At Least One American Believed Killed by Freed Gitmo Prisoners

reply to post by Keyhole


Again...

Apples and Oranges

"They" are NOT under the Legal System as they are prisoners of war.

Whole different can of worms

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Resentment is considered just cause for nelson mandela, despite the crime he committed.

Would you care to comment on the question I asked previously?

You wouldn't deny that experience changes perception, and therefore actions, would you?

[edit on 7/2/2009 by budski]

I was struck by a video spoof on the the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In a running clip it chronicled the life of Elmo (Yes of sesame street fame) as a GITMO detaine.

One of his quotes was "Elmo was not a terrorist when he came here, but he is one now"

This kind of strikes me as just desserts in many ways.

Its amazing that so many are willing to take the Bush administrations claims that all of these guys were terrorists. Most were but how many were not?

What would you do if you were wisked away, held without charges, tortured, and then released? Id be pretty pissed myself. Enough to become a terrorist? Perhaps not but not everybody is cut from the same mold either.

Gitmo is a stain on our national honor, it is moraly and ethicaly repugnant. If these guys are / were as bad as they claim, then by all means take them before acourt, give them due process and lock them up or if warrented execute them for thier crimes.

Sure the Neocons found some slick lawyers that were willing to give the administration carte blance to apply rendidtion (Which actually began in the Clinton Administration BTW) , justify torture with legalese, suspend the constituion for even US Citizens, and hold people without charge for the rest of thier lives.

GITMO IMHO did nothing but undercut the moral fibre of our nation. We allowed due process and morality to be set aside. Now its comming back to bite us int he behind

reply to post by budski


I answered it

reply to post by FredT


I must reiterate my previous point. MUCH, of what is espoused in the MSM about Gitmo is pure fantasy.

This is to be expected as the MSM was and is in every way trying to bolster Obama and dirty Bush.

I will however state again, this will not change any minds as what the MSM has done has been effective and complete.

Semper

Edit to add:

Its amazing that so many are willing to take the Bush administrations claims that all of these guys were terrorists. Most were but how many were not?

Not ALL terrorists, no... Prisoners of war that engaged in combative actions against the interests and persons of the United States Military..

That is also sometimes a confusing point. MOST of the people detained there are not terrorists, they are enemy combatants..

S

[edit on 2/7/2009 by semperfortis]

reply to post by semperfortis


So why is mandela a hero, and yet people who have exactly the same beliefs are tortured for their actions?
When one is venerated for his actons, and others are mistreated for exactly the same, or lesser actions depending on the politics of the situation, how does that work?

Why is one a hero, and the other a criminal?

reply to post by budski


I am pretty sure that Nelson Mandela is honored for his "Stance" and is personal support of his beliefs.. Not any terrorist activities or combative efforts..

If Mr. Mandela did engage in such activities, I would like to see a source link please.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


The term 'Enemy Combatants" was IMHO simply a legal classification so that the Bush Administration could basically discard the protections under the Genva Convention in regard to the Gitmo detainees.

reply to post by semperfortis


Mandela is on the US terror watchlist

In 1961, Mandela became leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated Spear of the Nation, and also abbreviated MK), which he co-founded.[28] He coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid.[29] Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group.[29]

Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kadesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela:

"When we knew that we going to start on 16 December 1961, to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like pass offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... the government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed."[30] Mandela said of Wolfie: "His knowledge of warfare and his first hand battle experience were extremely helpful to me."[8]

wiki

and:

In his statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the trial on 20 April 1964 at Pretoria Supreme Court, Mandela laid out the clarity of reasoning in the ANC's choice to use violence as a tactic.

wiki

Circumstances, oppression and desperation cause rational men to do irrational things/actions, and contrary to mandela's staments, people DID get hurt.

Collateral damage?

[edit on 7/2/2009 by budski]

reply to post by FredT


I know some of the soldiers that fought some of the people being detained at Gitmo..

Now I have no idea of the percentages, or even numbers, but they are there. People that fought against the United States Military. Enemy Combatants.

In any war, or conflict, there has always been and there will always be, prisoners. They do not, nor can they ever, fall under the domestic jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. Just not the same thing.

Now the questions always arise as to where to keep them. Well during a "Proper" war they are kept fairly close to the front for several very good tactical reasons. However this is simply NOT a traditional war and is being fought on several fronts in several countries. Enter.. Gitmo...

It is just a matter of ideological differences here. And possibly some confusion..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
If Mr. Mandela did engage in such activities, I would like to see a source link please.

Hmmmm, considering he was in jail for much of that time he did not directly commint acts himself but the ANC of which Nelso pulled many strings was another story and as one of its senior leaders........

Several high-profile anti-Apartheid activists such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu criticized the ANC for its willingness to resort to violence, arguing that tactics of non-violent resistance, such as civil disobedience were more productive. The ANC's willingness to ally with Communists was also the subject of both foreign and domestic criticism. A Pentagon report of the late 1980s described the ANC as "a major terrorist organization". Several hardline black nationalists were also critical of the ANC's willingness to embrace whites as equals, even allowing them to serve on the group's executive committee.en.wikipedia.org...

In February 1985 President P.W. Botha offered Mandela conditional release in return for renouncing armed struggle.[54] Coetzee and other ministers had advised Botha against this, saying that Mandela would never commit his organisation to giving up the armed struggle in exchange for personal freedom.[55] Mandela indeed spurned the offer, releasing a statement via his daughter Zindzi saying "What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts."[53]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Ismail_Ayob_controversy

Now please do not constru this as an attack on Mandella in any way shape or form. But its the vistor that defines who was a fredom fighter and who was a terrorist.

Originally posted by semperfortis
As for due process, Prisoners of war are not subject to the United States Criminal Justice System and therefor no due process.

Even POW's have the right to have a trial, ...

Geneva Conventions: POW rights

General Protection Of Prisoners Of War
******SKIP******
# Article 84. In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.

# Article 99. No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.
******SKIP******
# Article 103. Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible.

# Article 106. Every prisoner of war shall have, in the same manner as the members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him.

Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
******SKIP******
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
******SKIP******
III. Judicial proceedings

Article 99
******SKIP******
No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.
******SKIP******
Article 103

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months.

reply to post by budski

Circumstances, oppression and desperation cause rational men to do irrational things/actions.

That they are still responsible for.

Your mixing apples and oranges here.

Using that same circular logic, Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist, as was George Washington and Especially Muhammad

If you engage in combat against the enemy and get caught; you get detained. Every military man alive knows this.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
Just to be clear..

Are you referring to "Just George Bush"?

I'm referring to Bush and his administration. Yes. He did this. As Commander-in-Chief, he directed our military to capture and detain these people in 2002. In the name of our country. And now that he's off, retired and living the good life the rest of us are having to deal with it. It has nothing to do with political parties.

Originally posted by semperfortis
"We are all responsible for our own actions"

Exactly. He is responsible for his actions.

reply to post by Keyhole


You apparently missed this part of my post

United States Criminal Justice System and therefor no due process.

Again mixing apples and oranges and using circular logic..

Domestic Criminal Justice System
Military Combatant Tribunal and Prisoner of War Trials

Apples and Oranges

Also understand that in the strictest interpretation, Snipers are against the convention. I can attest first hand, the United States violates that.

The United States signed the GC, but it in no way regulates the actions taken in a conflict without a sovereign declared enemy..

Read the whole thing and you will get a better understanding of why it does not apply.

My fingers are tired as you have all ganged up on me..

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Well now - you didn't specify in the thread title that this was purely from a military point of view.

As you know, there are many others.

My point of view, is that people will fight against what they consider to be oppression - and you cannot blame them for that.

Semper, I'm sure that if you were invaded by a foreign power, or were having your natural resources exploited by a foreign power, who manipulated world opinion and/or policy in order to keep you looking like the bad guy, you would be first to defend your rights, and country.

Why is it so wrong for others to do the same?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Please refer to several posts past.

This has been covered

Thanks

Semper

reply to post by budski

Semper, I'm sure that if you were invaded by a foreign power, or were having your natural resources exploited by a foreign power, who manipulated world opinion and/or policy in order to keep you looking like the bad guy, you would be first to defend your rights, and country.

As I in no way believe that is what has transpired, I can not answer your question.

Maybe try a question that is NOT leading to your point of view.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by FredT

 

I know some of the soldiers that fought some of the people being detained at Gitmo..

My family and I will always be appceative for those who served to protect our rights and freedoms at home

Now I have no idea of the percentages, or even numbers, but they are there. People that fought against the United States Military. Enemy Combatants.

No doubt, and those that did should be locked up as prisoners of war and subject ot the Geneva convition that details the rights they have under such scenarios. But im talking about the guys whisked away in an unmarked Air America plane and dropped of at Gitmo. Not those taken on the battlefield. But the lable is being used to allow them to be tortured and denied basic rights under the Convention fo War.

In any war, or conflict, there has always been and there will always be, prisoners. They do not, nor can they ever, fall under the domestic jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. Just not the same thing.

But the do fall under the Geneva Convention

Protocol I further gives all combatants, lawful under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention or not, an equivalent status to 'prisoner of war' with the same rights and protections, when captured, regardless of their adherence to the laws of war. Whilst prisoner of war status under the Third Geneva Convention is contingent upon adherence to the laws of war, under Protocol I no breach of the laws of war can place an enemy combatant outside the scope of any rights or protections afforded to captured lawful enemy combatants.en.wikipedia.org...

It is just a matter of ideological differences here. And possibly some confusion..

I dont think so to be honest. Treat them as what they are prisoners of war. Stop the torutre and the like. If you going to charge them do so. If we cannot abide by our own laws and tennants of our constituion how can we be any better than those we decry?

[edit on 2/7/09 by FredT]

[edit on 2/7/09 by FredT]

Originally posted by semperfortis
As I in no way believe that is what has transpired, I can not answer your question.

Maybe try a question that is NOT leading to your point of view.

Semper

Let's just narrow it down to being invaded then. America gets invaded and people start dying, what do you do?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Using that same circular logic, Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist, as was George Washington and Especially Muhammad

If you engage in combat against the enemy and get caught; you get detained. Every military man alive knows this.

But in the eyes of the British they were terroists. But as i said before the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist is a matter of what side won and who is telling the story.