Guantanamo Detainees Are Not Human Beings

reply to post by BlueRaja


Well that makes all the difference then. I guess the ragheads should be greatful instead of whining about it. Or do you prefer to call them sand n-words?

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


I don't have pet names for them. Killers will suffice.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Who exactly is higher on your totem pole?

Hell, let's just imprison EVERYBODY. That way EVERYBODY can get 3 squares, and NO ONE will kill anyone else.

Yeah, I guess boo-hoo really sums it up.

reply to post by BlueRaja


'Killers'?

Have you BOTHERED to read any of the posts in this thread?

Maybe you should go back and check the TOS for ATS.

Yep. Must just be a simple musunderstanding, right?

Tell you what, I'll throw you a bone:

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
For all those that believe "most" of the people being held in Guantanamo committed some act of terrorism, please read this quote from Wikipedia.

Source
Since the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 of which have been released. As of August 9, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remain. More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers. Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.[citation needed]

Out of 775 people captured and transported to Gitmo, only 60 - 80 will end up being charged and tried. And that's with the lax standards of evidence and limited right to dispute it, that makes up a military tribunal.

That means about 90% of the detainees have been or will be released with no charges, because they either committed no crime or are not considered to be a threat.

[edit on 1/14/2008 by bigbert81]

reply to post by bigbert81


The folks in Guantanemo were picked up during/after specific events, where the likelihood of them being some hapless schmo is fairly low. They have been debriefed in theater prior to being sent there to vet them, for further interrogation or confinement purposes. There have been people released, only to be recaptured in further military engagements at later dates. Keeping them there cuts down significantly on recidivism.
It'd be nice if people were as concerned for their victims as they are for these folks.

Folks, there are a great many who believe 9/11 was an inside job we have several threads to support that idea. People argue back and forth on this issue. IF it was orchestrated by the Government then the prisoners at Guantanemo are there as ruse to keep the cover up in place.
Mind control more advanced than the type in 1984 (the NWO movie) could be used to create the robotic slaves needed to launch attacks to support the cover up. Where are the released detainees, who keeps an eye on them? And just for the record is it just me or has ABC online news reel been using the catchy intro music from 1984 as a lead in.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by the b rain]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by bigbert81

 

The folks in Guantanemo were picked up during/after specific events, where the likelihood of them being some hapless schmo is fairly low. They have been debriefed in theater prior to being sent there to vet them, for further interrogation or confinement purposes. There have been people released, only to be recaptured in further military engagements at later dates. Keeping them there cuts down significantly on recidivism.
It'd be nice if people were as concerned for their victims as they are for these folks.

'Fairly low'?

So you would imprison someone without trial for years because the risk they might be innocent (in your mind) is 'fairly low'? Judge them to be less than human and continue their treatment because the risk of hurting someone on the outside is 'fairly low'.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. Is innocent until proven guilty gone in the minds of the people too? Perhaps we should arrest EVERYONE who we feel could have done something or been a part of something bad.

Are you familiar with a Benjamin Franklin quote that reads "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."?

Imprisoning people WITHOUT trial and treating them as sub-human because of a 'fairly low' risk is wrong.

[edit on 1/14/2008 by bigbert81]

reply to post by bigbert81


If they'd been rounded up while having a egg mcmuffin and some hash browns, without probable cause, I'd share your view. If they were rounded up after a firefight, raid, or ambush, then the fact that they were at the wrong place at the wrong time would be much more dubious.
If they were armed and at the wrong place at the wrong time, or carrying suspicious equipment, documents, etc... that John Q. Public probably wouldn't be carrying, I'd have no qualms with rounding them up, until it was established they weren't a threat.
If they were members of a uniformed military service, I'd agree to different treatment. What we have here is establishing varying levels of guilt, collaboration, knowledge that provides useful intel, etc...

reply to post by BlueRaja

until it was established they weren't a threat

That is the problem. You call them 'killers' because of where they were 'rounded up'. Should they not at LEAST have the right to a friggin' trial?

You're assuming their guilt because of where they were. I'm not saying they're NOT guilty, but I am saying, we should at least determine that BEFORE holding them for as long as we have and judging them to be less than human.

reply to post by bigbert81


The majority of them are militant combatants, so how are they not killers?
Why should anyone care what happens to these terrorists, unless you're a terrorist sympathizer?

To be honest, the only thing I'm hearing from alot of you is this:

"Baaaa Baaaa Government Good, Government Never Wrong. Baaah Baaah."

Stop throwing around your baseless assumptions as if they constitute fact, "I bet they're in there for a reason."

Start using critical thinking. If you start to develop a migraine, you can stop. But it's good to use critical thinking even for a lil bit, just for practice, that way you don't endanger the rest of us by being in the same society as we are.

Seriously. Stop being tools. You don't know anything about the prisoners or what they're there for... you're just being big fat government toadies

Originally posted by BlueRaja
They also haven't been killing anybody since 2001, and have been getting 3 meals a day, and cot. Boo hoo.

You're a $@%^ buddy. Remind me to throw you on my ignore list one of these days.

Originally posted by laiguana

The majority of them are militant combatants, so how are they not killers?
Why should anyone care what happens to these terrorists, unless you're a terrorist sympathizer?

Here's a thought:

Maybe read the thread, look at other people's posts, and realize that we have already cited sources.

THE MAJORITY OF THEM, OVER NINETY PERCENT, HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED OR CONVICTED FOR A DAMN THING.





So. You can keep flapping your mouth and throwing around baseless assumption as fact,

or you can stop sounding like a massive government TOOL and admit that THE MAJORITY OF THEM, OVER NINETY PERCENT, HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED OR CONVICTED FOR A DAMN THING.

Maybe you didn't hear me the first two times, let me put that in quotes for you.

THE MAJORITY OF THEM, OVER NINETY PERCENT, HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED OR CONVICTED FOR A DAMN THING.

K?

K.

reply to post by laiguana


And ANOTHER guilty until proven innocent post. I thought I already addressed this issue?

Guilty, innocent, it DOESN'T MATTER!!! These people need a trial to determine that. A trial with evidence and jury.

Assuming people are guilty will put a LOT of innocent people behind bars if they can't defend themselves at a trial.

Have you or have you not ever heard the term 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'. It LOOKS like they're guilty to you, but that CANNOT be determined WITHOUT a jury and trial. And our system has just been dropped another notch by judging these innocent and guilty parties together as sub-human. C'mon man and WAKE UP! If we keep cutting shortcuts to our 'supposed' way of life (the Constitution), there will soon be nothing left to cut.

There, I think I've just covered that point an additional 4 times. See if you can read and re-read it, and maybe you'll get it.

[edit on 1/14/2008 by bigbert81]

[edit on 1/14/2008 by bigbert81]

reply to post by BlueRaja

If they'd been rounded up while having a egg mcmuffin and some hash browns, without probable cause, I'd share your view.

There is no MickeyD's in Afghanistan. (At least there wasn't anyway.)

Either you have no concept of the regular lifestyle in rugged Afghanistan, and no recollection of its history, or you are deliberately stinking up this thread. Just because someone in Afghanistan is carrying a rifle does not make them a terrorist. And you can look back in the thread where I already explained the uniform issue as well.

Keep in mind, once again, that the US invaded Afghanistan. The common people had little to no idea it was coming. One day they're out herding goats, the next day they are being inveded by a superpower again.

Instead of getting worked up anymore I'm just gonna make a little list of government toadies and stop replying to them

If you look through the thread the majority of us have demonstrated sane, fair, non-prejudiced stances on this issue. Fair trials are a must. Innocent until proven guilty.

Anybody with a brain and an ounce of decency knows these things. Those who keep spouting the same nonsense about them being enemy combatants or 'majority' guilty have already demonstrated that they are government tools in other threads. Have a peek at their post history and I'll think you'll agree.

It's just not worth talking to people when they've already demonstrated that they are behind the neo-con nazi agenda.

What is left to determine? They were captured amidst militants who shoot and kill our troops regularly. Putting them on trial may not be the most strategic thing to do at a time of war, especially where political correctness doesn’t apply. Time is crucial, and any information that can prevent further terrorist attacks is more important than giving these terrorists the opportunity to delay their sentence.

reply to post by laiguana


What does sentencing have to do with bringing charges?

You're absolutely right, time is crucial. So why have these people bet left to rot for six years?

"praise the bringer of dawn"

Luciferian signature.

That's really cute.

Next to the masons, I find the illuminists and satanists on this board to almost always take the side of government and non-conspiracy. I wonder why that is?

Because the truth is antithetic to their belief.

Now I understand why you think people should rot in prison without a trial. Not surprised at all.

reply to post by laiguana


Wow. You remind me of my little teenage sister. You never listen.

You are still ASSUMING guilt, despite the Wikipedia mentioned post above.

Did you see it?

Did you read it?