Is Alcatraz even still in operation? I thought they shut that down a long time ago, or am I thinking of something else?
Is Alcatraz even still in operation? I thought they shut that down a long time ago, or am I thinking of something else?
that is the most retarded thing i have ever heardOriginally Posted by Buttons
no the prisoners from our country are just killed by cutting the head off, no jail for them.
yes it is shut down.
So? I wonder if thats the reason we've ripped taliban members bodies in half with 50 cal's? Im not saying its the same thing. I was saying if the position was reversed we wouldve already shoved a few thousand missles up someones ass. Us holding prisoners and torturing them is against the Geneva Convention, which if im not mistaken, Iraq, Iran, and other middle eastern countries aren't apart of.
Yea its shut down, but we could reopen it im sure.
Not too many people were fond of the bailout, but it had a purpose, just like the stimilus does. But Gbay is a waste of money..there is no way around it. you dont even have a reason for it to remain open. Those people arent being charged, sentenced for anything just being held captive and being taken care of by us. And wat people did with their money noone can control.. so thats pointless to discuss.
Point is.. Gbay is a waste of money...to take care of prisoners who arent being put thru the justice system, just being detained for years..
if they are members of the taliban then i dont care if they got ripped to pieces or even quartered. the worse the better imo. also i doubt we would have "shoved" a couple missiles up there asses. hell like i said, what they do with POW's from America is far worse than what we do to them.
Your obviously missing my point.
This isnt even a comparison. You are talking about combat and prisoners.
Then what are you saying?
I would hope that we would do everything in our power to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam and actually get our POWs back.
None of them are protected under the rules of the Geneva Accords. They are not wearing a recognizable uniform and they are purposefully dressing as civilians in order to blend into the population before an attack. Under those conditions they have no protections.
More to the point though, waterboarding is not considered torture by the Geneva Accords. It is considered an interrogation tactic in the same manner that sleep deprivation is as there is no chance of death or permanent damage. All it does is give you the feeling of drowning. Someone that is comfortable in water would not be susceptible to this method.
I pray they keep it up and keep the detainees there.
As far as what to do with them, the latest word I ahve heard is that Fort Levenworth is at the top of the suggestions.
If they tried to put the terrorists on trial here in the US each one of them would be found not guilty or have a hung trial. The govt cannot be forced into providing info on intel operations or methods and if they dont state those methods n court there will be little to no evidence. On top of that, I seriously doubt our soldiers ook the time to collect forensic evidence when each of them was captured.
As far as the ones that have already been released, about 70% have been recaptured or killed on other battlefields within 6 months of their release. This tells me that we are doing a pretty damn good job and finding the guilty ones. Too bad we didnt just summarily execute them on the battlefield.
respectfully you are mis-informed
5 trials were to start THIS WEEK
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
whats your point? that we signed a piece of paper saying we'll feed, house, cloth, and shit to your army while you slaughter ours? GBay has its goods and its bads, but im sorry there are to many soft bodied pussys running this country. they wanna spend billions of dollars on chance info instead of takeing one prisoner that WANTS TO KILL ALL AMERICANS and getting the info we need in order to settle this whole ordeal. yeah some people may be there for no reason, but lemme ask you this, would you rather take the chance that that person is trying to commit war crimes against this country, or remove all doubt because hes stuck in a damn cage? i mean come on your worried about people that wanna see us dead, what about your sympathy for the guys that put there lives on the line for you while you sit beating your dick in a comfy bed, while they havent slept in days, there wives and girlfriends dont know if there alive or dead, and there worried about the possible sucide bomber thats waiting in the building ready to die for a twisted religion? we didnt ask for this war, but you better believe i plan to see this to the end, and if it causes the enemy some discomfort for us to find an ending and keep our men alive with good intel, you better believe i'd be the one maken sure that towel head doesnt sleep for 60 hrs straight. end rant
i heard that some presidents even refuse the oath. or maybe its vice presidents. i dont even know...
here is a question for u geniouses. who was the only president to take the oath over the bible.
=EJ-EG SQUAD SUPPORTER=2000 HONDA CIVIC - SOLD1966 MUSTANG COUPE - TRADED1989 FOXBODY MUSTANG - DD
Yea and they were so slow at implementing the bailout they are coming back asking for more. Good job congress.
As far as Gitmo goes we will never fully understand the importance of it cause for the most part what goes on down there is classified. If we are getting credible intel leading to saving more lives in Afghanistan/Iraq/at home, can you really put a price tag on it?
As far as your point on the bailout.It's worth talking about if we are about to commit more money that we dont have to it. Why does anyone think that this one will work when the first one backfired? What cause were throwing more money at it?
All I know is that every dollar wasted by the gov't over the past couple days on lunch's and shit bugs the fawk out of me.
so if we reopen alcatraz, what in gods name would be the point of shutting down g'bay?
1. I was referring to the retaliation that we apply to middle eastern soldiers. I know that excessive force has been used out of anger.
2. I was implying that us torturing war criminals is not justifiable to the extremes they have used.
3. I was make a generalization in that statement. I was trying to say that we could've done everything in our power to get our POW's back.
4. Im not very familiar with specifics to the geneva accords, but im sure sodomy, beating, and etc. isn't listed in them as interrogation tactics. Before you even say that it hasn't happened, it has.
see the flawed part is that soldiers that perform those type of acts and are found out about are dealt with according to military law.
No one ever said they didnt have sympathy for our soldiers. No one ever said we should just release them. But something needs to be done about it.
They are talking of moving the detainees to another location. Thats why i said alcatraz.
So where are they talking about moving them to?Hopefully not U.S. Soil. That would be a mistake.
Yeah free the terrorists!
Fucking asswipe. Good job Hussein Obama.
They should put all the detainees on another island. AND BLOW IT THE FUCK UP!
Alcatraz will never be re-opened its too expensive to run and our maximum facilities are more than equipped to hold todays criminals
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Well, I must say that I didn't get my bag lunch tonight. I am in the Navy, and I have a night class from 1500-2300. Every night we get a bag lunch since we miss breakfast (Bottle Water, Sandwich, 2 Slices of bread, Jelly, Peanut Butter, Apple, Fruit Juice, and some Cookies). Know let me say that it probably ain't his falt, but his first day in office and we don't get our bag lunch. I don't like him already. lol
<---Click it.
F the president.
Honda RC51 SP1
Yoshi RS-3 Cans
520 Conversion
Clip Ons
Race Tech Fork Kit
I want to know his plan to help the economy. Besides rebuilding roads, and bridges. That's just redistributing money already in the country (money from taxpayers AKA: the ones that are suffering). We need to develop something to sell to other countries.
I can take money out of my wallet, and give it to my wife. That doesn't make our household any richer....
we are fucked... doesn't matter, the greatest dynasties only lasted a few hundred years anyways.
You know better; next time will be a ban.
You are DEFINITELY in the Navy, talkin/typin' like that!
Leisa and S. 4 Life NM?
What middle eastern soldiers? Every uniformed soldier that surrendered was humanely treated and let go.
What torture? Waterboarding is NOT torture by any defination except bleeding heart liberals. Neither the Geneva Accords or the UN classify waterboarding as torture.
I would hope that we would. The problem with the current conflict is that they dont take POWs. They cut their heads off with a dull knife and put it online.
I'm sure most of those have happened, though I'm not convinced on sodomy. If that is the case though, then those responsible are being tried for their crimes. This isnt a policy issue, it is a personell issue so it cannot be attached to the Bush administration.
1. That may be the case for the majority of the people, but does it always happen.
2. I never said waterboarding.
3. Yes it is true. Im not trying to argue that point.
I guess your misunderstanding what i was trying to say. Im not saying that we should just let them go free or anything. But housing them and feeding them when they aren't being tried for anything, or aren't being useful is just stupid and a waste of our money. I mean fuck, execute them for all I care, but atleast do something than let them have a free home.
You know what else is a waste of money? Pretty much everything the government does. We need a smaller government not a larger one.
Last edited by RedEj8; 01-23-2009 at 12:24 AM.
shut up n1gger
What soldiers were not treated humanely then released? I know we ignored their religion fairly often by feeding them pork, but that was the extent of the 'abuse' they suffered. I will agree that that isnt right, especially for a country that holds freedom of religion so highly, but it is still an exceedingly minor issue.
I havent heard of any other forms of torture being used with the belessing of the administration. I do know there was an issue in Asscrackistan where Asscrackistani interrogators were using much more forceful methods, but those instances were not under US control.
Some of them I do believe are innocent of anything more than knowing someone. Others, like the guy being reported on today are released then head out to Yemen and join back up with Al-Qaeda again. Each of them needs to be pumped for any info they have then tried by a military tribunal. If they are found guilty then need to be imprisoned there at Gitmo for their sentence or executed, also at Gitmo. None of them should ever touch US soil or be eligable for the protections of american criminal law.
Here is where I have some issues...How can we hold ourselves up to the world as the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong; of fairness and equanimity--as defined by our Constitution--and allow these people to be held outside of the protections that that very document specifies? If we truly believe in the rights and protections of our Constitution, shouldn't we apply them equally to ALL humans? Yeah, the Geneva conventions allow it, as they are not uniformed soldiers; but, from an idealists standpoint, shouldn't the Constitution supersede the Geneva accords? Wouldn't that stance reinforce to the rest of the world that we stand behind that document at ALL times, rather than when it is 'convenient' for us to do so? Just asking to see what others think...this has gnawed at me as long as Gitmo has been operating, and I'm not sure where I really stand about it.
edit: On further thought, is it not true that the Geneva accords don't really apply here, as they do not really address the concept of war against an ideology--that of terrorism and jihad--as opposed to war against a country, with a flag, an organized army, etc.? Again, just putting it out there.
I had this issue for a while also, but it really comes down to the fact that our criminal court system has become so liberal and so slanted towards the defense that the inability to have evidence in the typical sense would lead to pretty much every one of those that are in Gitmo to being released. I dont agree with them sitting there for years at a time with no trial or anything, but that doesnt mean bring them to the US and put them under the same protections as someone arrested for a crime on US soil. In fact, there isnt a single state or federal court that could claim to have juristiction in the case.
You are right. There is no formal documentation to cover a situation like this. That is why I believe most people are reverting to the Geneva Accords for their rules of engagement. I dont know if it will ever be addressed either. We all know the UN is completely ineffectual on all fronts, and without the US its rubber stamp wont even hold the ink for anything.
Your point about jurisdiction is well taken. It would seem that a military tribunal is indeed the proper venue for such cases. It is, however, inexcusable that such tribunals have not been convened within a reasonable time frame.
And, while I agree about the lack of precedent for rules of engagement for the current circumstances, that is where I begin to think that we need to set the standard for proper treatment of these individuals. Is it not incumbent on us to rise above the tactics of Al-Qaida? To not display the barbarism that we did at Abu Graib? I'm still embarrased about those events...whether the perpetrators have been addressed or not.
I agree, but we cannot hold anyone but the people that committed the crimes responsible for those crimes.
Agreed. My point in mentioning those events was to illustrate the damage to world perception of our ideals and integrity with respect to our 'holiest document'.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
