Politics
Want to talk about politics without being insulted? I enjoy political discussions.
New Follow Forum Follow Topic
Midnight In Eden
What are your thoughts on it? Or the men inside? Do you think that five years imprisonment without legal charges is warranted?

Especially now since three of the men have been charged under new laws. Do you think it's fair that laws were created for these men?

2/3/2007 #1
Blackbird552
This could possibly go under the torture topic, but maybe not. What I think: the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are by definition Prisoners of War. We are after all in a "War on Terror". (That's retarded in itself because you cant fight a verb or idea-form noun, and we use terrorism, too).

However, there have been ideas to not consider these people protected by the Geneva Convention. At which point I don't know what they'd be, but apparently sub-human...

The abuse scandals are a disgusting testament to how some Americans aren't much better than Al-Queda operatives. Did you guys hear the story of the guy that blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib? He's in the witness protection program now, because he was given death threats when he returned home...and some of his fellow soldiers weren't too friendly either.

2/6/2007 #2
Midnight In Eden
It's not *really* part of the torture topic because I'm looking more at people's thoughts on the situations surrounding the men still imprisoned there.

For example, three of them, including one Australian David Hicks, have just been recently charged. These charges however are based on laws recently made and are being applied retrospectively. I'm just wondering if anyone actually thinks that it's fair to do that.

They're also not considered POWs because most of them weren't caught fighting or with any of the criteria needed to be labelled a Prisoner of War according to the United States. They're called "unlawful combatants" and as such aren't afforded many of the protections that POWs are. Which means the Bush administration is sitting pretty because they're technically not violating any Geneva Conventions.

2/6/2007 #3
ONETRACKMlND
Okay, blackbird, I can't let you compare the united states to Al-Queda. Terrorists are cowards, wimps. They would beat up your spouse, and in order for you to get back at them, they would make it so that you would have to go against your sister, your brother, your mom, the little old lady from down the street, and countless other individuals that did mothing to you. They are insane people that would willingly die by their own hand for their religion, or they are cowards that would trade out their comrades in seconds.

As to what was said about Guantanamo, I support it. And if you do somethign that shouldn't be done and there is no law against it, then they should be able to place a law to prosecute you.

2/7/2007 #4
Blackbird552
For clarification, I said that some Americans aren't any better than them. Is it not cowardly to sexually torture people in prison? You can't honestly think in generalizations: Al-Queda is cowardly and America is brave!

It doesn't work that way. Besides I find suicide bombers to be very brave (not praising their actions, mind you). As I've said before, America has been just as cowardly and cruel in the past and we've helped people just like them do this kind of stuff. So really, American individuals come in all different shapes, but the American military has been just as bad as Al-Queda in the past. That is simple fact, not opinion. I'm NOT one of those people who hate soldiers or protest at their funerals or anything.

Besides, how can you call Al-Queda wimps? I hate them too, but let's be realistic. These guys are not afraid to do what they have to to achieve goals. Sure, its not honorable...but is bombing them with fighters they cant shoot back at honorable, either? No, its just the best way to succeed.

This is the thinking that arises with every war (on all sides): The enemy is evil, we hate him, and he can never be compared to us. But the fact is, the only way for their to ever be peace is if each side understands each other and looks from their prospective.

2/7/2007 #5
Midnight In Eden
Few things for OneTrackMind: They were charged a few years ago but those charges were deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court. There is little and I mean little evidence against these guys. They aren't charged as POWs because they weren't caught fighting. In fact one of them, David Hicks (and Australian) was caught by headhunters at the border as he was trying to leave.

That also isn't fair, your last sentence. To create a law for someone to have broken? Would you appreciate it if tomorrow the United States decided that any American citizen abroad was breaking a law and thus charged them all? (It's not the most parallel scenario but it also demonstrates how retrospective law just doesn't make sense).

They've been in there for five years and three have only now been charged. Their right to a fair trial is basically gone now that hearsay is admissable in their courts (which is INSANE). Here's an interesting little question:

Person 1: I have no idea what's going on, really. What I will say, is that I suspect that they're innocent of the charges I'm aware of. However, the main issue is the fact that he's been held without charge for over five years, and he risks not being given a fair trial. That's not good.

Person 2: I have no idea what's going on, really. What I will say, is that due to some evidence I've collected from supremely reliable internet sources, I have no doubts that they are guilty of anything and everything, and therefore doesn't deserve anyones attention or sympathy, regardless of any miscarriages of justice that have, or are about to be carried out. That's good.

Well?

2/7/2007 #6
ONETRACKMlND
Am i supposed to be person 2?

Look, I could explain myself better if you were sitting next to me right now having this conversation. I am not very good at using forums. I don't like posting my beliefs in text because you can't easily correct yourself. We could have had this entire conversation in minutes, probably defending ourselves much better, but I can barely defend myself because of time restraints and this thread has been up for, what, a week?

2/7/2007 #7
Blackbird552
Yeah, Eden, you kinda put words in his mouth. What I thought he was trying to say is that there are loopholes in laws that shouldn't be there and laws should be made that are retroactive to fix those holes. I don't think he wants innocent or unfairly imprisoned or treated people to be there.
2/7/2007 #8
Midnight In Eden
It's merely a question of which you think you're more inclined to me. I'm not saying who you are, just outlining two situations and which you feel you more identify with.

I don't think it's necessary a loophole they're fixing, it's more creating a law to fit with the little evidence they have. It's similar to the situation of the "unlawful combatants". They're not POWs so the Bush administration creates a category for them to fit into which has no protection. A label to fit a situation that benefits them.

Um I'm not sure why you'd want to defend yourself because I'm not attacking you, merely pointing some things out.

2/7/2007 #9
Lord-of-Fools
PoWs are entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention, which the US is a signatory too, and has been for rather a long time. One of these protections is the ability to have Red Cross or other outside, impartial organisations, examine the conditions of the camp or prison, and state whether or not they think that it is excusable for humans- regardless of what they may or may not have done- to be kept there. However, Guantanamo Bay remains a secret place. Sure, Red Cross workers have been allowed in, but they have only been allowed to see small parts of the camp. This is similar to the way German camp commandants dressed up work camps so that Red Cross workers would not see what was really going on. I'm sure that, whatever the conditions faced by Guantanamo Bay prisoners, they're not on a level with the treatment of those at Dachau, but the secrecy always leaves room for doubt. Why so much secrecy? It would certainly help the US build trust with its allies and enemies alike if they allowed for more transparency here.
2/7/2007 #10
Midnight In Eden
They're not classifed as POWs. So basically they don't get squat.
2/8/2007 #11
ONETRACKMlND
Well, the fact is, we only have a vague idea of what's going on in Guantanamo Bay.
2/8/2007 #12
Lord-of-Fools
Exactly. Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay should, in the VERY LEAST be given Prisoner of War status, and the US government should be more open about what goes on there.
2/8/2007 #13
Forum Moderators: Blackbird552
Rules:
  • Forums are not to be used to post stories.
  • All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
  • The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
  • All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.
Membership Length: 2+ years 1 year 6+ months 1 month 2+ weeks new member