US plans death camp

The US has already made it very clear that they will not seek the death penalty for these men. It is too much of a deathwish for these men. Both Bin Laden and Hussein want to be murdered by the West. They consider the West to be Satanist devil worshipers, so they welcome the martyrdom that would come.

I have found that leaders are the ones least likey to make sacrifice. If these "righteous" men were so inclinded to martyrdom, they would have done so a long time ago for their cause. The fact that they haven't just adds to the huge, steaming, pile of sh*t that men like this spout.

I have learned to take anything I read in the news with a grain of salt, even if it's something I support or want to believe.

If this is true, it should send a powerful message to the people of this country, and just how maniacal the people running it are. Unfortunately, we have equally maniacal people as citizens. The kind of people that would run a group of protesters over because he just doesn't agree, you know the type.

This reminds me, was anyone else sickened by Bush and he little speech on Memorial Day concerning dead and living veterans? And furthermore, I am sick and tired of Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom being misconstrued as a war for American's freedoms. Sorry, went off topic there...

[Edited on 27-5-2003 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]

Afraid I can't feel your pain on a Bush speech on Memorial Day. Considering how he is tossing the Disabled Vets to the wolves, I wouldn't waste my time listening to him on that particular day.

The US *can't* actually treat the prisoners as enemy combatants within international law, because the enemy combatants have to be put in front of a committee one at a time to decide their status where dispute exists. The US is already acting outside of international law. But what is anyone going to do about it?

Everyone outside of the US knows that US actions are illegal, everyone inside the US has forgotten about Guantanamo's existence thanks to their media's selective reporting. So basically the US build more hostility abroad, nothing changes at home, the world continues, just like after every other previous abuse of international law by the US.

Anyone remember the child prisoners in Guantanamo? That report has been confirmed by the defence department. Did that story appear on the front page of all the US newspapers? I doubt it. But it did appear on the frontpage of quite a few UK newspapers. The beauty of a partially free press...

As to this idea that the US only does bad things because it's run by foreigners... wake up!

Originally posted by dom

The US is already acting outside of international law. But what is anyone going to do about it?

Everyone outside of the US knows that US actions are illegal, everyone inside the US has forgotten about Guantanamo's existence thanks to their media's selective reporting. So basically the US build more hostility abroad, nothing changes at home, the world continues, just like after every other previous abuse of international law by the US.

Anyone remember the child prisoners in Guantanamo? That report has been confirmed by the defence department. Did that story appear on the front page of all the US newspapers? I doubt it. But it did appear on the frontpage of quite a few UK newspapers. The beauty of a partially free press...

As to this idea that the US only does bad things because it's run by foreigners... wake up!

Yeah sure.....Where is my handkerchief ?

Because the 911 was internationaly correct may be ?

Those guys killed many innocents peoples and we should have to put them in a 5 stars hotel ?

" Mr the terrorist, what do you want for your breakfast ? Caviar and Champagne payed by the tax payers you've killed recently , as usual ? "....And don't forget, Mr the terrorist, the Marines Corps room service is there. If you need anything, just phone "

I don't know why, but I don't feel so sorry those terrorists.

Perhaps you can explain why the United States is acting outside of International Law. While you're at it maybe you can tell me what illusion you have found the existence of International Law in. There is no such damn thing. The first thing you need to realize is there are two groups of people being held in gitmo. Type A are the Taliban troops. Those people I agree should not get the death penalty. It's clear that with a leadership like that it's not like many of them had a choice, and in fact many were more than happy to surrender. Type B is al-qaeda fighters. Make no mistake, those people are not POWs, stop making believe they are. These "heroic freedom fighters" deserve NOTHING. No pricey lawyers, no liberal protests, no 10 years of appeals. They are entitled to NOTHING. I don't understand why people in this country insist on fighting for the freedom of these deluded freaks. Why don't the liberals here start an "Adopt a Terrorist" program. I think the government should release all of the al-qaeda detainees to the responsibility of their liberal defenders. However, with the clause that their bleeding heart buddies are responsible for what they do in the future. Oh, and they also should live in your house.

Well goodness me... I don't think we'll have any volunteers anytime soon...

Not in my backyard huh?

Perhaps you can explain why the United States is acting outside of International Law. While you're at it maybe you can tell me what illusion you have found the existence of International Law in. There is no such damn thing. The first thing you need to realize is there are two groups of people being held in gitmo. Type A are the Taliban troops. Those people I agree should not get the death penalty. It's clear that with a leadership like that it's not like many of them had a choice, and in fact many were more than happy to surrender. Type B is al-qaeda fighters. Make no mistake, those people are not POWs, stop making believe they are. These "heroic freedom fighters" deserve NOTHING. No pricey lawyers, no liberal protests, no 10 years of appeals. They are entitled to NOTHING. I don't understand why people in this country insist on fighting for the freedom of these deluded freaks. Why don't the liberals here start an "Adopt a Terrorist" program. I think the government should release all of the al-qaeda detainees to the responsibility of their liberal defenders. However, with the clause that their bleeding heart buddies are responsible for what they do in the future. Oh, and they also should live in your house.

That's why Lady Justice is blind...

The stupid thing, is that the US constantly tries to say that everyone should act within international laws, and then it goes on and totally disregards them itself.

Even the Al-Quada people captured in Afghanistan were captured during armed conflict. Therefore their status isn't "unlawful combatant" automatically, that has to be decided by a tribunal. The Taliban prisoners should have been repatriated at the end of the fighting, the same as soldiers in every other previous conflict. If they're guilty of warcrimes then you have to try them in a proper court.

The problem with the whole Guantanamo thing is that it just shows exactly how much the US doesn't care about international legitimacy. It makes a total mockery of their statement that the US is "good" and Iran/Iraq/NK are "evil". Because the US itself is treading in the middle ground.

Besides, none of these prisoners have been charged with any crimes related to 9/11. Most of them will have had nothing to do with it. Just ignoring US human rights abuses because the people being abused *may* have something to do with 9/11 seems a little bit stupid to me.

Captured during armed conflict. Who was? Where are the soldiers, from what unit or military are they, where is their uniforms?

Nope, nothing outside the laws about what the U.S. is doing.

So then, the US soldiers wearing uniforms, they were just out walking the dog were they? In Afghanistan?

Even you, TC, would have to agree that US actions are outside international law in this case, if you actually bothered to look up the international law we're refering to.

Which to remind you, is that POW's status has to be decided by a tribunal, not by Bush or Donald Rumsfield. Check the treaties, honestly, it doesn't say Bush or Rumsfield on the copies I've looked at.

The peoples who are shouting against the USA and what " they do " in Guatanamo, did they say anything when the North-Vietnameses were torturing & killing the US POW's ? Did they say anything when North-Vietnam sayed the USA POW's were NOT POW's and the Geneva Convention didn't have to be applyed to them since the USA and the N-V were not " officialy " in war ?

Do they say something when 2498 US POW's are still MIA's ? Did they something when N-V didn't return all the US POW's ?

And it's just for the Vietnam War.I don't speak about the Korean War.

And what happened to the USMC Cpt downed over Irak during the first Gulf War ? He was supposed to be still alive, somewhere in Irak.

Where are the well minded when it comes to the US POW's ?

P.S : I give a BIG ZERO to all the US administrations ( dem & rep ) and how they treated the US POW/MIA case. They didn't do anything to bring home their own soldiers.No, they left them in the hands of bloody commies and others lunatics.

[Edited on 27-5-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

I think I can still say, quite clearly, that torture of detainess is absolutely reprehensible. I do not agree with the right to torture US soldiers. I similarly do not agree with the right of the US to torture foreign soldiers, or more signifcantly in this case, to ignore the international conventions related to warfare (i.e. Geneva Conventions).

You can't use that argument as a "get out of jail free" card for the US government. US treatment of the POW's is illegal. "Period." (as some americans might say)

As for this missing helicopter pilot, I'm sure if there was any more to this the US government would be screaming about it from the rooftops. As they aren't, I'd add this to the conspiracy theory list.

Perhaps you can explain to me then why the United States should be the only country that has to follow these antiquated geneva conventions. I know Iraq sure as hell doesn't. Did Bosnia, or Afghanistan? How about China? Who are you going to give me as an example... France? What was their last armed conflict, white or red wine?

It's all well and good for everyone to bitch about the US not following these rules. There's only one reason this goes on. Because the US actually gives half a crap to listen. Go tell the Chinese that ripping out political opponents fingernails isn't following international law and let me know what response you get. Keep in mind the only reason you can complain about any lacking in freedom in the USA is because of those very freedoms.

Additionally regardless of what any of you say, I just do not have it in me to feel bad for people who want me dead. Say what you will... the fact is, that's what it is, they would kill me, as an American, at the first opportunity. So no, I'm not gonna cry for their misfortunes and say I think Johnnie Cochran should defend them on a televised trial. They wanted us dead, and they picked the losing side. Deal with it.

I certainly dont think that known terrorists, and those that assist them, should be afforded any comforts, however what does concern me is the little mentioned fact that US citizens can be easily dropped in the same category with no legal recourse whatsoever.

Should foreign terrorists, with no allegiance to a country, captured outside of US territory while in the process of destroying civilized nations be afforded legal protections given by the US constitution? No.

However, US citizens, born in the US, who may sympathize with or assist terrorists in thier activities are indeed committing crimes, and as such are afforded significant protection by the US constitution.

This set of actions completely disregards constitutional protections if a US citizen is branded with a label of "enemy combatant". That is all that is required to loose all constitutional rights.

Now, who decides who is branded with this new label? There is no standard protocol on that: therefore, it is possible, and legal, for virtually any federal law enforcement agent from any agency to brand virtually and US citizen with this label.

What criteria is used to decide who is an enemy combatant? Good question... there is none... So basically, any federal agent can use any criteria he or she likes to put this label on a US citizen if they wish.

For example:

Illmatic67 (dont mean to pick on your here), is a self admitted Muslim. Are you very devout? Have you ever expressed disapproval of US policy in the Mid East? Have you ever expressed anger at the US war in Iraq? Have you ever expressed sympathy or support for Islamic fundamentalists? Have you ever perhaps corresponded with fellow Muslims outside the US on religious matters? Have you ever met an Islamic delegation from a foreign country here in the US? Have you ever travelled outside the US to meet with Islamic fundamentalists?

If a federal agent wanted to badly enough, depending on how you answered, you could easily be "fit" into a terrorist profile, and branded with the label "enemy combatant". Once that occurs, you get to take a long, tax payer funded vacation in Cuba, for as long as the government wants you to.

You hear that fluttering sound? Those are your constitutional rights flying out the window.

NEW YORK � A cab driver from Afghanistan (search) who tried to buy explosives and sought out information on bridges and cruise ships was held without bail Tuesday after a prosecutor said he may be a terrorist.

Sayed Abdul Malike, 43, did not immediately challenge Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine Friesen's assertions. His attorney, Heidi Cesare, declined to comment.

Malike was ordered held without bail after Friesen suggested he had "sinister" intentions.

Friesen said Malike was a danger to the community and may not have acted alone. She cited comments he made suggesting he was expecting financing for his explosives from Pakistan. Malike is a legal U.S. resident from Afghanistan.

www.foxnews.com...

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia � Saudi Arabia (search) will seek to extradite any Saudis who might be among the Al Qaeda members held in Iran and who might have had a role in the Riyadh (search) bombings, Foreign Minister Prince Saud said Tuesday.


Saud also said the kingdom had information that weapons were being smuggled into Saudi Arabia from Iraq following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime last month.

"We will get in touch with the occupying powers there to see what can be done about it," Saud said at a news conference.

www.foxnews.com...

Your right Dragonrider I do hear a fluttering sound but its not my constitutional rights as it is not my constitutional right to kill people
because I disagree with what my government is doing (especially
killing Unarmed citizens).

And unlawful combatant is a person who has engaged in a war, which is not legal, and by war meaning he has killed others for a cause which he has clearly stated he is prepared to go to war over.

Clear evidence in the form of documentation exists, as well are
there people dead who can be traced
to the person or group in question.

As far as your civil rights with respect to engaging in this type of behavior would cite the incident at Oklahoma City.

Specifically an Unlawful Combatant is a legal term as results have attached the following site so we can clear up any misinterpretation.

Keep in mind this is a repost, as a
result would ask that you review the documentation before presenting an argument, which pertains to your civil rights to protest.


www.state.de.us...

In respect to the unlawful combatants who are presently at Guantanamo keep this in mind, the training which was used to crash in to the WTC was transmitted to Al-Quaeda forces.

Despite the recent request by Al-Quaeda to repeat the effort so far such and act has not occured. You would perhaps be surprised as to the number of those held in Guantanamo, which have no idea how to land or how to take off in a passenger jet.


Your source with respect to how you started this thread with all due respect would not get within 100 miles of Guantanamo bay (even by phone).

How you could even conclude they had fist hand access to the words of the highest level of command is a mystery which I sincerely hope you have more to offer than what you have to date.

However it is conceivable that a percentage those which are held today
at Guantanamo will spend the rest of their natural lives incarcerated by the United States.

In my personal opinion I recommend an Alaskan federal penitentiary one where the average temperature is maintained
at 80 degrees Fahrenheit

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 28-5-2003 by Toltec]

The one thing I notice in this thread is that people seem to have very strong opinions about Guantanemo Bay.
I'd like to add my little bit of conspiracy to the subject.

Nobody here seems to notice the significance of the name of the place.

Camp X-Ray.

The letter X is probably the most mysterious letter in the alphabet. You only have to look at words or phrases like X-Factor, X-Files, X-Men and so on to realise that this was no random name choosing.
There are 26 letters in the alphabet, yet the US government chooses the letter which most denotes secrecy and mystery. Coincidence? Or is there a different purpose being served in Guantanemo than merely locking these guys away?

Of course, you could always forget the phonetic alphabet and take the word at it's literal meaning - The use of technology to study the interior of a person.

Maybe all is not as it seems over there in Cuba?

What I understand of the technique is that it is a military version of the same methodology applied to those accused of crimes and interrogated by law enforcement personnel throughout the world.

As discussed in a prior post......

www.abovetopsecret.com...


For the record DragonRider did post in this thread see page two.

Originally posted by dragonrider

Those are your constitutional rights flying out the window.

Matter for a long a debate.

If you help the ennemy, it mean you don't care about your country. You can't say : " I'm against the US and what the US are ", but OTH, saying : " But I want to keep my rights ". You've to chose.....

We're speaking about terrorist and terrorism here, not about peoples who stole a car or some money. A terrorist is not a " normal outlaw ".A terrorist want to kill a maximum of peoples. And they don't attack soldiers, they are attacking civilians.

I'm sorry, but for me, a terrorist has only 2 rights. First, speaking when we ask them to do it. Second one, shutting up when we don't ask him to speak, excpeting if he want to help us on his own will.

But I agree on one thing, mistreating them , just because they are terrorists is not good. But if I had to mistreat them, in order to gain some info who'll help me to save many innocent lives, I would do it without any problems.