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  
•       •       •

7853 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 3:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-04 04:07:19 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report