (Ted Kennedy, for example) from the US during the troubles in NI?
 
2013-01-04 06:16:45 PM

orbister: Your internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. You are at war with no countries; you are therefore not permitted by international law to behave as if you were.


www.troll.me

Uh, the United States has waged a declared war for the last 10 years against the Taliban and their Remnants. The fact that you don't agree  with it is the point that is irrelevant here, as you are a citizen of another nation who has done the same. But, should you feel that strongly about it, you're more than welcome to march up to the border and demand everyone involved for trial at the Hague. But murder, even by roaring laughter, will get you deported from the United States.

orbister: By the same token, of course, three thousand dead in New York pales into insignificance compared to the number of civilians your armed forces (and ours) killed in Iraq.

Moral equivalence with terrorists doesn't work. You're the nice guys; be the nice guys.


Riiiiight. Because US Soldiers were machine-gunning civilians in the market, and wearing bomb vests loaded with ball bearings into schools over there, right? Please stop being hyperbolic and disingenuous. You look like an idiot when you try to equate precision bombing done with regards to non-comb ant casualties, and direct operations with the same with that.

War is hell. And it is good it is so. War should be so heinous, so miserable and bloody that it remains a last resort after all options are exhausted. On the same venue, there are some people who just want to watch the world burn. "Nice guy" diplomacy will never work with them.
 
2013-01-04 06:17:33 PM

orbister: sprawl15: The fact is that the War Powers Resolution is standing legislation and you seem to be totally ignorant of it or its implications.

Your internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. You are at war with no countries; you are therefore not permitted by international law to behave as if you were.


Really? You don't think the metric a country uses to determine its state of war is relevant to determining if something is a declaration of war or not?

Fascinating.

You should let Milošević know that he couldn't have committed war crimes because he never declared war.
 
2013-01-04 06:17:46 PM

Jim_Callahan: Uranus Is Huge!: Any Fark Independents with an affirmative solution? You all clearly have a handle on what will not work. Any thoughts on what would?

Let the lot of them go. Even if they're guilty, if we're unwilling to prosecute within a month to maybe a year of an arrest (well, "a short period", but that's how it's usually interpreted), the appropriate course of action is to release them. In fact, it's a legal requirement.

Why is it a legal requirement? Because, by not giving them the rights of POWs under the Geneva convention and so on, we've declared that they're not soldiers. If they're not soldiers, they're civilian criminals, no matter how hard the government wishes on a star those are the only two legitimate categories recognized by either US or international law. If you use war powers to capture people, they're subject to international law. If not, they're subject to US law. The grey area the feds are pretending to use does not exist.


Oh, I get it. Let them go and then as soon as they get back to their mud huts... BOOM!! Rain down the Hellfires! I like it.

In all seriousness, I always like finding common ground with the posters from the dark side.
 
2013-01-04 06:18:54 PM
I've never gotten a good answer when I've asked this before: Why aren't the Nuremberg Trials a valid blueprint we could use to try these combatants, uniformed or not?
 
2013-01-04 06:19:20 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: sprawl15: 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.

I said 'Fark Independents'. 'Morally just' is clearly just coded commie talk.


I was a Fark Independent before it was cool.

/and stopped being a hipster when it became too mainstream
 
2013-01-04 06:21:06 PM
Unacceptably.
 
2013-01-04 06:21:26 PM

sprawl15: 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.


Since when did federal law trump the constitution? I think it's you who is woefully ignorant of law.
 
2013-01-04 06:21:41 PM

Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.


Reid (D) said no funding would be given to gitmo closing before the ink dried.
Obama found something out after the election, saved face with a bill, but knew it was never closing, at signing.
 
2013-01-04 06:24:07 PM

cefm: I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.


lmao

no topic brings out the Area Men Who Are Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine The Constitution To Be like this one
 
2013-01-04 06:26:40 PM
G-Bay is an abomination of American Law and Rights.

Unacceptable.

Figure it out, now, and close the fuker for its current purposes.

Do America a favor for once, The Man.

Word.
 
2013-01-04 06:26:42 PM

detritus: Since when did federal law trump the constitution?


What part of the War Powers Resolution trumps the Constitution?

Be specific.
 
2013-01-04 06:26:47 PM

orbister: Rubbish. Congress may have decided to declare war against a concept, but that bit of domestic grandstanding has no relevance to international war at all. You couldn't decided to declare war on lefthandedness and then expect the rest of the world to applaud as you killed every southpaw you could find around the world.


According to your opinion, no country in the world can wage war without the blanket approval of the rest of the world. Not only is that absurd, it's not based in any reality. The only legal language which prohibits war on an international scale is the prevention on the waging of "aggressive" war, which is questionable when applied to the Afghanistan conflict, as the national Government harbored, provided material support, and financial aid to extra-national terrorist groups.

orbister: War is declared against countries, not against political parties.


Bullshiat.

War is against a specific actor. World War II was not a war with the German people, and Mr. Fritz Herndorf at 14 Bratwurst, Munich was not the target of the action. It was the Nazi Government. Similarly, the war with Afghanistan was not with individual Afghanis, but with the Taliban Government. Once that government ceased to exist, operations were switched from one of multi-national war, to one of Marshalistic rebuilding and continuing to act against the Taliban Remnants.

orbister: Would you have been OK, by the way, if we'd send in the SAS to retrieve IRA terrorists and their supporters (Ted Kennedy, for example) from the US during the troubles in NI?


You were more than welcome to - just remember an act of war against your primary trading and financhial partner might not be a smart move. The problem with your argument is that the US never made it a government policy to harbor known fugitives and members of the IRA, made official efforts to stop funding and punish those groups which supported them, and provided material and military support to the UK Government during the troubles. So it's a comparison that is false.

I've never heard of Foreign Exceptionalism. Thanks for embodying the troupe.
 
2013-01-04 06:26:59 PM
The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?
 
2013-01-04 06:28:35 PM

detritus: Since when did federal law trump the constitution? I think it's you who is woefully ignorant of law.


When when was the War Powers Act declared unconstitutional? In reality, it actually clarified and limited the presidential war powers as written under the constitution in order to prevent another Vietnam from happening.

I think it is you who is pretending the words written in the constitution don't have hidden meanings, and that legislation is not used to clarify and reasonably limit those powers granted to a specific branch of Government to prevent that branch from being too powerful.
 
2013-01-04 06:29:24 PM

Hydra: You must not remember the stagflation of the 1970s,


no. not particularly. for one thing it didn't hit me as much as the crash of 2008 did. TARP, the auto bailout, stimulus, etc were needed due to bad actions by greedy people. i don't remember massive intervention like that. but hey i could be wrong.

Hydra: that's still an astronomical number that cannot possibly be serviced through tax increases on the rich alone.


true, and nowhere on the web will you find me saying anything like that. i think the "payroll tax holiday" was a mistake from the beginning. did we need something? sure. was that it? hell no. frankly the latest lib crap from lawernce o'donnell about how the 450k is just 250k adjusted for inflation is nonsense. getting rid of all the bush tax cuts would have been the best deficit move. this half assed thing is too little too late but since the unwashed masses can't handle the truth and there is some economic stimulus in this well fine.

my concern right now is the congress thinking that "entitlements" should be cut. SS is self funding or would be if congress quit raiding it. ok that's a stretch but chained CPI sucks when there have been years with no COLA at all already. and believe me when that happened my actual COL went up. this years pittance won't offset what going to happen with corn and the trickle down from that. there are respected studies that say that by delaying medicare you actually cost us money. i suspect you have seen them.

IMO the problem is two fold, 1) the federal government took on too much the states should be doing 2) giving it back to the states just means folks getting farked over now since the states have been "no new taxes" themselves into economic misery. living in LA i can tell you Bobby has pushed the "no new taxes" thing to a unsubstantial point. all the while pissing and moaning about how horrible the federal government is. while passing out the big checks. farking hypocrite. well there will be no more big checks and guess what, we're about to go (further) into the toilet.

and as a small present here a wiki page on political scandals. guess who had a lot of them? it wasn't ford or carter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_th e _United_States
 
2013-01-04 06:29:54 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Holocaust Agnostic: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.

How did closing gitmo become clodding titmouse? Fark you android!


This may be the funniest auto-correct I have ever heard.

/I don't get out much.
//But seriously DREW IF YOU ARE LISTENING, YOU SHOULD UPDATE THE FARK FILTER FOR "Closing Gitmo" = "Clodding Titmouse"
///Seriously...for posterity
 
2013-01-04 06:30:31 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?


Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?
 
2013-01-04 06:30:34 PM

orbister: Would you have been OK, by the way, if we'd send in the SAS to retrieve IRA terrorists and their supporters (Ted Kennedy, for example) from the US during the troubles in NI?


Me, I would have
 
2013-01-04 06:30:51 PM

sprawl15: orbister: sprawl15: The fact is that the War Powers Resolution is standing legislation and you seem to be totally ignorant of it or its implications.

Your internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. You are at war with no countries; you are therefore not permitted by international law to behave as if you were.

Really? You don't think the metric a country uses to determine its state of war is relevant to determining if something is a declaration of war or not?

Fascinating.

You should let Milošević know that he couldn't have committed war crimes because he never declared war.


Give it up, dude. You're arguing with a foreign exceptionalist. Americans are the evil imperials looking to expand their colonial empire. There's no other explanation, you see.
 
2013-01-04 06:31:03 PM

BronyMedic:
Uh, the United States has waged a declared war for the last 10 years against the Taliban and their Remnants.


You (the US) are not at liberty under international law to change the definition of "war" to suit your own domestic political needs.

Riiiiight. Because US Soldiers were machine-gunning civilians in the market, and wearing bomb vests loaded with ball bearings into schools over there, right? Please stop being hyperbolic and disingenuous. You look like an idiot when you try to equate precision bombing done with regards to non-comb ant casualties, and direct operations with the same with that.

Precision bombing sounds so nice, doesn't it? Clean. Neat. Warfare for the squeamish. How many civilians (I won't even bother asking if you believe in the concept of "innocent civilian") do you think your armed services killed in Iraq?

War is hell. And it is good it is so.

But you like the idea of "precision bombing" and remote controlled drone strikes?
 
2013-01-04 06:31:15 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 ...


Yes. They are completely blameless.
 
2013-01-04 06:33:41 PM

thisisarepeat: cefm: I wouldn't feel one little bit in danger if every prisoner in Gitmo was kicked out the front door with a ticket to their country of origin tomorrow.

I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.

Gitmo, is why you think our justice system is farked?!


Yes.

Everybody else gets a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers with guaranteed legal representation yatta yatta.

Gitmo is full of people who will stay locked in a hole, with no trial, until they die of natural causes apparently.
 
2013-01-04 06:33:48 PM

Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?

Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?


Message for the GOP:

Wake up. Pay your fair share. Good business is made by being good, not obstructionarily intransigent. Misuse the filibuster at your peril. If you are to intransigently obstruct, you must speak. And that's that. Infinitives split. *)
 
2013-01-04 06:33:54 PM

mark12A: Just shoot them and be done with it. They were not official soldiers of any state army, thus they can be treated as spies under the Geneva convention, which entitles us to execute them as spies.


The problem is, you can't Enhanced-Interrogate them if they're dead.
 
2013-01-04 06:36:30 PM

Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?

Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?


Ideally or realistically?

Ideally, I'd like a neutral party to judge them as criminals or not. If they're not criminals they should get tickets home and the same sort of compensation package that US convicts get when they're exonerated by DNA evidence.

Realistically? Turn them loose as far from our shores as possible.
 
2013-01-04 06:37:44 PM

sprawl15: Really? You don't think the metric a country uses to determine its state of war is relevant to determining if something is a declaration of war or not?


Um, yes, when it comes to international law. And if you really are at war against "terrorism", what are you going to do about IRA terrorists sheltering in the US?


You should let Milošević know that he couldn't have committed war crimes because he never declared war.


Civil wars are a different matter. In any case. most of the charges at his trial were of crimes against humanity. Here's the full list

genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects

I've helpfully emboldened all the ones your armed services have done.
 
2013-01-04 06:37:59 PM

orbister: You (the US) are not at liberty under international law to change the definition of "war" to suit your own domestic political needs.


And you don't have the power to enforce your opinion (which is actually incorrect according to the Geneva and Hague conventions) on the United States. See, that's the thing about "international law" when it comes to international actors in a war. You can cry all you want, but you have to have the military and world political power behind you to prove that claim.

orbister: Precision bombing sounds so nice, doesn't it? Clean. Neat. Warfare for the squeamish. How many civilians (I won't even bother asking if you believe in the concept of "innocent civilian") do you think your armed services killed in Iraq?


Various numbers. Again, war is hell. The problem is that many of the count sites out there, like Iraq Body Count, consider ANY violent death reported in Iraq to be a combat-related civilian casualty.

orbister: But you like the idea of "precision bombing" and remote controlled drone strikes?


Sure I do. It's less costly, in terms of lives and funds, than carpet bombing with incenderaries and high ex bombs.
 
2013-01-04 06:38:21 PM

orbister: BronyMedic:
Uh, the United States has waged a declared war for the last 10 years against the Taliban and their Remnants.

You (the US) are not at liberty under international law to change the definition of "war" to suit your own domestic political needs.

Riiiiight. Because US Soldiers were machine-gunning civilians in the market, and wearing bomb vests loaded with ball bearings into schools over there, right? Please stop being hyperbolic and disingenuous. You look like an idiot when you try to equate precision bombing done with regards to non-comb ant casualties, and direct operations with the same with that.

Precision bombing sounds so nice, doesn't it? Clean. Neat. Warfare for the squeamish. How many civilians (I won't even bother asking if you believe in the concept of "innocent civilian") do you think your armed services killed in Iraq?

War is hell. And it is good it is so.

But you like the idea of "precision bombing" and remote controlled drone strikes?


Well, it's better than "carpet bombing" and having lots of expensive planes and irreplaceable pilots shot down IF we have to have wars. Are you honestly saying anyone "likes" the idea of war at all?

The best war would be the one that never happened; but since that's clearly never going to happen, the better war is one which kills the minimum number in the shortest time at the least expense. Now, you can do that via precision bombing and drone strikes; or you can use mass artillery and carpet bombing. I'm not sure why you seem to feel the latter is somehow preferable to the former although your language and attitude certainly conveys that impression. It would be ideal if no civilians died in any war, but that's never happened either. You say "your armed services" like nobody has any military but the US...does it only count if soldiers come from the other side or what?

What point ARE you trying to make?
 
2013-01-04 06:38:53 PM

RobertBruce: Why aren't the Nuremberg Trials a valid blueprint we could use to try these combatants, uniformed or not?


It was answered upthread. They might be found innocent.
 
2013-01-04 06:38:53 PM

orbister: do you think your armed services killed in Iraq?


Also, the Iraq war, which by every definition WOULD meet your claim of an illegal, aggressive war on the international scale, is a false comparison with the Afghanistan War.
 
2013-01-04 06:40:31 PM

orbister: Civil wars are a different matter.


Yugoslavia's internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. Yugoslavia was at war with no countries; and therefore is not beholden by international law to behave as if they were.

orbister: And if you really are at war against "terrorism", what are you going to do about IRA terrorists sheltering in the US?


Try to be a bit less obvious about never having read the 9/11 AUMF.
 
2013-01-04 06:42:36 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?

Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?

Ideally or realistically?

Ideally, I'd like a neutral party to judge them as criminals or not. If they're not criminals they should get tickets home and the same sort of compensation package that US convicts get when they're exonerated by DNA evidence.

Realistically? Turn them loose as far from our shores as possible.


I can accept both of your propositions accordingly: A) Ideally, please; B) Realistically, if necessary and sufficient, thank you. *)
 
2013-01-04 06:42:51 PM

orbister: And if you really are at war against "terrorism", what are you going to do about IRA terrorists sheltering in the US?


False comparison. The United States government never made it a policy of allowing the IRA to operate on it's soil to train,  actively prosecuted those people who were found to be supporters of them and seized assets intended for their support, and did not shelter fugitives from justice from the UK and Northern Ireland while providing financial and material support to the IRA.
 
2013-01-04 06:44:07 PM
166 people that can never be let loose alive, due to national security risks? I did not see any provision to allow them to add more prisoners. I don't have a problem with this. Execution would only make matters worse. Besides, there is only way that they will no longer be taking prisoners.
 
2013-01-04 06:44:34 PM

orbister: RobertBruce: Why aren't the Nuremberg Trials a valid blueprint we could use to try these combatants, uniformed or not?

It was answered upthread. They might be found innocent.


That's fine, if so.

I thought the problem was if they were found innocent in civilian courts.
 
2013-01-04 06:45:01 PM

Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?

Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?

Ideally or realistically?

Ideally, I'd like a neutral party to judge them as criminals or not. If they're not criminals they should get tickets home and the same sort of compensation package that US convicts get when they're exonerated by DNA evidence.

Realistically? Turn them loose as far from our shores as possible.

I can accept both of your propositions accordingly: A) Ideally, please; B) Realistically, if necessary and sufficient, thank you. *)


P.S. The War On Terror (tm), i.e. Indubitably-speak=WOT, is a shell game. End the war, now, please. Thank you.
 
2013-01-04 06:46:31 PM
If knowledge of these prisoners has prevented even one young man from strapping on a homicide vest, throwing acid in a girls face, gang raping a virgin, taking pot shots at NATO troops, or setting up an IED then they have served a noble purpose. This life is forfeit for these martyrs but Allah, most merciful, will reward them in the next.
 
2013-01-04 06:48:22 PM

BronyMedic:
According to your opinion, no country in the world can wage war without the blanket approval of the rest of the world. Not only is that absurd, it's not based in any reality.


It's also not what I said. There are laws governing the conduct of war. Now, that seems a bit off to me, because I'me with Sam Vimes that war is breach of the peace on a massive scale. But given that those laws exist, and that a country wishes to gain advantage from them, it can't go around changing the definition of "war" whenever it feels like it.

War is against a specific actor. World War II was not a war with the German people, and Mr. Fritz Herndorf at 14 Bratwurst, Munich was not the target of the action. It was the Nazi Government.

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a
final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were
prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would
exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that
consequently this country is at war with Germany." (Neville Chamberlain PM, 1939)

I note, however, that Congress declared war on the Governments of Germany and Japan. Didn't stop you bombing their civilians, though.

Similarly, the war with Afghanistan was not with individual Afghanis, but with the Taliban Government.

Got a link to the text for that?

You were more than welcome to - just remember an act of war against your primary trading and financhial partner might not be a smart move.

An act of war against the US? Good heavens no. It would have been an act of war against terrorism. Surely you're not against acts of war on terrorism?
 
2013-01-04 06:52:53 PM

BronyMedic: Give it up, dude. You're arguing with a foreign exceptionalist. Americans are the evil imperials looking to expand their colonial empire. There's no other explanation, you see.


No, he's arguing with someone who admires the founding principals of the US enormously and wishes you would all live up to them. I'm also someone who wishes you would realise that blanket oppression, either directly or through tame dictators, never was a moral strategy and is no longer a practicable one either.

You may also note that I have repeatedly pointed out that we (the UK) have also taken part in these wrong-headed enterprises. I'm just as big a critic of our involvement.
 
2013-01-04 06:56:03 PM

BronyMedic: And you don't have the power to enforce your opinion (which is actually incorrect according to the Geneva and Hague conventions) on the United States. See, that's the thing about "international law" when it comes to international actors in a war. You can cry all you want, but you have to have the military and world political power behind you to prove that claim.


What you're basically saying, then, is "We're big, we're strong, we can do what we want". Well you can, you know. But even if you set all moral considerations aside (what would Fluttershy say?) sheer pragmatism ought to be ringing warning bells.
 
2013-01-04 06:57:12 PM

elsuavio: 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.


The Senate vote for NDAA 2013 from senate.gov

the House vote for NDAA 2013

I did unfortunately link to the 2012 House vote instead of the 2013 House vote. This time it was 222 R for; 16 R against. 77 D for; 104 against. With a few wusses who abstained or didn't vote.

If I got it wrong again, I'm going back to posting pics of hot, bendable women.
 
2013-01-04 06:57:54 PM

Gyrfalcon: The best war would be the one that never happened; but since that's clearly never going to happen, the better war is one which kills the minimum number in the shortest time at the least expense. Now, you can do that via precision bombing and drone strikes; or you can use mass artillery and carpet bombing. I'm not sure why you seem to feel the latter is somehow preferable to the former although your language and attitude certainly conveys that impression.


I don't. I'm consistently agin' both sorts. It was BronyMedic who said he liked precision bombing but wanted war to be hell, and I'm trying to find out which he actually prefers.
 
2013-01-04 06:59:57 PM

sprawl15: orbister: Civil wars are a different matter.

Yugoslavia's internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. Yugoslavia was at war with no countries; and therefore is not beholden by international law to behave as if they were


Is there something about the phrase "a different matter" which is causing you problems? Yugoslavia was not at war with anyone, but bits of Yugoslavia were undoubtedly at war with each other.
 
2013-01-04 07:01:26 PM

BronyMedic: False comparison. The United States government never made it a policy of allowing the IRA to operate on it's soil to train,  actively prosecuted those people who were found to be supporters of them and seized assets intended for their support, and did not shelter fugitives from justice from the UK and Northern Ireland while providing financial and material support to the IRA.


Ha ha ha. Your government tolerated overt political, financial and military support for IRA terrorists for three decades.
 
2013-01-04 07:01:27 PM

orbister: I'm also someone who wishes you would realise that blanket oppression, either directly or through tame dictators, never was a moral strategy and is no longer a practicable one either.


You're also not a reader, apparently.
 
2013-01-04 07:02:13 PM
Dammit. That's the Senate roll call to an amendment vote. Gottdammitsomuch. Well, never let it be said I'm not a man of my words...

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-04 07:02:48 PM

phrawgh: If knowledge of these prisoners has prevented even one young man from strapping on a homicide vest, throwing acid in a girls face, gang raping a virgin, taking pot shots at NATO troops, or setting up an IED then they have served a noble purpose.


Knowledge of these prisoners has probably produce more vest wearers and IED builders than any other single factor.
 
2013-01-04 07:05:47 PM

FLMountainMan: Having said that, I think it's absurd that if a politician changes his mind on something over the course of time we consider it flipflopping and hypocrisy of the highest order.

If someone you meet in real life changes their mind on something over the course of time, we call it "learning".



Exactly. Obama started out having principles, and he learned how to ignore them. You know -- "learning".
 
2013-01-04 07:07:52 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Crotchrocket Slim: BSABSVR: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

This is actually a case where most everyone comes off badly.  The GOP thinks that a key component to winning the war on terror is to lock every suspect up and then compete to see who can come up with the toughest sounding way to make them confess.  Democratic politicians are scared of being labeled appeasers or soft on terror, and the only critic of this  with any sort of a megaphone is Glenn Greenwald, who comes with his own (mostly self-induced) set of flaws that cost him credibility.

I'm a little curious about what the Democrats are supposed to do in this situation then, considering they know they don't have the majority they'd need to push through legislation needed to close Gitmo considering the inevitable resistance from Boehner & Co. I'd hate for your handle to stop being ironical there.

Obama is the commander in chief of the united states military and the prisoners are held in military custody. If Congress wont fund an official transfer he could just order the navy to dump them off in Florida and just tell the FBI when so they can decide whether to show up and arrest people or not.


I really don't think an end-run around Congress would be very... legal.
 
2013-01-04 07:08:26 PM
What? I'M OUTRAGED.

O-Butthole PROMISED he'd close guantanamo.

You mean he LIED?
 
2013-01-04 07:08:36 PM

sprawl15: Try to be a bit less obvious about never having read the 9/11 AUMF.


The big problem is the US desire to have it both ways. You change the declaration of war to include war on a concept, but then demand that your arbitrarily defined opponents must now, because of your decision, act like traditional opponents: wearing uniforms and so on.

Just decide once and for all whether the prisoners are Guantanamo are enemy combatants to be treated as prisoners of war or civilians to be treated as suspected criminals. Even in this thread we have seen people arguing for both, sometimes simultaneously.
 
2013-01-04 07:10:49 PM

computerguyUT: What? I'M OUTRAGED.

O-Butthole PROMISED he'd close guantanamo.

You mean he LIED?


Welcome to American politics, man.

Are you new?

*)
 
2013-01-04 07:11:16 PM

computerguyUT: What? I'M OUTRAGED.

O-Butthole PROMISED he'd close guantanamo.

You mean he LIED?


You think you're adding anything of value to the conversation that won't be refuted in 5 minutes, or would be if the thread wasn't going to sleep now?
 
2013-01-04 07:11:41 PM
Sprawl15 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.


Did you even read the item you suggested I read?

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

In fact, what you linked, says that The War Powers Resolution allows the President to use military force in upwards of 60 days WITHOUT a declaration of war or authorization of the use of military force. As we know, Congress passed the Authorization of Use of Military forces on Sept. 14, 2001, they did not declare war. Maybe you should read your effing link before you try to use it a a citation in your argument. Way to make yourself look a fool. Thanks for playing champ
 
2013-01-04 07:13:23 PM

orbister: Knowledge of these prisoners has probably produce more vest wearers and IED builders than any other single factor.


nah
 
2013-01-04 07:16:37 PM

orbister: sprawl15: orbister: Civil wars are a different matter.

Yugoslavia's internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. Yugoslavia was at war with no countries; and therefore is not beholden by international law to behave as if they were

Is there something about the phrase "a different matter" which is causing you problems? Yugoslavia was not at war with anyone, but bits of Yugoslavia were undoubtedly at war with each other.


They were not at war. They could not have been at war without a declaration of war, per your assertions. Are you now suggesting that a formal state of war can exist outside of a formal declaration of war?

Gdalescrboz: In fact, what you linked, says that The War Powers Resolution allows the President to use military force in upwards of 60 days WITHOUT a declaration of war or authorization of the use of military force


Are you suggesting that a country can not be in a state of war without a declaration of war or other Congressional/Presidential act?

That would mean people who defended themselves at Pearl Harbor would have been committing illegal acts by doing so.
 
2013-01-04 07:19:23 PM
Is this the thread where we try to pretend that the guy who spent last year doing this:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Ever really wanted to end indefinite detention in the first place?

Lying politician was lying.
 
2013-01-04 07:21:00 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 ...


I think what you wrote is spot on. I do differ on opinion of what to do with them. The thought that we cant, if I may paraphrase, 'let them go due to them becoming heroes back home, or the current climate overseas' should have fark all to do with the US needing to do the right thing and let them go (should trial find them innocent). I don't care if they become the biggest propaganda coup in world history for their cause,the US did wrong and now it needs to right it, damn the consequences.
 
2013-01-04 07:21:29 PM
Since Bush being president was a big mistake, what Obama should have done on day one was make everything be the way it would have been if Al Gore had been president for 8 years, and then proceed with making changes he wanted to make from that point. My vote for Obama was intended to retroactively delete every effect George W. Bush had on the present.
 
2013-01-04 07:23:05 PM
sprawl15
Gdalescrboz: In fact, what you linked, says that The War Powers Resolution allows the President to use military force in upwards of 60 days WITHOUT a declaration of war or authorization of the use of military force

Are you suggesting that a country can not be in a state of war without a declaration of war or other Congressional/Presidential act?

That would mean people who defended themselves at Pearl Harbor would have been committing illegal acts by doing so.


That makes no sense. Don't cite documentation to back up your argument and then pretend that same source document is irrelevant when I explain to you that you didn't understand it correctly.
 
2013-01-04 07:26:00 PM

Indubitably: computerguyUT: What? I'M OUTRAGED.

O-Butthole PROMISED he'd close guantanamo.

You mean he LIED?

Welcome to American politics, man.

Are you new?

*)


P.S. Crap. My New Year's Resolution was to limit, if not abolish, my sarcasm, and I have already failed. Oh well. I was saying...
 
2013-01-04 07:28:44 PM

orbister: phrawgh: If knowledge of these prisoners has prevented even one young man from strapping on a homicide vest, throwing acid in a girls face, gang raping a virgin, taking pot shots at NATO troops, or setting up an IED then they have served a noble purpose.

Knowledge of these prisoners has probably produce more vest wearers and IED builders than any other single factor.


Either way. This is the type of enemy that we can't identify until they act against us. In the beginning we used tactics like a couple psyops guys in a up-armored Humvee with loudspeakers that drove around seemingly alone, blasting things like "Muslims with beards have smaller dicks than their inevitable daughters" or some such crap that riles the weird beards, until somebody takes a shot. Then the two LMTVs full of infantry that followed at a distance, race in and mop up. I don't know how its done now, that was ten years ago. I can see the club gitmo guys serving a similar purpose though.
 
2013-01-04 07:29:33 PM
sprawl15
Are you suggesting that a country can not be in a state of war without a declaration of war or other Congressional/Presidential act?

That would mean people who defended themselves at Pearl Harbor would have been committing illegal acts by doing so.


And where the fark did you get that i suggested you can't be in a state of war w/out a Presidential/Congressional act? You went full retard on me didnt you? Damn dude, you dont go full retard
 
2013-01-04 07:31:20 PM

Gdalescrboz: That makes no sense.


No shiat. But that's what you're arguing.
 
2013-01-04 07:43:57 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.


we can also do this to people convicted of a crime because fark those people. The only people who get imprisoned by the court system are the bad ones that deserve to be treated as less than human.
 
2013-01-04 07:52:30 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: I'm a little curious about what the Democrats are supposed to do in this situation then, considering they know they don't have the majority they'd need to push through legislation needed to close Gitmo considering the inevitable resistance from Boehner & Co. I'd hate for your handle to stop being ironical there.


I honestly have no idea.  If I were in charge, I'd reframe the debate.  "America is the greatest country in the world, right?  Real Americans aren't scared of some 16 year old from Pakistan who hasn't seen the sun in a decade!  Only snivelling, unamerican weenies would be sacred of  such a foe.  And we will obey our constitution (the greatest the world has ever seen), and still bring the evildoers to justice just as the founders intended.  To do less would be to spit in the face of Alexander Hamilton or whoever Glenn Beck is fetishizing this week."

Right now the frame is that it is too dangerous and irresponsible to do anything but abandon people to gitmo and render them to torturing countries.  If civil libertarians want to change the debate, they ought to change it so that it's the right, honest, macho, patriotic thing to do, and anything less is bush league at best, utter cowardice at worst.
 
2013-01-04 07:55:47 PM

BronyMedic: 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 nationa ...


You are correct in stating that "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it,: however, you will note that Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United States (as well as every current member nation of the United Nations) acceded to the Geneva Conventions and thus, are bound by them. The United States acceded to the 1949 Conventions in 1955, Afghanistan in 1956, and Iraq in 1956. Thus, when the Taliban came to power in 1996 and Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, both nations were already signatories to the 1949 conventions, and neither withdrew their accessions to the Conventions--then or since. In 2009, Afghanistan ratified Protocols I & II. In 2010, Iraq ratified Protocol I. In 2007, the United States ratified Protocol III.

Protocol I - protection of victims in international armed conflicts
Protocol II - protection of victims in non-international armed conflicts
Protocol III - distinctive emblem, referring to the protection of medical, religious, and humanitarian personnel displaying distinctive emblems and the requirement of all parties on all sides of any conflict to protect these individuals

Note that the United States has NOT ratified Protocols I & II, but has signalled "intent" to do so. Note that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq has ratified nor signalled intent to ratify Protocol III (nor has Iraq signalled intent to ratify Protocol II, for that matter). Protocol III is an amendment allowing the red crystal in addition to the red cross and red crescent. The first Geneva Convention makes it a violation of international law to fire upon or misuse either of those symbols.


TL;DR - All three nations are parties to the Geneva Conventions and you don't get to pick and choose who has violated them when humanitarians who have identified themselves as such have been deliberately murdered. Neither side comes out of this smelling like a fragrant flower. Further, human rights are just that-HUMAN rights, however, the rights afforded under the United States Constitution apply only to citizens of the United States. Try picking the Constitution up and reading it; it's quite clear on that point. US Constitutional rights do not apply to those at Gitmo, human rights most certainly do... but I will not weigh in on whether those at Gitmo right now are having their human rights violated when they have far more than many of our own citizens (and possibly their own countrymen) do in terms of food and shelter and freedom to worship as they will despite being in a cell which their actions may or may not have earned them.
 
2013-01-04 08:13:00 PM
Should have just shot them out of hand.

Like a feral cat. Now we are going to be responsible for feeding them, and cleaning their litter boxes, fo rthe rest of their miserable lives.
 
2013-01-04 08:27:52 PM

bikkurikun: 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 ...


But there is a solution, and that is to give them a trial. Even if it means you will have to let them go and give them generous amounts of compensation, it is still the only right thing to do. That is what justice is all about. If you cannot prove a case, or do not follow the right procedures, the suspects walks away free. Too bad, it will serve as a lesson for future generations to do it right.

So, give them a trial, let them walk, and then give the people responsible for this shameful travesty a trial as well and put them in prison instead.



he's part of the authoritarian wing of the democratic party.
he believes habeas corpus is a regular pain in the ass.
no sense mentioning the reasonable answer, which is of course indict them immediately or set them free, he'll just say it is too complicated, too painful, for our government to be required to deliver justice.
 
2013-01-04 08:36:14 PM
Try them in court.
 
2013-01-04 08:37:40 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Holocaust Agnostic: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.

How did closing gitmo become clodding titmouse? Fark you android!


I thought "clodding titmouse" was a farker from another political thread that I hadn't read....
 
2013-01-04 08:38:35 PM

Frederick: Try them in court.


Agreed.

What were you afraid of before, banker?

Equal under law.
 
2013-01-04 08:50:42 PM
Good.

And even better if any of them ex-pat Americans.

They all should rot especially the ones who take up arms against their own country.
 
2013-01-04 09:07:25 PM
Good, I'd prefer they didnt continue breathing, but oh well. But I thought it was promised it would be closed, I guess Obama lies, no surprise there.
 
2013-01-04 09:21:54 PM

gorgon38: Good, I'd prefer they didnt continue breathing, but oh well. But I thought it was promised it would be closed, I guess Obama lies, no surprise there.


Wrong answer.

Are you a believer of justice from beyond the grave? Justice is court by a jury of your peers in America.

And that's that.

*)
 
2013-01-04 09:23:58 PM

Indubitably: gorgon38: Good, I'd prefer they didnt continue breathing, but oh well. But I thought it was promised it would be closed, I guess Obama lies, no surprise there.

Wrong answer.

Are you a believer of justice from beyond the grave? Justice is court by a jury of your peers in America.

And that's that.

*)


P.S. I shaman. Please listen to me, for these spirits make certain you do, no? Words and Peaces. Thank you.
 
2013-01-04 09:35:29 PM

orbister: BronyMedic: False comparison. The United States government never made it a policy of allowing the IRA to operate on it's soil to train,  actively prosecuted those people who were found to be supporters of them and seized assets intended for their support, and did not shelter fugitives from justice from the UK and Northern Ireland while providing financial and material support to the IRA.

Ha ha ha. Your government tolerated overt political, financial and military support for IRA terrorists for three decades.


fayinc.files.wordpress.com

The United States has both still-existing factions of the IRA listed as terrorist groups, and have had them for some time listed as such. But if you have an official source which states it was a matter of Government policy to fund and support the IRA in their war against the UK, please, by all means, link it.
 
2013-01-04 09:37:56 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: 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.


Brown people have less rights. Anyone living in a red state can tell you this. Driving While Brown is still probable cause down here
 
2013-01-04 09:49:53 PM
That section 533 worries me. I'm afraid that congress will pack the military brass with right wing ideologues like they've done with the federal bench. Last thing we need is a bunch of evangelical holy warriors running the military. Or more than we already have.
 
2013-01-04 09:55:12 PM

Champion of the Sun: That section 533 worries me. I'm afraid that congress will pack the military brass with right wing ideologues like they've done with the federal bench. Last thing we need is a bunch of evangelical holy warriors running the military. Or more than we already have.


Dereligion, now.

Thank you.
 
2013-01-04 09:56:22 PM

Indubitably: Champion of the Sun: That section 533 worries me. I'm afraid that congress will pack the military brass with right wing ideologues like they've done with the federal bench. Last thing we need is a bunch of evangelical holy warriors running the military. Or more than we already have.

Dereligion, now.

Thank you.


P.S. Religion seldom informs good military policy, please.
 
2013-01-04 10:14:28 PM
i think the rule of thumb should be, if they were captured in their own country of origin, release them, it's been enough (unless they're honest to god highly placed AQ operatives...), whereas if they were captured in a country other than their own, they pretty much committed themselves to jihad against the west... and we may as well let them have their virgins...
 
2013-01-04 10:15:49 PM

proteus_b: and we may as well let them have their virgins...


or we could follow the rule of law and admit that we screwed up and that no judge, civilian or military, would actually allow them to be tried and just let them go.
 
2013-01-04 10:18:18 PM
www.usgennet.org
 
2013-01-04 10:20:53 PM

Thunderpipes: Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.

History will say differently. The new Normal after Obama is done is going to be a complete disaster. We can never recover fiscally either, we are to far gone. Democrats breed like rabbits, so it will never get better. Obama will be remembered as the President who destroyed the country.


I don't get it. Before Newscorp completely retard-ized WSJ, I would read comments on stories. During the Bush years, most their readers correctly surmised there was no good way out of this, no way out but down.

Nowadays, it's all Obama's fault. And if you point out it's not, then they get all butthurt about how you're an idiot lib who blames everything on Bush.

/I give up
 
2013-01-04 10:21:01 PM

gobstopping: Hitler gassed 6 million Jews. Are you saying America should have done the same thing?


we didn't have six million jews at the time. but now we do. but the stature of limitations on jew gassing is seven times seven years, as it is written by g-d in the torah. therefore obama is impotent to respond.
 
2013-01-04 10:22:30 PM

MmmBadEggs: Lemme guess, Fark:

Bush kept Gitmo open because he's an EVIL REPUBLICAN
Obama keeps Gitmo open because those EVIL REPUBLICANS give him no choice.

Right? Right...


THIS
 
2013-01-04 10:44:41 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 ...


If we have a trial and they walk, that is the price of justice, the consequences of them going free cannot be held to be above due process, other wise the constitution is meaningless.
 
2013-01-04 11:05:19 PM
farm9.staticflickr.com
/too soon?
 
2013-01-04 11:36:18 PM

WhyteRaven74: proteus_b: and we may as well let them have their virgins...

or we could follow the rule of law and admit that we screwed up and that no judge, civilian or military, would actually allow them to be tried and just let them go.


Let them go where, exactly?
 
2013-01-04 11:52:40 PM

Gyrfalcon: 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.

Sweetness, I would LOVE to see these folks go on trial. And be freed, and the blame go to the folks who screwed the pooch on this, and shed some light on things, but I am also cynical enough to realize that this won't happen in the current environment. Hence, the flavor of my text, in that we cannot do so, now.


The sensible thing, was what I have suggested from the get go: treat terrorists as criminals. Build cases, try cases, imprison or execute, and be done with it. Have the full weight and measure of the law on our side, and be done with it. The best thing to do with the inveterate terrorists, is to lock them away, and forget about them. Nothing special. Nothing frightening, just some guys in jail cells without much hope for release, and be done with it. THAT is how you deal with terrorists. Not by killing them. Not by making them into martyrs, not by making them anything special in the least-- because that is what they want. To be special. To be so dangerous that they can't be released. Instead, you make them into examples, by trying them, jailing them, and moving on.


Unfortunately, as a nation, we sort of lost that step. Instead, we turned into pants besh*tting cowards when it came to actually making real cases against these folks, and for trying them, and for doing much else than holding them. That isn't MY choice, but what the nation has done, with Senators and Reps and Governors, and State Senators and Reps befouling themselves in fear, and THAT is shameful.


I don't think that we don't have choices. I don't think that we have the courage, as a nation now, to exercise those choices, and we lost those a while ago, to look tough for the camera.


What I said about can do, and can't do, it comes down this:



lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-05 12:15:48 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: WhyteRaven74: proteus_b: and we may as well let them have their virgins...

or we could follow the rule of law and admit that we screwed up and that no judge, civilian or military, would actually allow them to be tried and just let them go.

Let them go where, exactly?


Home.
 
2013-01-05 12:16:25 AM

Indubitably: The Jami Turman Fan Club: WhyteRaven74: proteus_b: and we may as well let them have their virgins...

or we could follow the rule of law and admit that we screwed up and that no judge, civilian or military, would actually allow them to be tried and just let them go.

Let them go where, exactly?

Home.


Then drome...
 
2013-01-05 12:17:23 AM

Indubitably: Indubitably: The Jami Turman Fan Club: WhyteRaven74: proteus_b: and we may as well let them have their virgins...

or we could follow the rule of law and admit that we screwed up and that no judge, civilian or military, would actually allow them to be tried and just let them go.

Let them go where, exactly?

Home.

Then drome...


If necessary and sufficient.
 
2013-01-05 02:01:58 AM
Boo hoo. No tears for terrorists.
 
2013-01-05 02:34:19 AM

STRYPERSWINE: Boo hoo. No tears for terrorists.


I bet you have a "thing" for authority dont you?
 
2013-01-05 02:59:13 AM

Hydra: 166 prisoners? Small potatoes - how many non-violent drug offenders were locked up nationwide today?


How many of those non-violent drug offenders have been incarcerated without a trial, conviction or indeed being charged with drug related offences under US law? None.

That's 166 human rights violations right there and potentially war crimes as well; remember they weren't uniformed combatants and none of the paperwork to support this declared war on the country and people of 'terror' has ever been filed. Most are technically civilians being held without trial, due process hell I'd wager good money than none of them have been officially charged with an actual crime under US law.

So that's 166 violations of pretty much everything you as an American hold dear and are supposed to enshrine. If that doesn't make you go 'Ohh shiat" then I don't think anything will however put the bong down and try to understand that those 166 people and their non-convicted indefinite incarceration are a REALLY BIG PROBLEM.
 
2013-01-05 03:22:22 AM
Vaneshi: How many of those non-violent drug offenders have been incarcerated without a trial, conviction or indeed being charged with drug related offences under US law? None.

media.comicvine.com


/do you have ANY idea how many MILLIONS of people have been incarcerated under the fundamentally unjust Controlled Substances Act (let alone the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS who have been falsely imprisoned by planted evidence, witness tampering, and other forms of police corruption) not to mention those killed in SWAT raids on the wrong houses in the four decades since the war on drugs began?
//hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost literally and millions more lives have been ruined due to this "war" while more than 166 people died yesterday from car accidents - get your priorities straight and focus your energy where it's need most
 
2013-01-05 03:51:23 AM

HotWingConspiracy: [scrapetv.com image 320x244]

At least the members of his torture regime are afraid to leave the country.


I would find it funny if Rumsfeld went on a trip to Europe and got snagged and taken to The Hague to face war crime charges. It would never happen to Bush or Cheney (too protected), but Rummy and some others? Possible. Not likely, but with the right political climate in Europe, you never know.
 
2013-01-05 03:57:05 AM

ChipNASA: Kittypie070: ChipNASA: [i.imgur.com image 250x250]

U.S.A!!!! U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!  U.S.A!!!!
/someone had to do it.

Oh hai, crazy person who I like. Would you like some nice PCP so you can go mow your lawn?

Cat Nip would be fine....or some good bud. {:-D

/probably farkied as "Crazy Republican NAZI Freak!" or something like that.


Not at all :P

ChipNASA
(kittyfarky'd as: I'd rather that my money is SPENT ON SCIENCE biatchES!!! 7273306)

/puf puf, passes it to ChipNASA
 
2013-01-05 04:08:00 AM

STRYPERSWINE: Boo hoo. No tears for terrorists.


Technically they aren't terrorists. Technically they are just some guys rounded up and thrown in a prison camp without any charges made against them, although the State assures us they are all "Very Bad People".

What if these were not mostly Muslims from the Middle East, but instead were your neighbors? Your family? What if you were one of these allegedly "Very Bad People"?

Just because the Government says someone is bad and needs to be held indefinitely does not make it so. That's why we have a legal system, including a system of military justice for prisoners caught in a war zone. Gitmo is an atrocity, and needs to close now. Put those guys in a Supermax prison and give them their day in court, be it civilian or military.
 
2013-01-05 05:22:39 AM

JustFarkinAround: Look at the list of Gitmo detainees... It's like the Al-Jazeera subscriber list


So basically, they're terrorists because Fox News told you so. Looking at the detainee list on wikipedia right now. Blank, repatriated, blank, alleged, blank, released ... Oh, and "arrested at the age of 13"

Some scary folks you've got there. You True US Patriots™ must be shiatting yourselves over these guys.

i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-05 05:28:32 AM

Gyrfalcon: Are you honestly saying anyone "likes" the idea of war at all?


People who vote GOP / watch Fox News probably do. The war doesn't happen in their house or their country, and it doesn't happen to their families. It happens to brown muslin people on the other side of the planet because jeebus on a raptor hates turrists.

The US has been at war more or less continuously since WWII, and mostly by choice. Yeah, there are people who like the idea of war.
 
2013-01-05 05:41:17 AM

Uncle Tractor: The US has been at war more or less continuously since WWII, and mostly by choice. Yeah, there are people who like the idea of war.


Did you have a point here? Judging by your rhetoric on the average American citizen, whether they vote Democrat or Republican, I doubt it. You just came into the thread after it died to mouth off whargarbl.

It's ironic that you'd single out the US as responsible, when it's actually been the entire First World playing a game of global chess with resources and money as the wager. Anyone who thinks the Cold War was just political rhetoric and posturing is historically ignorant. Europe, the US, China and Russia have been fighting each other in ostensibly deniable Proxy Wars for the last 68 years. Everyone points out how the US supported "regime changes" and terrible people because they supported NATO/US instead of the Eastern Bloc, but no one wants to talk about how the Soviets did the same thing.

It's pointless moral absolution using hindsight, for the most part, to blame the US for that exclusively.
 
2013-01-05 06:10:49 AM

BronyMedic: Uncle Tractor: The US has been at war more or less continuously since WWII, and mostly by choice. Yeah, there are people who like the idea of war.

Did you have a point here? Judging by your rhetoric on the average American citizen, whether they vote Democrat or Republican, I doubt it. You just came into the thread after it died to mouth off whargarbl.

It's ironic that you'd single out the US as responsible, when it's actually been the entire First World playing a game of global chess with resources and money as the wager. Anyone who thinks the Cold War was just political rhetoric and posturing is historically ignorant. Europe, the US, China and Russia have been fighting each other in ostensibly deniable Proxy Wars for the last 68 years. Everyone points out how the US supported "regime changes" and terrible people because they supported NATO/US instead of the Eastern Bloc, but no one wants to talk about how the Soviets did the same thing.

It's pointless moral absolution using hindsight, for the most part, to blame the US for that exclusively.


Do you intentionally miss the point, or do you just want to be oppositional?

Also the "cold war" was mostly rhetoric and posturing to support arms buildups for fun and profit.  And anyone who believes otherwise is a simpleton readily eating their spoon fed information from domestic authority.  The USSR was not a realistic threat to the world as posterity as proved.
 
2013-01-05 07:19:35 AM

Frederick: Do you intentionally miss the point, or do you just want to be oppositional?


What point? Durr Americans Bloodthirsty?

Frederick: Also the "cold war" was mostly rhetoric and posturing to support arms buildups for fun and profit.  And anyone who believes otherwise is a simpleton readily eating their spoon fed information from domestic authority.  The USSR was not a realistic threat to the world as posterity as proved.


www.troll.me

The Cold War was one gigantic proxy war between the United States and Russia. It was not "rhetoric and posturing". Millions died over 50 years because the US and Soviets used second world nations and third world hellholes to fight their wars for them. The policy of creating Banana Republics in South and Middle America, Asia, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa have come back to bite us in the ass still today with world politics.
 
2013-01-05 09:50:14 AM
Fark them.
 
2013-01-05 10:44:46 AM

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


It would be pretty safe to say that someone in the custody of US military would fall under its jurisdiction.
 
2013-01-05 11:11:41 AM
www.angryflower.com
 
2013-01-05 12:48:47 PM

MmmmBacon: STRYPERSWINE: Boo hoo. No tears for terrorists.

Technically they aren't terrorists. Technically they are just some guys rounded up and thrown in a prison camp without any charges made against them, although the State assures us they are all "Very Bad People".

What if these were not mostly Muslims from the Middle East, but instead were your neighbors? Your family? What if you were one of these allegedly "Very Bad People"?

Just because the Government says someone is bad and needs to be held indefinitely does not make it so. That's why we have a legal system, including a system of military justice for prisoners caught in a war zone. Gitmo is an atrocity, and needs to close now. Put those guys in a Supermax prison and give them their day in court, be it civilian or military.


THIS.

I am dismayed by the number of people in this thread who seem to be trying to justify the treatment of these prisoners.

The Road to Guantanamo
 
2013-01-05 04:16:18 PM

Frederick: The USSR was not a realistic threat to the world as posterity as proved.


Oh really?
A nation with enough nukes to wipe out the world is not a threat to that same world???
 
2013-01-05 07:15:30 PM

Rockstone: Frederick: The USSR was not a realistic threat to the world as posterity as proved.

Oh really?
A nation with enough nukes to wipe out the world is not a threat to that same world???


Is that what you were told?  What happened to those weapons; they still a threat or not?  Is Russia the same threat the USSR was -why not?

The truth is the USSR's nuclear weapon program was greatly exaggerated.  Their weapons were in such disrepair that were essentially a greater threat to the Soviets than they were to anyone else.  Do some research on it, the facts are readily available.  You are still adhering to cold war propaganda.

BronyMedic: Frederick: Do you intentionally miss the point, or do you just want to be oppositional?

What point? Durr Americans Bloodthirsty?

Frederick: Also the "cold war" was mostly rhetoric and posturing to support arms buildups for fun and profit.  And anyone who believes otherwise is a simpleton readily eating their spoon fed information from domestic authority.  The USSR was not a realistic threat to the world as posterity as proved.

[www.troll.me image 552x414]

The Cold War was one gigantic proxy war between the United States and Russia. It was not "rhetoric and posturing". Millions died over 50 years because the US and Soviets used second world nations and third world hellholes to fight their wars for them. The policy of creating Banana Republics in South and Middle America, Asia, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa have come back to bite us in the ass still today with world politics.


Your ignorant Wiki link did not support your moronic argument in any way.  It is a stretch to suggest the cold war is a reference to proxy wars.  The cold war is more specifically a reference to the nuclear stand-off between USA and USSR.

You are dumb and you should feel dumb.
 
2013-01-05 07:40:07 PM

Frederick: Is that what you were told? What happened to those weapons; they still a threat or not? Is Russia the same threat the USSR was -why not?


Yes, they are still a threat. Then again, so are we. They're less of a threat today because they're less likely to want to attack us, but they ARE still a threat.

Frederick: The truth is the USSR's nuclear weapon program was greatly exaggerated. Their weapons were in such disrepair that were essentially a greater threat to the Soviets than they were to anyone else. Do some research on it, the facts are readily available. You are still adhering to cold war propaganda.


Since when? Even if they were in disrepair, you only need a few nukes to cause catastrophe. Even if 99% of 6000 nukes are bad, 60 nukes are still pretty dangerous.
 
2013-01-05 08:44:43 PM

Rockstone: Frederick: Is that what you were told? What happened to those weapons; they still a threat or not? Is Russia the same threat the USSR was -why not?

Yes, they are still a threat. Then again, so are we. They're less of a threat today because they're less likely to want to attack us, but they ARE still a threat.

Frederick: The truth is the USSR's nuclear weapon program was greatly exaggerated. Their weapons were in such disrepair that were essentially a greater threat to the Soviets than they were to anyone else. Do some research on it, the facts are readily available. You are still adhering to cold war propaganda.

Since when? Even if they were in disrepair, you only need a few nukes to cause catastrophe. Even if 99% of 6000 nukes are bad, 60 nukes are still pretty dangerous.


So by this logic then the UK, France, Germany, Israel, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, etc are all threats.  Why single out Russia (the former USSR)?

The point was the US's penchant for war.  Then BronyMedic brought up the USSR and the cold war.  Which was a strawman argument.  Compared to the US, the USSR was not a global threat, despite whatever nuclear weapons they posses.
 
2013-01-05 08:48:31 PM

Frederick: It is a stretch to suggest the cold war is a reference to proxy wars


Seriously. If that had been a major part of the Cold War, they'd probably mention it in the second paragraph or something.

Oh right. You're smarter than Wikipedia.
 
2013-01-05 08:58:25 PM

Frederick: Rockstone: Frederick: The USSR was not a realistic threat to the world as posterity as proved.

Oh really?
A nation with enough nukes to wipe out the world is not a threat to that same world???

Is that what you were told?  What happened to those weapons; they still a threat or not?  Is Russia the same threat the USSR was -why not?

The truth is the USSR's nuclear weapon program was greatly exaggerated.  Their weapons were in such disrepair that were essentially a greater threat to the Soviets than they were to anyone else.  Do some research on it, the facts are readily available.  You are still adhering to cold war propaganda.

BronyMedic: Frederick: Do you intentionally miss the point, or do you just want to be oppositional?

What point? Durr Americans Bloodthirsty?

Frederick: Also the "cold war" was mostly rhetoric and posturing to support arms buildups for fun and profit.  And anyone who believes otherwise is a simpleton readily eating their spoon fed information from domestic authority.  The USSR was not a realistic threat to the world as posterity as proved.

[www.troll.me image 552x414]

The Cold War was one gigantic proxy war between the United States and Russia. It was not "rhetoric and posturing". Millions died over 50 years because the US and Soviets used second world nations and third world hellholes to fight their wars for them. The policy of creating Banana Republics in South and Middle America, Asia, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa have come back to bite us in the ass still today with world politics.

Your ignorant Wiki link did not support your moronic argument in any way.  It is a stretch to suggest the cold war is a reference to proxy wars.  The cold war is more specifically a reference to the nuclear stand-off between USA and USSR.

You are dumb and you should feel dumb.


Well, if you don't have anything else, then ad hominem and insulting cited sources will surely prove your narrow and revisionist view of world history, and wipe clean the slate of bad behavior by the Soviets and US during the Cold War.

I'll ask for an apology, but given your whargarbl over the past few posts, I doubt you'll admit you don't know what you're talking about.
 
2013-01-05 09:24:20 PM

BigNumber12: Frederick: It is a stretch to suggest the cold war is a reference to proxy wars

Seriously. If that had been a major part of the Cold War, they'd probably mention it in the second paragraph or something.

Oh right. You're smarter than Wikipedia.


You mean that paragraph where this is the first line:

The Cold War was so named because the two major powers-each possessing nuclear weapons and thereby threatened with mutual assured destruction-did not meet in direct military combat.

Also that is not the link BronyMedic provided.

Further from Wikipedia:

The Cold War was a protracted geopolitical, ideological, and economic struggle that emerged after World War II between the global superpowers of the Soviet Union and the West (United Kingdom, United States and NATO).

Notice in that definition the lack of the word "proxy".  Lumping in so called proxy wars with "the cold war" is revisionist.  At the time those "proxy" wars were not considered an extension of the cold war.  Vietnam and Korea were never considered at that time to be a part of the "cold war".  They were informally considered proxies -but with China and the US; not the USSR and the US.  (Notice a common denominator there furthering Uncle Tractor's point?)

BronyMedic: I'll ask for an apology, but given your whargarbl over the past few posts, I doubt you'll admit you don't know what you're talking about.


You keep changing the argument so much the you cant keep track of what you are talking about:
original point:
Uncle Tractor: The US has been at war more or less continuously since WWII, and mostly by choice. Yeah, there are people who like the idea of war.

to which you replied:

BronyMedic: It's ironic that you'd single out the US as responsible, when it's actually been the entire First World playing a game of global chess with resources and money as the wager. Anyone who thinks the Cold War was just political rhetoric and posturing is historically ignorant.


Which was a straw man argument, an exaggeration and misinformed.  Provide a dated reference to "cold war" with any of those proxies listed.  It is revisionist.
 
2013-01-05 09:27:34 PM

Hydra: //hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost literally and millions more lives have been ruined due to this "war" while more than 166 people died yesterday from car accidents - get your priorities straight and focus your energy where it's need most


You are in violation of the human rights acts, the Hague conventions and are in violation of your own constitution, it's amendments and well that's your whole justice system.

And you've just admitted you are a morally bankrupt country.

Would you like to try again or shall we move directly to the war crimes trials and you get to watch your political leaders shot? Do you understand that or are you too farking retarded to comprehend the magnitude of difference that those 166 people represent compared to road deaths or arrested stoners?
 
2013-01-05 09:59:11 PM

Frederick: You keep changing the argument so much the you cant keep track of what you are talking about:
original point:


people.virginia.edu

Really? Define Red Herring, since we're doing lectures on Strawmen and other logical fallacies. This was your statement that I was addressing:

Frederick: Provide a dated reference to "cold war" with any of those proxies listed.  It is revisionist.


Does the Gerrold R. Ford Presidential Library fit in your moving goalpost?
What about the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library?
The Wikipedia link to "Cold War" has many hardcopy cites.

That apology. Any chance? Or are you going to keep defending the indefensible and non-factual?
 
2013-01-05 10:29:35 PM

BronyMedic: Frederick: You keep changing the argument so much the you cant keep track of what you are talking about:
original point:

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]

Really? Define Red Herring, since we're doing lectures on Strawmen and other logical fallacies. This was your statement that I was addressing:

Frederick: Provide a dated reference to "cold war" with any of those proxies listed.  It is revisionist.

Does the Gerrold R. Ford Presidential Library fit in your moving goalpost?
What about the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library?
The Wikipedia link to "Cold War" has many hardcopy cites.

That apology. Any chance? Or are you going to keep defending the indefensible and non-factual?


You have to keep rearranging context in order to appear even remotely competent.  The things you say and the links you post do not corroborate each other.  Also, for the record, you were the first to go "ad hominem" with your stupid .jpg post.

And I'll dumb this down for you so you can understand: find a reference to "cold war" during the time of the war.  Such as an archived news paper article or magazine article form the period using the term "cold war" to describe the war.  Each link you provided was after the fact -aka revisionist.

If you would even read the links you are providing you would understand that the term "cold war" was not originally used to describe "proxies".
Origins of the term
At the end of World War II, English author and journalist George Orwell used cold war, as a general term, in his essay "You and the Atomic Bomb", published October 19, 1945, in the British newspaper Tribune. Contemplating a world living in the shadow of the threat of nuclear warfare.


Including proxies in the cold war definition is revisionist -not contemporary, hence my example of Korea and Vietnam; both listed in your link of proxy wars, were not considered "cold war" at the time.  Those conflicts were sold to the US public on the grounds of "spreading Democracy" -not proxy fighting the Soviets.

Ask your grandparents, who were probably school children in the 1950's, what the cold war meant.  They werent hiding under their desks because of proxie wars.

I am weary of engaging with you.  I will write this off as a matter of semantics.  You adhere to a modern (revisionist) definition of "cold war" and I adhere to a traditional definition.
 
2013-01-05 10:32:12 PM

Frederick: You mean that paragraph where this is the first line:


Nobody's disputing the nuclear standoff.

Why did you prune the rest of that paragraph? Maybe because the very next sentence discusses "proxy wars?"

You're dancing around information that's right in front of your face. There's no way that you're not trolling.
 
2013-01-05 10:35:12 PM

Frederick: I am weary of engaging with you. I will write this off as a matter of semantics.


There it is - the troll-escape.
 
2013-01-05 10:43:58 PM

BigNumber12: Frederick: You mean that paragraph where this is the first line:

Nobody's disputing the nuclear standoff.

Why did you prune the rest of that paragraph? Maybe because the very next sentence discusses "proxy wars?"

You're dancing around information that's right in front of your face. There's no way that you're not trolling.


You mean like how you keep pruning comments you reply to?  Maybe I should copypasta the whole Wiki article....?

Also did you even notice this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_%28disambiguation%29
 
2013-01-05 10:50:39 PM

Frederick: You mean like how you keep pruning comments you reply to? Maybe I should copypasta the whole Wiki article....?


I'm isolating the parts in which you're talking to me, rather than Brony. Ooooh, sinister.

Frederick: Also did you even notice this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_%28disambiguation%29


A link to the article I've been referring you to, and the disambiguation page for the term? I've noticed both, but what is it that you're wanting me to notice about them? That it's also an American hardcore punk band?
 
2013-01-05 11:08:48 PM

BigNumber12: Frederick: You mean like how you keep pruning comments you reply to? Maybe I should copypasta the whole Wiki article....?

I'm isolating the parts in which you're talking to me, rather than Brony. Ooooh, sinister.


Yeah, uh, that was my point.  Isolating the relevant parts.  It's ok for you but not for me?

BigNumber12: Frederick: Also did you even notice this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_%28disambiguation%29

A link to the article I've been referring you to, and the disambiguation page for the term? I've noticed both, but what is it that you're wanting me to notice about them? That it's also an American hardcore punk band?


That there is disagreement on what "Cold War" means.  Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_Cold_War

Historians have also disagreed on what exactly the Cold War was, what the sources of the conflict were, and how to disentangle patterns of action and reaction between the two sides.

While the explanations of the origins of the conflict in academic discussions are complex and diverse, several general schools of thought on the subject can be identified. Historians commonly speak of three differing approaches to the study of the Cold War: "orthodox" accounts, "revisionism," and "post-revisionism." Nevertheless, much of the historiography on the Cold War weaves together two or even all three of these broad categories.
 
2013-01-05 11:46:05 PM

Frederick: That there is disagreement on what "Cold War" means. Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_Cold_War

Historians have also disagreed on what exactly the Cold War was, what the sources of the conflict were, and how to disentangle patterns of action and reaction between the two sides.

While the explanations of the origins of the conflict in academic discussions are complex and diverse, several general schools of thought on the subject can be identified. Historians commonly speak of three differing approaches to the study of the Cold War: "orthodox" accounts, "revisionism," and "post-revisionism." Nevertheless, much of the historiography on the Cold War weaves together two or even all three of these broad categories.


I don't see anything in that article that disputes the idea that those proxy wars were key aspects of the Cold War.


Frederick: Yeah, uh, that was my point. Isolating the relevant parts. It's ok for you but not for me?


Cutting out the parts of the article that prove my point: exactly the same as my cutting out your questions for another Farker.
 
2013-01-06 07:29:43 AM

BigNumber12: Cutting out the parts of the article that prove my point: exactly the same as my cutting out your questions for another Farker.


I'm writing him off as a troll. The point at which he decided to ignore the obvious meaning of historical revisionism and the intent of the way I worded it, and play a game of semantics to try to be right by finding some sort of hidden meaning is the point at which I bow out.
 
2013-01-06 11:20:00 AM

BronyMedic: BigNumber12: Cutting out the parts of the article that prove my point: exactly the same as my cutting out your questions for another Farker.

I'm writing him off as a troll. The point at which he decided to ignore the obvious meaning of historical revisionism and the intent of the way I worded it, and play a game of semantics to try to be right by finding some sort of hidden meaning is the point at which I bow out.


Yep, I'm out.
 
2013-01-07 09:08:25 AM

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.


Did you ever actually try to find the information? It's a pretty straight forward explanation following the simplest of investigation.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+the+us+have+guantanamo+bay+cuba

The United States seized Guantanamo Bay and established a naval base there in 1898 during the Spanish-American War. Five years later, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease giving Guantanamo Bay to the U.S.

In 1934, Cuba and the U.S. signed a treaty that gave the U.S. a perpetual lease to the area.
 
2013-01-07 07:15:52 PM

Pangea: 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.

Did you ever actually try to find the information? It's a pretty straight forward explanation following the simplest of investigation.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+the+us+have+guantanamo+bay+cuba

The United States seized Guantanamo Bay and established a naval base there in 1898 during the Spanish-American War. Five years later, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease giving Guantanamo Bay to the U.S.

In 1934, Cuba and the U.S. signed a treaty that gave the U.S. a perpetual lease to the area.


Fuk perpetuitly.
 
Displayed 347 of 347 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report