It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gitmo: 5 Star Resort

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
A number of them were simply at the wrong place at the
wrong time, or driving the wrong type of car.


Says who? How many exactly? One out of 2,000? Two
out of 2,000? Like you'd know??







posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
OK, Let's keep this dicussion civil and on topic please !!



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Says who? How many exactly? One out of 2,000? Two
out of 2,000? Like you'd know??

Like you'd know they are all guilty. That the US after Abu Ghraib immediately released several busloads of prisoners is not exactly indicative that they were all captured under arms or with a suicide vest on, just before they could pull the trigger, a propaganda image which I'm sure you're fond of. How many exactly there are, is a question that has no relevance whatsoever to what I've said. That there is a certain number is sufficient information about the validity of my statement.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Now legal and right/moral are two different things, if you have a problem with it being right or morally right then that is you problem. However if something is illegal under a cetin law then you have a point. If its just your own self conscience that's telling you its illegal then you have no point.



Well, law must be based on at least a minimal of moral standards of a certain society in them.

Are you trying to say that US is not a moral society?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
no matter what faulty intelligence there was, or no UN approval......Saddam violated his cease-fire agreement from the 1990-1991 Gulf War. That gives the US the right of overthrowing Saddam, invasion, and freeing 26 million people from a tyrant. How did Saddam violate the cease-fire agreement? Even though it has been repeated time and time and time and time again......it will be repeated again....briefly.......violation of 17 UN resolutions, constant attacks on US and British air planes patrolling the no-fly zones, illegal oil sales, being uncooperative with UN weapons inspections....etc.........

So get over it!



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman
Saddam violated his cease-fire agreement from the 1990-1991 Gulf War.

Actually, legally speaking it is not as such that what Saddam did, allowed for the ceasefire to be suspended.



Originally posted by ferretmanHow did Saddam violate the cease-fire agreement? Even though it has been repeated time and time and time and time again......it will be repeated again....briefly.......violation of 17 UN resolutions, constant attacks on US and British air planes patrolling the no-fly zones, illegal oil sales, being uncooperative with UN weapons inspections....etc......... So get over it!

Actually, none of the violations of those resolutions warranted war, plus he had every right to fire on US and UK planes as the no fly zones were de facto illegal.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I'm waiting to hear the apologist defense that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, or invasion of Iran, or invasion of Kuwait, or slaughter of tens of thousands of his own countrymen, was just Iraq's internal affairs, and that the world should just mind their own business.............................



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
I'm waiting to hear the apologist defense that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds

Which apologist did you have in mind? I'm sure the fellow below has a perfectly legitimate apology...



[edit on 21-6-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DW please our techniques are perfectly legal psycho warfare is legal so are certain interrogation techniques.

Legal by who's standards?
Yours or mine?


Now legal and right/moral are two different things, if you have a problem with it being right or morally right then that is you problem. However if something is illegal under a cetin law then you have a point. If its just your own self conscience that's telling you its illegal then you have no point.

I never said it was illegal I just said that not everyone there is a terrorist.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Which apologist did you have in mind? I'm sure the fellow below has a perfectly legitimate apology...


Yeah I’m sure if you explain the context of that photo and the time period you might actually learn something.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Now legal and right/moral are two different things, if you have a problem with it being right or morally right then that is you problem. However if something is illegal under a cetin law then you have a point. If its just your own self conscience that's telling you its illegal then you have no point.



Legality and morality are two different things, you are right. Where you are mistaken is assuming that morality is a personal issue that should not enter the realm of politics. Your same logic can be used to justify complacency in the face of the holocaust, "well, it doesn't seem right, but uh the law says its legal so....I guess we should just kill some Jews"

Morality absolutely has a place in our law. What will you do when your rights are violated morally and the law defends it?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Some facts about Gitmo detainee's:

Facts

"Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.

Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."


For all you who think the is no due process or the people think the USA is just rounding up Arabs to fill this place, you couldnt be further from the truth. 100% of every detainee at Gitmo was picked up while comitting acts that deserved detention. Period.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
"Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.


You do know those tribunals were deemed illegal by US district courts, and also the Supreme Court ruled that detainees deserved the right to a real trial. Whatever way you cut it, they are still illegal.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Let us also look at the women who wrote the article, who also suspiciously omitted any links or sources for her information...

www.frontpagemag.com...

Look at the articles she has written, biased? Most definitely.
Lets look at just a few of her articles...


Five Reasons to Fear the Democratic Party
Published: Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Myth of the Muslim Hate-Crime Epidemic
Published: Thursday, May 29, 2003

The Left's War on the FBI
Published: Thursday, August 19, 2004

I think the titles of the articles speak for themselves...

Lets look at the SUPREME COURT, a panel of NINE people of the utmost intelligence and committment to our nations security and prosperity. It is a court which has rules conservatively on a majority of its most recent cases, and yet it still acknowledges that prisoners' in Gitmo have a right to a fair and speedy trial within America's court system.

Additionally, as of last month only about 300 of the detainees have had access to these tribunals, and it has been over a year since we started to do them. That sure is a loooong time to simply charge someone with a crime (if they were combatants, it would be cut and dry wouldn't it? "you killed 219 civilians, you are now sentenced etc)



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainJailew

Originally posted by skippytjc
"Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.


You do know those tribunals were deemed illegal by US district courts, and also the Supreme Court ruled that detainees deserved the right to a real trial. Whatever way you cut it, they are still illegal.


Please back these assertions up with references.

The USSC, from what I have read, have stated that the detainees have a right to Due Process, but the Court did not define due process, or set any minimums or limits to the due process that they are entitled.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Please back these assertions up with references.


www.abc.net.au...



A US federal judge has ruled that military tribunals for international terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay military camp are unconstitutional, leaving in doubt the fate of hundreds of detainees at the US-run detention centre in Cuba.

The administration of President George W Bush, which created the tribunals, contested the ruling, noting that an earlier Federal Court ruling had supported US policy toward Guantanamo detainees.

"We respectfully disagree with the decision," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

In a statement after the ruling, attorneys for the detainees called Monday's court decision a "smashing defeat for the Bush administration" and "a momentous victory for the rule of law, for human rights, and for our democracy."


There is more to the article, the link is above.

Edit- You are correct about the Supreme Court's ruling, they simply ruled for due process, and a lower court interpreted that. It is expected that the issue of military tribunals and their legality will be taken up to the SC shortly.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by CaptainJailew]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Gitmo isn't being opposed just for the sake of opposing Gitmo. Opponents of the war see the prisons as the weak link in the war on terror because by their very nature (even if they aren't torture chambers) they are the aspect of this war which is most offensive to American sensibilities. No prisons or interrogations means no prisoners and no intelligence, which effectively reduces the WoT into an occupation, leaving far less reason to remain in those areas.

I think it's kind of sad. I respect the right of citizens in our democracy to oppose the war and argue against it, but this is a dirty trick designed to sabotage the ability of our military to score victories based on intelligence acquired at our detention centers. They want to be sure that all of the news is bad so that the war will become even more unpopular and be abandoned. The way I see it, you can be for or against fighting, but you can't put the mission and the troops in danger for the sake of advancing your agenda for ending or promoting the war.

Put the shoe on the other foot and see what it would look like. What would you think if Bush wanted to play a similiar dirty trick by having the military indiscriminately kill and torture EVERYONE and cover up the evidence so that the ratio of good news to bad would tip in favor of the pro-war side? It's essentially the same thing afterall, except in that case it would be Iraqis rather than American troops who bore the cost of the treachery, which obviously would be far worse in the eyes of a media generation that entered the profession in hopes of emulating their predecessors who forced America out of Vietnam and brought down Nixon for petty crimes that every president since Kennedy AT LEAST has been guilty of.


The weather at Gitmo right now is a heck of a lot better than the weather where I grew up (Palm Springs). The food sounds a hell of a lot better than anything I got in school or in the USMC. The respect for religious freedom is INFINITELY greater than anything I saw in school. The so-called torture doesn't always rival the things I was subject to in Bootcamp (I've been slapped around, knocked on my butt, spit at, screamed at, deprived of sleep and meals, threatened with indefinite detention, ordered not to discuss injuries with medical professionals, etc. Where the heck was Amnesty International when I was at MCRD San Diego? Good thing they weren't there though, because Senior Drill Instructor Staff Sergeant Miller would have stomped on them, and I would have requested permission to help.)

Last but not least- since I'm sure a lot of people don't believe what they are told about Gitmo (and I'm open to the possibility that more is happening) let's not forget that right, wrong, or indifferent, this is war. If anybody has figured out a kinder, gentler way to kill people before they kill you, bring it to my attention and I'll bring it to the government's attention by any means possible.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Gitmo isn't being opposed just for the sake of opposing Gitmo. Opponents of the war see the prisons as the weak link in the war on terror because by their very nature (even if they aren't torture chambers) they are the aspect of this war which is most offensive to American sensibilities. No prisons or interrogations means no prisoners and no intelligence, which effectively reduces the WoT into an occupation, leaving far less reason to remain in those areas.


I think that is a blanket statement regarding the intentions of "liberals" or people attacking Guantanamo. I personally think it is wrong to treat human beings who haven't been accused of a crime like criminals. I am all for America and exercising our hegemony abroad (in certain instances) but I will defend the constitution and the rights afforded to me by it to the death. I think anyone, regardless of their wealth or position of power within the government should be held accountable for their actions, and no amount of power or money should let you skate and choose which rules apply to you.

This is not about the Iraq war to me, it is about treating humans as humans should be treated, torture them once convicted, kill them, whatever. As you said, it is war, but lets figure out who the enemy is first.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Since when do POW’s get to have a civil trial and get the same rights as the citizens of the country they are held in?

The only reason I can think for that lower court Jude’s ruling that the Tribunals were unconstitutional is because he is either opposed to the Bush administration or has his own agenda. POW deserve dew prosses that is what they got, and it has always been in the form of military tribunals.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Since when do POW’s get to have a civil trial and get the same rights as the citizens of the country they are held in?

The only reason I can think for that lower court Jude’s ruling that the Tribunals were unconstitutional is because he is either opposed to the Bush administration or has his own agenda. POW deserve dew prosses that is what they got, and it has always been in the form of military tribunals.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by WestPoint23]



but.....if they are POW's then they should be covered by the Genevia Convention, shouldn't they?




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join