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 80
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-04 01:51:15 PM  
12 votes:
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 03:36:38 PM  
6 votes:
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 03:25:03 PM  
6 votes:
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 03:22:47 PM  
6 votes:

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 02:01:38 PM  
6 votes:
The terrorists have won  :(
2013-01-04 03:21:18 PM  
5 votes:
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 01:08:44 PM  
5 votes:
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 03:40:38 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:37:47 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:32:21 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:50:51 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:38:33 PM  
3 votes:
scrapetv.com

At least the members of his torture regime are afraid to leave the country.
2013-01-04 03:37:00 PM  
3 votes:
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 03:30:22 PM  
3 votes:
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 01:04:48 PM  
3 votes:
Fail tag completely appropriate.
2013-01-04 03:58:57 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:47:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:43:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:40:26 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:35:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:28:28 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:26:17 PM  
2 votes:
166 prisoners? Small potatoes - how many non-violent drug offenders were locked up nationwide today?
2013-01-04 03:26:13 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-06 07:29:43 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-05 07:40:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:19:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:41:17 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-04 06:26:59 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:09:37 PM  
1 votes:
LET THEM GO.
2013-01-04 06:01:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:48:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:21:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:21:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:08:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:04:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:48:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:44:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:35:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:29:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:27:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:26:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:22:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:22:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:12:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:09:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:09:00 PM  
1 votes:
i1.kym-cdn.com
2013-01-04 04:04:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:03:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:02:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:01:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:59:27 PM  
1 votes:
It's like a farking victor hugo novel down there.
We're no better than napoleon.
2013-01-04 03:55:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:54:04 PM  
1 votes:
Good, until death seems about right.

/lude
2013-01-04 03:48:46 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:47:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:47:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:47:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:45:23 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:44:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:44:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:43:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:05 PM  
1 votes:
Are any of the 166 prisoners American citizens charged with terrorism ?
Being serious.
2013-01-04 03:34:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:33:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:30:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:29:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:28:53 PM  
1 votes:
assets.nydailynews.com

Coming soon to your neighborhood!
2013-01-04 03:28:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:27:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:24:09 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:24:07 PM  
1 votes:
Obama's just a corporate whore like 99.9% of the other politicians in Washington. How is this still surprising anyone?
2013-01-04 03:22:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:22:35 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:20:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:20:58 PM  
1 votes:
Same shiat different asshole. I guess Obama wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.
2013-01-04 02:17:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:48:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:09:47 PM  
1 votes:
So, what..year 12 of violating the Constitution?
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report