United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

Misterveritis said:

If you changed that to unlawful combatant or unlawful enemy combatant I could agree with you. They are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Too bad.

Click to expand...

Where there is no law, there is evil. No people are outside the law, if we are in fact moral people who believe in rule of law.

Misterveritis said:

Well, who else would you like to discuss?

Click to expand...

There was another fellow with him. You look that up. Both were killed. We can speak of the Canadian with the wrong name who was taken through rendition and send to be tortured. HE too was innocent. The more we look, the more we fine.

Dittohead not! said:

Well, Vietnam is a nation state, and we were fighting at least half of it at one time. Other than that, the war against Iraq is very similar: We are trying to win hearts and minds and establish democracy through war, which is much like trying to prevent forest fires with gasoline, we were fighting a guerrilla war in which it was difficult to tell who was an enemy and who wasn't, and it was a war that we should never have started in the first place.

The war on drugs is a war on something that isn't a nation state. That one is going badly as well.

Click to expand...

Agreed!!

I'd like to add this to the discussion. It might interest some:

Philip Zimbardo: Why ordinary people do evil ... or do good - YouTube

Misterveritis said:

Your story may have some truths in it but it might not. For example there is this tidbit, "More than two years after President Obama ordered the closure of the prison, 172 are still held there."

If the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama had ordered the facility closed it would, in fact, be closed. Your story may be a propaganda piece.

Click to expand...

President Obama signed executive orders Thursday directing the Central Intelligence Agency to shut what remains of its network of secret prisons and ordering the closing of the Guantánamo detention camp within a year.

Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed - NYTimes.com

I remember this signing and the talk of trying them in New York State courts that followed. As soon as they got their collective heads out of their rectums, they realized that no evidence collected as a result of torture would be admissable. KSM would go free in a New York court. Ergo, they need Guantanamo and a mililtary tribunal to get a conviction. I believe that is why Obama did not close GITMO. He's trapped by the previous administration's ineptitude.

DaveFagan said:

OBL is dead. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan?

Click to expand...

The same thing we were doing in Iraq for seven years, trying to stabilized things enough to let go of the last card, hoping it'll stay standing long enough for us to get out.

DaveFagan said:

How could we have sunk so low as to ally with Pakistan ... ?

Click to expand...

Because there were damn few choices for a supply line; Three former SSR's (all of which have a really long supply line), Iran, China, and Pakistan.
Also, they don't complain quite as much when we carry out military operations inside their country.

Red_Dave said:

OK lets assume for the sake of argument that its inevitable that innocent people get caught up, why not give them a trial to determine those who are innocent from those who are not? I can't for the life of me understand what is so objectionable about such a common sense procedure.

Click to expand...

This wasn't some family feud, it was war. Evidence for courts cannot be collected and actions cannot be judged in the same light. As I wrote, "Who is innocent in such a war?" I know it sounds harsh, I know it sounds inhumane, that's because we were raised in civil society and have no clue. Guerrilla warfare is an ugly business, much more so than any codified warfare. By it's very nature guerrilla warfare is all or nothing.

kenvin said:

Either we are part of the U.N. and care what it thinks or not. I am certainly tired of politician saying we need to enforce U.N. resolutions as a reason to justify wars we want to fight while saying the U.N. is threatening our government and we should ignore it when it points out what we do wrong.

Click to expand...

What UN resolution is the US violating at GITMO?

Originally Posted by Red_Dave
You deny that innocent people have been imprisoned?

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

No. I deny that the Guardian got the story right.

Click to expand...

so, at least some of the enemy combatants are not unlawful combatants.

In fact, some of them are not combatants at all.

Yet, we made up a new term which means that they don't have the rights of accused criminals nor of prisoners of war.

How sad that any freedom loving American would tolerate such actions from our government.

Dittohead not! said:

so, at least some of the enemy combatants are not unlawful combatants.

In fact, some of them are not combatants at all.

Yet, we made up a new term which means that they don't have the rights of accused criminals nor of prisoners of war.

How sad that any freedom loving American would tolerate such actions from our government.

Click to expand...

Very sad indeed. Very sad.

DaveFagan said:

I remember this signing and the talk of trying them in New York State courts that followed. As soon as they got their collective heads out of their rectums, they realized that no evidence collected as a result of torture would be admissable. KSM would go free in a New York court. Ergo, they need Guantanamo and a mililtary tribunal to get a conviction. I believe that is why Obama did not close GITMO. He's trapped by the previous administration's ineptitude.

Click to expand...

Why then the expansion and continued use of black ops prisons for 3+ years by the CURRENT administration? Could it be that maybe just maybe, the act of combating terrorism in the international realm doesnt quite WORK the same way with terrorists and enemy combatants in the mountains of Pakistan as they do in say...Cleveland? Of course...if you arent merely a mindless partisan hack, you COULD just accept that Obama must be as corrupt as you perceive Bush...but...I doubt that will happen...

VanceMack said:

Why then the expansion and continued use of black ops prisons for 3+ years by the CURRENT administration? Could it be that maybe just maybe, the act of combating terrorism in the international realm doesnt quite WORK the same way with terrorists and enemy combatants in the mountains of Pakistan as they do in say...Cleveland? Of course...if you arent merely a mindless partisan hack, you COULD just accept that Obama must be as corrupt as you perceive Bush...but...I doubt that will happen...

Click to expand...

That's a huge assumption. Can any produce any evidence to support your assumption?

Mycroft said:

I didn't vote in the poll because you didn't have a selection that described Gitmo as an unfortunate necessity brought about by the War on Terror.

Anyway, in response to Mr. Pillay...perhaps he would accept these prisoners into his own country and, if they are released, he would personally take responsibility and recompense all victims of these terrorist's action.

If not, then he should just STFU.

Click to expand...

Oh please, if there's any reasonable evidence to suggest that these people are all terrorists then prove it as such in a court of law. That my friend is justice, and that is exactly what the American constitution promises to uphold. Gitmo is a disgrace, breaches international law clearly and I was sincerely hoping that Obama would be successful in closing it down.

Red_Dave said:

I will ask you also. Why would giving them a trial be so difficult/objectionable that you would prefer to kill innocent people? Organised crime in the U.S has killed far more people, and yet even during the 1930s they where still even trials before being killed. Christ even Eichmann got a fair trial, why don't these people deserve one?

Click to expand...

Red_Dave said:

OK lets assume for the sake of argument that its inevitable that innocent people get caught up, why not give them a trial to determine those who are innocent from those who are not? I can't for the life of me understand what is so objectionable about such a common sense procedure.

Click to expand...

earthworm said:

These detainees are prisoners of war.
The war must be settled and the prisoners returned to their native land.
No trials.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have to agree with earthworm__I'm no authority on US and international laws regarding war, but I don't believe POWs normally receive a trial unless they are charged with a war crime.

Dittohead not! said:

They may be de facto prisoners of war, but they aren't called that. The government made up a new name, "enemy combatants", meaning that they aren't covered by the Geneva Accords.

Click to expand...

The dynamics of the war on terror is like nothing the US military has ever had to deal with__They're literally writing the manual as they go.

Red_Dave said:

Though the point that everyone seems to be missing is that alot of them are neither, because they are in fact completely innocent

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison | World news | The Guardian

Click to expand...

Sorry Red, but you and your source are blinded by an extremely anti-America, liberal bias.

DaveFagan said:

We've bragged and pride ourselves on "the rule of law" and when push came to shove, we ignored our base principles. The war began with lies, fed on lies, and what survives is lies. OBL is dead. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? How could we have sunk so low as to ally with Pakistan, the financiers behind Mohammmed Atta? I'm afraid I view the war on terrorists as a big corporate money grab for connected (politically) contractors. The enemy should have been the Pakistani ISI from step one.

Click to expand...

"Pride ourselves on the rule of law"???__Surely you must be joking Dave!

We have a congress that makes policy in violation of the Constitution and ratified by a President who also refuses to enforce federal immigration laws and punishes states that attempt to enforce them locally and a populace that doesn't appear to know what to do about an out of control runaway government.

Red_Dave said:

And yet you still manage to put people on trial............

Click to expand...

I don't believe we can compare the war on drugs to the war on terror, at least not with a straight face__peaches and pears.

Misterveritis said:

I have to disagree with you. He was murdered. Collateral damage is an explanation for what happens when a legitimate military target is struck by military weapons. Sometimes those who have no part in the war are injured or killed. We regret it.

Delawar was murdered. Murders are not collateral damage. Now had he died of a heart attack during questioning I would agree with collateral damage. But he was beaten, essentially to death. And that is murder. Even in war.

Click to expand...

I agree with your disagreement MrV, but only on a technicality__We should endeavor to give our warriors the benefit of the doubt, especially when judging them from the safety of our homes.

As I stated above, we are literally writing the manual on how to fight a war on terror as we go along and we must have faith in our military who deal with the extreme emotions and dangers of a very stressful mission.

To be quite frank, we should be very cautious about demonizing those on the front lines in times of war concerning issues of morality__Demanding morality of war is as futile as attempting to marry oil and water.

Misterveritis said:

I think this is naive. The UN is a tool. It is nothing more. When it is useful we use it. When it is not we do what must be done. It is mostly a collection of tyrants and thugs.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine how the United States could ever benefit from an evil corrupt organization such as the United Nations which views western civilization as an obstacle to it's global agenda.

If the UN is evil and corrupt, it is important to remember, we are largely the UN.

:coffeepap

Boo Radley said:

If the UN is evil and corrupt, it is important to remember, we are largely the UN.

:coffeepap

Click to expand...

Well our government is certainly trending down the evil and corrupt path.

Red_Dave said:

Reprieve is a very well respected organisation, I don't believe they have ever been called into question as far as facts are concerned.

Click to expand...

I cannot speak to whether they are respected or not. Nor can I tell who respects them. Given that you are citing them I assume that they are well respected by leftists, and perhaps the farther left the more likely the respect.

The man being interviewed has worked for many of the detainiess and their families.

Click to expand...

I suppose those who are unlawful enemy combatants will try to get out any way they can.

And we know that many of these people (for examples those that have been released after years of torture) where/are innocent because the U.S government has admitted this was the case.

Click to expand...

You significantly weaken your argument by claiming there was torture at all, let alone years of torture. I would be far more comfortable with your argument if you said you believe rather than "we know..."

Boo Radley said:

There was another fellow with him. You look that up. Both were killed. We can speak of the Canadian with the wrong name who was taken through rendition and send to be tortured. HE too was innocent. The more we look, the more we fine.

Click to expand...

Let's assume you are completely right and two men were murdered. Tens of thousands were detained and released. A few hundreds who were deceptive or lied were detained. In years of war you have two murders and a few hundred detained. That sounds like a pretty good record to me. Has there ever been a war with so few murdered?

Misterveritis said:

Let's assume you are completely right and two men were murdered. Tens of thousands were detained and released. A few hundreds who were deceptive or lied were detained. In years of war you have two murders and a few hundred detained. That sounds like a pretty good record to me. Has there ever been a war with so few murdered?

Click to expand...

So the ends justify the means?

The adherence to freedom and liberty is not worth sacrifice of those ideals.

Hikertrash said:

View attachment 67122978

President Obama signed executive orders Thursday directing the Central Intelligence Agency to shut what remains of its network of secret prisons and ordering the closing of the Guantánamo detention camp within a year.

Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed - NYTimes.com

Click to expand...

If you read he postponed the hard decisions. What you saw was a photo-op. He is a propagandist.

Or if you are a bit more honest, he lied to his supporters.

Dittohead not! said:

so, at least some of the enemy combatants are not unlawful combatants.

In fact, some of them are not combatants at all.

Yet, we made up a new term which means that they don't have the rights of accused criminals nor of prisoners of war.

How sad that any freedom loving American would tolerate such actions from our government.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been stopped by the police? Were you detained until they could determine whether or not you had committed a crime?

We detained tens of thousands of Iraqis and others during the Iraq phase of the war. All but a few hundred were interrogated and released. Had they been complying with the laws of land warfare they would be prisoners of war. But they didn't. So they will remain in custody until they die or the war is over.

Empirica said:

I agree with your disagreement MrV, but only on a technicality__We should endeavor to give our warriors the benefit of the doubt, especially when judging them from the safety of our homes.

As I stated above, we are literally writing the manual on how to fight a war on terror as we go along and we must have faith in our military who deal with the extreme emotions and dangers of a very stressful mission.

Click to expand...

Does 20 years in the Army count? These were National Guard Interrogators or possibly Iraqis who murdered Delamar. We do not murder prisoners. Ever. The warrior ethic shuns such excesses. I do understand someone who kills beyond necessity during combat operations. Sitting in a secure prison in Baghdad is not quite the same thing.

Beating a prisoner to death is never acceptable.

Ikari said:

So the ends justify the means?

The adherence to freedom and liberty is not worth sacrifice of those ideals.

Click to expand...

That's what it really is about, isn't it? Some people think the ends justify the means, and it's no problem to sacrifice our most basic ideals the moment an enemy pops up. But it is. And the ends never justify the means in any sound ethical system.

Empirica said:

I can't imagine how the United States could ever benefit from an evil corrupt organization such as the United Nations which views western civilization as an obstacle to it's global agenda.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless occasionally we do accomplish more with them than without them. But in general I believe we should give them a year to pack up and move out. France, I think, would love to have them.

German guy said:

That's what it really is about, isn't it? Some people think the ends justify the means, and it's no problem to sacrifice our most basic ideals the moment an enemy pops up. But it is. And the ends never justify the means in any sound ethical system.

Click to expand...

Can't be the Shining City on the Hill by sacrificing the ideals and resolve that got us there. No sir.

Ikari said:

So the ends justify the means?

The adherence to freedom and liberty is not worth sacrifice of those ideals.

Click to expand...

What?

Explain.