Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 238

Thread: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

  1. #191
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    I thought Blackwater could commit no crime.
    To commit a crime, you have to commit an act that breaks a criminal law.

    To break a criminal law, there has to be a relevant criminal law in the jurisdiction in which the act was committed.

    Can you show where Blackwater has done this?

  2. #192
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    I thought Blackwater could commit no crime. They're sort of like the terrorists, a new status created to avoid jurisdiction in any court.



    that's why a few are being held for trial.



    Yet you want to hold an entire organization for the accused failures of a few?

    You fail.


    next.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #193
    Professor
    shiznit770's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,393

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    that's why a few are being held for trial.



    Yet you want to hold an entire organization for the accused failures of a few?

    You fail.


    next.
    Sorry, they can be held accountable. With world-wide media outcry and dozens of highly trained investigators who only pursued the case due to an order from higher up.

    Also, I misspoke. Should have said "Blackwater Employees" or Civilian Military Contractors in Iraq.

  4. #194
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    Sorry, they can be held accountable. With world-wide media outcry and dozens of highly trained investigators who only pursued the case due to an order from higher up.
    Actually it is the opposite. Pressure one guy who worked for blackwater with prison for the rest of his life and get him to lie about his buddies.

    Also, I misspoke. Should have said "Blackwater Employees" or Civilian Military Contractors in Iraq.

    You should have stopped at "misspoke"......


    See blackwater, who I have done training with, are vip and asset protection specialists, they protect a person or a thing...

    How does going on a kill crazy rampage as couch sitting halo playing morons suggest, helping to accomplish the mission?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #195
    Professor
    shiznit770's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,393

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Actually it is the opposite. Pressure one guy who worked for blackwater with prison for the rest of his life and get him to lie about his buddies.

    You should have stopped at "misspoke"......

    See blackwater, who I have done training with, are vip and asset protection specialists, they protect a person or a thing...

    How does going on a kill crazy rampage as couch sitting halo playing morons suggest, helping to accomplish the mission?
    How about panicking when you think you are under attack, then going on a kill crazy rampage to save your own ass?

    So the media coverage of the event in question was completely made up? The dead people aren't real and Iraqi's are liars?

    I don't think Civilian Military contractors are bad, I just believe they should be under a judicial jurisdiction which has a realistic chance of upholding justice without the need for a global media outcry.

  6. #196
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    How about panicking when you think you are under attack, then going on a kill crazy rampage to save your own ass?
    Have you ever been in combat?

    So the media coverage of the event in question was completely made up? The dead people aren't real and Iraqi's are liars?
    Nope, simply innocent until proven guilty........ I tend to believe former special ops over the press....

    I don't think Civilian Military contractors are bad, I just believe they should be under a judicial jurisdiction which has a realistic chance of upholding justice without the need for a global media outcry.

    I believe as well they should be held under a reasonable code of justice in this case a contract that spells out crimes.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #197
    Professor
    shiznit770's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,393

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Have you ever been in combat?

    Nope, simply innocent until proven guilty........ I tend to believe former special ops over the press....
    They may be innocent, but I believe the amount of outcry needed for this case to even exists shows the shortcomings of the arrangement. The charges probably are inflated by the media, but accusations should be investigated to ensure justice. The fact is the only way those accusations were able to reach the relevant justice department was via the media spin.

    I believe as well they should be held under a reasonable code of justice in this case a contract that spells out crimes.
    Its great if the contract spells out crimes, but who is going to enforce them? Not the military and not the Iraqi justice system.

  8. #198
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    They may be innocent, but I believe the amount of outcry needed for this case to even exists shows the shortcomings of the arrangement. The charges probably are inflated by the media, but accusations should be investigated to ensure justice. The fact is the only way those accusations were able to reach the relevant justice department was via the media spin.
    I am 90% in agreement, There does need to be more clear rules and oversight, but to put 5 people in prison for the rest of thier lives because as you say they may have panicked in a war zone is a travesty.

    Its great if the contract spells out crimes, but who is going to enforce them? Not the military and not the Iraqi justice system.

    That can be spelled out in the contract.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #199
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Where does one start with this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    The reason why Guantanamo is controversial is not because it violates international law, but because it sidesteps international law. Because terrorists are a form of combattant not directly covered by the GC, technically the U.S. is not violating any laws.
    If the US is "technically...not violating any laws" then why would you assert that Gitmo is also controversial "because it violates international law"? These are incompatible positions.

    Nonetheless, what international law is being "side-stepped"?

    However, in principle, it is questionable since the U.S. did sign the Geneva Convention under the premise that unfair detention and questionable interrogation methods are not valid under a just international system.
    Are you saying it is questionable that the US signed such an agreement? Or is it questionable that the such detention and interrogation methods are not valid under such an agreement? This comment doesn't make any sense.

    And nation's don't sign agreements under "premise[s]" that are not already explicitly stated in such an agreement. BTW, Geneva doesn't distinguish between fair and unfair detention or questionable and unquestionable interrogation methods. It does establish standards of treatment and what criteria must be satisfied in order to be eligible for protection under the agreement.

    It's basically a moral/ethical debate considering the U.S. signed that Convention in good faith.
    No it's not. It's a question of whether combatants (properly designated as such by a party to the agreement) are eligible for Geneva protections and privileges. If not, then it is a question of the nation's domestic laws whether the individual is eligible for certain rights and protections.

    Simply because the US signed an agreement specifying that it will adhere to the agreement's provisions doesn't mean that it must grant the Geneva protections and privileges to individuals who do not qualify for them. In fact, the US and other nations specifically rejected this concept when they were presented in the 1970's with Protocol I which sought to explicitly bring terrorists within Geneva Three. In other words, Protocol I would have accorded to terrorists and terror organizations the same protections and prvileges that ordinary military personnel are eligible for. The US rejected that.

    The U.S. has lost face in the matter because it has, in the past, tried to portray itself as a nation of justice and liberty, and yet it has demonstrated that it won't play fairly according to its own image if a piece of paper is not telling it to.
    What "paper" are you referring to? If Geneva, then you're simply wrong for the reasons stated above.

    So basically, my issue is that the U.S. is operating under a hypocrisy. If you are actually a nation that detains people unfairly and sidesteps international law, then stop pretending you are so goody goody, when you are just like every other country.
    Is the US pretending to be goody-goody (whatever that's supposed to mean)? I don't think so. It has rightly recognized that these situations are testing its domestic laws and treaty obligations. In fact, the US has, in many instances, gone further than legally required in affording protections and privileges to individuals that could otherwise be immediately killed (like spies, for example) without any consideration of some set of rights. While detained at Gitmo they have access to legal counsel, access to a military tribunal, to challenge their detention and combantant status.

    It's not that the U.S. has the "right" to create Guantanamo, it's that it can.
    What is this supposed to mean?

    The Bush Administration cherry picked technicalities that casted reasonable doubt on the application of the GC to terrorist detainees.
    No it did not. It's clear from any reading of Geneva that terrorists cannot qualify for POW protections and privileges.

    The key point that matters is that this reasonable doubt was never heard in an international court, but was one government's say-so.
    Huh? Where does the reasonable doubt standard for assessing an individual's combatant status arise? Not Geneva. Where does the requirement that detainees have a right to challenge their detention in an international court? Certainly not Geneva.

    You're simply fabricating these standards.

    As one of the world's hegemonic powers, its questionable acts are untouchable. If a smaller, less powerful nation did something like that, it would likely be attacked or stripped of economic resources, or dragged in front of a world court. Once again, the reasons for this political mess are power related.
    You have no such basis for this speculatory conclusion other then your personal view that the US commits what you believe to be unethical acts simply because it can.

    Also, not all conditions at Guantanamo were in violation of the GC anyway. For instance, Bush said in this White House press release that: "the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists." Since the Taliban was the Afghani government, they are considered detainees of a sovereign State and thus the GC applies. Terrorists, however, are transnational actors and therefore, according to Bush, detaining them as actors of sovereign states is not an applicable policy since terrorist networks operate globally. This means the Bush admin can do whatever it wants to those detainees, including water boarding.
    That was not the administration's thinking, no matter that it is convenient to your argument.

    Yes, Taliban detainees qualify for Geneva protections and privileges. Terrorists do not qualify because they fail to satisfy the conditions within Geneva that entitle individuals to such protections and privileges. They are not denied because they are transnational actors part of global terror networks.

    Have you even read Geneva Three? The force with which you present your comments would suggest so, but your concepts and comments about it demonstrate that you haven't. So you're either intentionally lying by posting such comments about Geneva which you don't know they are true or not or you have read Geneva but choose to deceive us with your comments about what Geneva requires. Which is it?

    I would, however, have preferred to let an international court decide on that one.
    Geneva does not provide a judicial determination function. Disagreements over the provisions in Geneva are to be resolved via diplomacy. And it's obvious why. One nation's court's ruling or opinion may substantively change that nation's application of the agreement in ways that may violate the agreement itself.

    However, that would never happen, due to the level of power the U.S. has.
    Damn you are ignorant. There is no international judicial review provision in Geneva. Why do you demand that the Geneva parties submit their challenges to the applicability of that agreement to disinterested third-parties who are not accountabel to them? No sovereign government would do that. That's why Geneva doesn't require such.

    That said, the Bush Admin has already made several statements about the proper treatment of the prisoners (i.e. proper meals, access to religious rites, etc). The issue of waterboarding is something else, however, and I don't agree that it's a fair practice.
    Fair or unfair is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether that interrogation tactic violates the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment protections contained in international agreements or US domestic law.

    The next time the U.S. points the finger at anyone else regarding unfair detention practices or even torture, it will have zero credibility.
    Nonsense. You can only believe this if you believe that the US, as policy, tortures detainees. The US government, based on legal counsel provided by this nation's highest legal authority, the DoJ, does not believe that some physically coercive interrogation methods rise to the level of torture. It is a good faith position. It has established which methods are permissable to various military branches and intelligence agenices and has established a procedure for administering such methods.

    The problem is that people like you simply don't a specific procedure and because you don't like it you characterize it as torture. And you do so ignorantly by ignoring the implications of your assertions.

  10. #200
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Guantanamo closure plan ordered

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    I don't think Civilian Military contractors are bad, I just believe they should be under a judicial jurisdiction which has a realistic chance of upholding justice without the need for a global media outcry.
    I'm not convinced that charges were pressed due to media coverage at all. How would you go about proving such an assertion?
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •