NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) Funny how you think that even a majority of the people at Gitmo are actually terrorists. What else would you call people picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Funny how we keep saying funny when this isn't really that funny. Hm. Funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:46 PM) What else would you call people picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq? Well if they were Afghani or Iraqi, soldiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:42 PM) Funny how you think human rights and being forthright equals coddling. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) Funny how you think terrorists who want you dead are saints or something. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:45 PM) Funny how you think that even a majority of the people at Gitmo are actually terrorists. When did Kindergarten let out? :rolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) When did Kindergarten let out? :rolly Funny how you think it let out and that we're not all in the same room typing instead of speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:47 PM) When did Kindergarten let out? :rolly Mooooommmmmmeeeee..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:50 PM) Funny how you think it let out and that we're not all in the same room typing instead of speaking. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:47 PM) Well if they were Afghani or Iraqi, soldiers? Soldiers wear uniforms and belong to a legitimate and recognized government. People who are dressed in civillian clothes, hide among the populace, indiscriminantely kill civillians, plant roadside explosives, terrorize remote villages to coerece them into hiding both fugitives and weapons, behead people on television etc.........etc........etc. have one word to describe them. Terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:51 PM) Terrorists. I agree. Terrorists are criminals. And like all criminals, US citizen or not, we have an obligation to treat them with some manner of justice when we have them in our custody. Indefinite detention is not justice - its Soviet-style muscle law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 02:46 PM) What else would you call people picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq? In the case of many of the folks from Afghanistan, and this has been reported over and over and over by dozens of sources since Gitmo was created, a significant fraction of them are people who were picked up and given to the U.S. by opposing warlords in exchange for reward money. You get a nice reward, and get to reduce the size of your enemy by 1 man. You want to know how little we actually know about the people there? Of the ones we let go in those "Mass releases" they do every now and again when people aren't watching, a bunch joined up with Al Qaeda. So either us holding them and sodomizing them with light bulbs radicalized them somehow, or we really haven't a clue who is actually who down there. Even a guy who at least at 1 time was the Second in Command at Gitmo says that most of them were just rounded up and will probably be released at some point. (Original quote appeared in Financial Times, currently behind a subscription wall, that blog post has the text) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) I agree. Terrorists are criminals. And like all criminals, US citizen or not, we have an obligation to treat them with some manner of justice when we have them in our custody. Indefinite detention is not justice - its Soviet-style muscle law. As I alluded to earlier, these people are simply not treated as horribly as some would have us believe. They are allowed to worship freely, get better health care than a good many American citizens, eat better than they probably ever have and on and on........ Once again, our people should be so fortunate to be treated that way. When they get a hold of one of ours it usually ends with the person in question starring on an Al Qaeda highlight reel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:58 PM) As I alluded to earlier, these people are simply not treated as horribly as some would have us believe. They are allowed to worship freely, get better health care than a good many American citizens, eat better than they probably ever have and on and on........ Once again, our people should be so fortunate to be treated that way. When they get a hold of one of ours it usually ends with the person in question starring on an Al Qaeda highlight reel. I didn't question their treatment - I questioned their detention. And yeah, we treat our prisoners better than them, as it should be. We cannot use their violence and hatred as an excuse to make our treatment less humane. We need to uphold the highest of standards, regardless of what the enemy is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:48 AM) Pulling out helps no one. we could use that UN money for schools and health care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) we could use that UN money for schools and health care! Or covering about 18 hours worth of expenses in Iraq! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 07:41 PM) Or covering about 18 hours worth of expenses in Iraq! "Hi-ooooo!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 look what this argument has reduced to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHAMBARONS Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) Hello? THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS. this country is not called the united states of the world. is the united states of america. unless you are an american citizen, YOU DONT HAVE THE PRIVILIDGE OF DUE PROCESS. the US government has no duty whatsoever to provide due process to people who have never lived in the US, and are trying to kill our troops overseas. i totally understand why there is such a debate about whether or not terrorists captured in afghanistan and iraq fall under the geneva convention. but there is no way that they fall under the US constitution. i simply fail to see your reasoning on how constitutional protections exclusively (and expressly) reserved for american citizens apply to a foreign combatant who has never even set foot in the country before (wouldnt matter if they did anyway, that doesnt make you a citizen). You are right the 14th amendment privileges for due process only apply to US citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University has co-authored a study of 517 reviews written by the government for use at Combatant Status Review Tribunal hearings, and the results of the study mirror the findings of Corine Hegland's recent investigation for National Journal. The full report is hereere, and as the chart on the right shows, one of the study's findings is that only 11% of the Guantanamo prisoners were captured on the battlefield by coalition forces. A full two-thirds of them were rounded up in Pakistan and turned over to the United States, likely in response to flyers like this distributed by the United States: Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:33 AM) Link Its really hard to take your "sources" objectively when its obviously a liberal/democratic website. When I hit this news source I feel for some reason I am on the democratic parties official web page. Could it be the targetted ads for its intended viewers. Try finding sources that are mainstream and are not biased arms of the democratic party. I would get the same response If I quoted Rush Limbaughs website as an official source of information on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:43 PM) Its really hard to take your "sources" objectively when its obviously a liberal/democratic website. When I hit this news source I feel for some reason I am on the democratic parties official web page. Could it be the targetted ads for its intended viewers. Try finding sources that are mainstream and are not biased arms of the democratic party. I would get the same response If I quoted Rush Limbaughs website as an official source of information on this board. Dude, COME ON...I LINKED TO THE DAMN STUDY IN THE POST. So I used a blog for an executive summary and to host the bloody graphic. Sue me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:46 AM) Dude, COME ON...I LINKED TO THE DAMN STUDY IN THE POST. So I used a blog for an executive summary and to host the bloody graphic. Sue me. Its just fair play. Rex stated a similiar statement about not taking something posted as a source in this forum because it was from the world news daily and other non mainstream sites as "sources". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:51 PM) Its just fair play. Rex stated a similiar statement about not taking something posted as a source in this forum because it was from the world news daily and other non mainstream sites as "sources". If you don't like the source I stole it from, that's fine, that's your prerogative. But I gave you the hard source there. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from clicking that link and evaluating the author's work yourself, except for the fact that it seems I misspelled the word "Here" thanks to the link method while posting. If I only gave you the blog as a source, I'd understand where you were coming from and you'd probably be right to question it, but I gave you the actual paper in a link. And I for one didn't see those ads in the 28 page pdf file from Seton Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:55 AM) If you don't like the source I stole it from, that's fine, that's your prerogative. But I gave you the hard source there. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from clicking that link and evaluating the author's work yourself, except for the fact that it seems I misspelled the word "Here" thanks to the link method while posting. If I only gave you the blog as a source, I'd understand where you were coming from and you'd probably be right to question it, but I gave you the actual paper in a link. And I for one didn't see those ads in the 28 page pdf file from Seton Hall. Come on now. Even you know that both sides scour the internet and link research and analysis that fits their specific spin on things. But then again I am sure you will objectively look at a study that is linked on the Weekly Standard blog site as a objective analysis just because it came from some right wing college. If this work by Seton Hall was so informative why hasnt it been run by ABC/NBC/CBS. Its obvious that we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Its late and I need to get to bed. Edited February 17, 2006 by southsideirish71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:02 PM) Come on now. Even you know that both sides scour the internet and link research and analysis that fits their specific spin on things. But then again I am sure you will objectively look at a study that is linked on the Weekly Standard blog site as a objective analysis just because it came from some right wing college. If this work by Seton Hall was so informative why hasnt it been run by ABC/NBC/CBS. Its obvious that we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Its late and I need to get to bed. Well, when you get a chance, find me an objective study at a page like that pointing at the opposite conclusions and I'll read it. When you want to challenge a study performed based on data, you don't challenge it based on who agrees with it, you look at the data provided and try to undercut it. That paper even includes reprints of the flyers that the U.S. dropped. By the way, is Seton Hall really considered a left wing university? They're a catholic institution, 70% of their students are catholic, Samuel Alito taught there, etc. I mean, it's not run by Falwell, but come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:02 PM) If this work by Seton Hall was so informative why hasnt it been run by ABC/NBC/CBS. ABC News: Many Guantanamo prisoners never saw battle: report MSNBC News: Many Guantanamo prisoners never saw battle -report Newsday (the same paper that ran the Hillary Clinton article): More than half of Guantanamo detainees not accused of hostile acts LA Times: Report Says Most Detainees Not Accused of Hostile Acts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts