Gitmo: 5 Star Resort

Ohhhhh, I bet those big butch marines love all that bossing about and anal probing.

ahhh....yes, picture yourself on the nice hot beaches of Cuba... you've just completes a long round of sand bag holding and you order your favorite brand of ice cream, wiping the sweat off your forehead as you do....

you watch as the bowl is brought to you, anticipating that cold icy delight.....

only, to have your hopes dashed when you see the hot steam rising from the bowl....

ya, hot food.....

the hotter, the better!!!

[edit on 16-6-2005 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by skippytjc
Top 40 music...

A fate worse than death indeed! (especially if that coma inducing, Crazy Frog crime against humanity of a song is included)

Originally posted by skippytjc
Looks like the food is better than what I get.....

Mmmm...Nobody alowed to yell at me...

Nice, perfectly controlled temperature...

Regular sleep...

Top 40 music...

Maybe I will pay a visit, doesnt sound to bad. Almost makes murdering civilians worth it, huh?

You are being absurd. Prison is prison, and as we all know that even in the domestic federal prison system where the guards are obligated to protect and ensure the prisoners safety a great number of things occur which are beyond and even counter to official protocol.

Do you really think they are having a good time in prison? I am sure they all really enjoy being thousands of miles away from friends and family (some without being charged or guilty of anything) and just LOVE being locked up in Cuba.

What is with people making these super hyperbolic statements which really have no bearing in reality either way. Gulag? Right... 5-Star Resort ::scoff scoff:: yea right. Lets try to keep our thoughts on the reality of the situation and not what we want to make it out to be.

I love it when they say "Its ok for american prisnors to get shot but we cant even hurt thiers."

Well guess what , we are not terrorists , our government is fighting a war against "terror" therefore using "Terror" as a weapon in interogations would be betraying what that war stands for. Also just because they have rights in some areas does not mean they are the same in others, they are not allowed an apeal many are kept there for no reason.
Tell me, is the free world really "free" if we lock people up?

In any event, Gitmo is holding people illegally, maybe some of them may be "terrorists", but the fact that none of them have had a trial or have even been charged means we should not be too quick to treat them as "terrorists." We should figure out who the real "terrorists" are in containment and then imprison/punish them accordingly, and not the group as a whole.

I agree with you, how can this be the land of the "free" when we lock innocent people up without a trial? I am not for going easy on terrorists, but I AM for finding out who terrorists are first.

The hatred of all things American never seems to amaze me on these boards.

Again a reference from somebody who knows nothing but the news reported to them relating Gitmo to the Nazi concentration camps. News sources out there report things good and bad about Gitmo, but you haters automatically tune out anything that could possibly taint your hatred of the USA.

This forum is to DENY IGNORANCE, not breed it.

The hate that jealousy breeds is almost comical.

Originally posted by CaptainJailew
In any event, Gitmo is holding people illegally, maybe some of them may be "terrorists", but the fact that none of them have had a trial or have even been charged means we should not be too quick to treat them as "terrorists." We should figure out who the real "terrorists" are in containment and then imprison/punish them accordingly, and not the group as a whole.

I agree with you, how can this be the land of the "free" when we lock innocent people up without a trial? I am not for going easy on terrorists, but I AM for finding out who terrorists are first.

These people are not part of the U.S. justice system. They have not been charged with crimes, and are not being brought to trial, because the Justice Department does not consider them criminals. To the U.S. Justice Department, these people do not exist. They have committed no crimes on U.S. soil, possession, or territories, nor in international areas or waters. Thus, our criminal justice system takes no interest in them.

They are terrorists / partisans / guerrillas / insurgents (choose the term you like best) that were captured during wartime by our military forces deployed overseas in a combat area. They are guilty of either directly engaging our military forces, or engaging in acts of direct support of said aggression. They are not POWs, because they wear no uniform, and are not part of any known and organized military unit supported by a nation or state.

If you believe that they are POW's, then tell me this: why haven't any foreign nations claimed them via Red Cross channels? Thats all they have to do. Why don't they? It's because they are not part of any foreign military force, nor do any foreign, sovereign nations want to be associated with these people. Most of these people are probably criminals in their own countries of origin, and if freed, they would go back to committing acts of terrorism and violence against our troops and allies. They are lucky we live in such an enlightened age, because as little as 20-30 years ago they would have simply been lined up and shot as spies or partisans.

Every single one of these people were given a hearing to present their side of their story against the evidence that our military had against them, and to dispute our countries classification of them as "enemy combatants". This review, by itself, was highly unusual and extraordinary, considering that our forces are still engaged in hostilities.

So, they are not U.S. citizens or persons residing on U.S. territories, so they are not due consitutional rights.

They have not committed crimes according to our justice system, so they are therefore not eligible for criminal prosecution, or defense.

They are not troops of another nation or state, and therefore are not eligible to be viewed as POWs per the Geneva convention (not that the Taliban or Al Qaeda have ever signed that document, for that matter).

Yet, they represent a specific danger and real threat to US troops and civilians. Yesterday in Congress, Michael Wiggins, who is a Deputy Associate Attorney General, stated that the detention of these people "serves the vital military objectives of preventing captured combatants from rejoining the conflict and gathering intelligence to further the overall war effort, and to prevent additional attacks against our country".

I think, under those circumstances, we are doing the best we can. They are not innocent, they have been proven in a legal setting that they are enemy combatants, and they have no right whatsoever to a trial in our justice system. About the only thing that is truely certain is that if we loose them upon the world, they will return to us with death and destruction. And that is not a product of their captivity in GITMO, my friends.

Originally posted by skippytjc
The hatred of all things American never seems to amaze me on these boards.
...
The hate that jealousy breeds is almost comical.

It would help if you addressed who you were referencing so they could at least have a chance at defending/clarifying their position.

"Illegal detention?!" By what law or statute?
How pathetic it is to read the posts of the Bush=Hitler crowd. The scum at Gitmo that try on a daily basis to kill or maim the guards make no distinction between American "progressives" or conservatives, they just want to kill infidels.

Here's my modest proposal: Let's put Dick Durbin, the Amnesty International crowd and the detainees in an arena and let them reason things out together.

Originally posted by Pyros
These people are not part of the U.S. justice system. They have not been charged with crimes, and are not being brought to trial, because the Justice Department does not consider them criminals. To the U.S. Justice Department, these people do not exist. They have committed no crimes on U.S. soil, possession, or territories, nor in international areas or waters. Thus, our criminal justice system takes no interest in them.
...
I think, under those circumstances, we are doing the best we can. They are not innocent, they have been proven in a legal setting that they are enemy combatants, and they have no right whatsoever to a trial in our justice system.

What would make a US citizen who was detained for the same reasons different from the people held in Gitmo? Does an American citizen get the right to a speedy trial because he pays taxes or because he is a human being whom the US recognizes. What entitles us to a speedy trial and a justice system is not the fact that we are citizens of the US, but that the US recognizes that these rights are inalienable to ALL people, but we can only enforce them and give them to people under our sovereignty.

Sure, that is a workng loophole that we don't have to do anything for them since they technically don't belong to any one nation, but is that really how we should treat people?

Note: Many prisoners from Gitmo were released without being charged, so obviously not all of them are criminals and terrorists.

More on this for you to develope your own opinions on:

"The Man Behind the Attack on Guantanamo"






[edit on 16-6-2005 by skippytjc]

CaptainJailew,

If you cannot understand the basic principle of US Constitutional Rights, and who is and who is not entitled to them, then I'm afraid you will be missing the point.

Constitutional rights do not extend beyond that which is sovereign to the United States.

As for non-U.S. citizens, key rights-related provisions are including the 1st 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amend. Specific references to due process and equal protection are phrased as applying to "all persons." These rights therefore have been often construed as offering substantial protections to non-citizens who reside within the U.S.

However, as was previously stated, these people do not fit this category. If there were U.S. citizens in GITMO, they would be protected by the Constitution, and things would probably be much different for them. For starters, they would probably be prosecuted by the US Justice Dept., not the DoD.

We simply cannot pick and choose who is and who is not protected by our Constitution, nor can we spead it like a blanket over all of the peoples of the world. That is why people will risk death and poverty just to get into this country - so they can be protected by that piece of paper written 200+ years ago.

It might be considered noble and fair were we to extend constitutional rights to this group of vermin. People might look upon that act with admiration, and it might cast us in a better light.

But when you take into consideration the vast number of people who died to give us that Constitution, and the even greater number of people who gave up everything and worked and slaved their lives away just so they could gain the protections of the US Constitution for themselves and their children - the thought of extending constitutional rights to fanatical killers (who, by the way view our constitution as a tool of Satan, worth of nothing but contempt), bent on destroying our way of life, quite frankly......sickens me.



[edit on 16-6-2005 by Pyros]

Originally posted by Pyros
CaptainJailew,

If you cannot understand the basic principle of US Constitutional Rights, and who is and who is not entitled to them, then I'm afraid you will be missing the point.
[edit on 16-6-2005 by Pyros]

Dude, I understand the concept of American Constitutional rights and the liberties they provide us. I think there is a deeper question here though, and that is how we should treat fellow human beings.

I understand that we can't just give people the gift of our constitution and pick who it applies to, but it sure seems like with our democracy promotion techniques we certainly try to spread it abroad don't we?

It seems like the US should not set a bad example for how we treat people regardless of their nationality or lack thereof. It doesn't mean it is O.K to treat someone inhumanely just because they don't hail from your own country. People have intrinsic value, some of them haven't committed crimes and we shouldn't treat them all like they have.


I am all for imprisoning terrorists, and punishing them, and NOT giving them rights (which seems to be your contention) but like i said, lets figure out who they are first

[edit on 16-6-2005 by CaptainJailew]

Originally posted by skippytjc
The hatred of all things American never seems to amaze me on these boards.

Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle....

Again a reference from somebody who knows nothing but the news reported to them relating Gitmo to the Nazi concentration camps. News sources out there report things good and bad about Gitmo, but you haters automatically tune out anything that could possibly taint your hatred of the USA.

Who is to?It seems like a rant, a very inarcurate one but a rant none the less.

This forum is to DENY IGNORANCE, not breed it.

The hate that jealousy breeds is almost comical.

Kettle calling pot ,kettle calling pot

They don't have constitutional rights they are not U.S. citizens heck the only affiliation they have with the U.S. is that they were caught trying to kill our people and damage our nation. Just for that we should give the them same rights as our own citizens and give them better treatment then out own people?

Originally posted by Pyros
They are terrorists / partisans / guerrillas / insurgents (choose the term you like best) that were captured during wartime by our military forces deployed overseas in a combat area. They are guilty of either directly engaging our military forces, or engaging in acts of direct support of said aggression. They are not POWs, because they wear no uniform, and are not part of any known and organized military unit supported by a nation or state.

Correction, they are SUSPECTED terrorists, partisans, guerrilas or whatever term you want to use indeed. Contrary to what is often perceived, not all these people were caught red handed doing what you claim they did. Further, if you are familiar with the Geneva Conventions, it does specify that there are such circumstances in which one can be a POW without wearing a uniform, if certain things are kept in mind.

Originally posted by Pyros
If you believe that they are POW's, then tell me this: why haven't any foreign nations claimed them via Red Cross channels? Thats all they have to do. Why don't they?

Several nations have asked their citizens back.

Originally posted by Pyros
Every single one of these people were given a hearing to present their side of their story against the evidence that our military had against them, and to dispute our countries classification of them as "enemy combatants". This review, by itself, was highly unusual and extraordinary, considering that our forces are still engaged in hostilities.

Do you have any evidence for this preposterous claim?

Originally posted by Pyros
They are not troops of another nation or state, and therefore are not eligible to be viewed as POWs per the Geneva convention (not that the Taliban or Al Qaeda have ever signed that document, for that matter).

The Geneva Conventions spêcify that if there is doubt about there status, they are entitled to have a competent tribunal determine their status and in the mean time are entitled to the full protections of the POW status. That there can be doubt, is clearly evidenced by the FACT that the US has released large groups of prisoners before. As I - and probably you and any US citizen as well - would like to think the US doesn't release people who are reasonably expected to be a threat, that evidence alone should suffice.

===========================

Another thing, considering Guantanamo being a "5 star hotel", since there is noone to really verify it, the US could as well claim the prisoners are served kaviar, non alcoholic champagne and are given silk sheets. However, few people are buying the crap the US sells for PR reasons until it is verified, ever since the WMD disaster.

which nations have asked for these prisoners back? first time i heard of this. These prisoners are not classified as POWs, they are classified as 'enemy combatants' and this was done purposely so they had no rights under the geneva convention. Also im pretty sure you must wear a uniform or something to seperate you from civilians. So unless your counting turbins, they dont wear uniforms.

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by Souljah
Why dont you go and Stay for your Hollidays in this Great FIVE STAR RESORT?

That wont work Souljah, you see, I am not a child murdering cowardly lunatic terrorist, so I dont think ill get an invite.

Don't wory skippytjc, you'll get your chance. Patriots are targeted next.

You know after the WWII ended, in former Yugoslavia were many purges. First OZNA (secret police) purged this country from western and church influence. Some we're quickly judged as traitors to revolution and executed, many were sent to reeducation camps.

But then UDBA was instituted (secret police that evolved from OZNA) and they purged people who were to red (read patriotic) or a Stalin supporter or to radical OZNA officer. In some time you had in the same reeducation camp a prisoner and his jailor.

So be carefull to whom you denie rights because you can very soon be next.

The UK for example has asked its citizens back. As far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned:

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

From this it appears clearly that if there is doubt on the status, which there can be given the FACT that the US has released large groups of prisoners before, than those people ARE entitled to POW status for the time being until a competent tribunal has determined their status.