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.

 

A solution to the Guantanamo problem that's almost too simple ...

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

My apologies, Dog. I know you're working the problem, and I do appreciate that!

Give them to me and some of the boys AT AREA 51.

THEN don't ask any questions, and the problem will disappear.

This is precisely why you don't take armed combatants who are out of uniform prisoner to start with.

An unarmed guy gets rounded up? Treat him well, say please, and if you have nothing - then photograph, fingerprint, and turn him loose.

A planner? Well, folks who are fanatics commit suicide all the time.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I would tell you where I would put them, but ATS does not allow that....



Originally posted by semperfortis
I don't think they deserve a trial, they are not citizens, but enemy combatants.. War Crimes Tribunal eventually.. But I see no hurry..


I'm sorry but, really? Are you sure?

The whole point of a trial is to serve Justice, to prove guilt or innocence.

How can you know wether or not somebody deserves something, without knowing the facts, without seeing the evidence, without a trial, how can you judge them?

What is this?

Every human being on this planet deserves a trial, to be proven guilty or innocent. Without trials and justice, we would become barbaric, lowly people. Holding people in prisons without the facts, punishing people who may be innocent, how is that right? Where is the compassion, where is the Justice? The truth?

You see no hurry...but would you be in a hurry if you were held in a prison without trial?

Are you sure your not letting your emotions cloud your judgement?

I'm just sharing my thoughts.


Peace.





[edit on 6-5-2009 by _Phoenix_]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gyrochiral
SD....I did have a most grand laugh at turning area 51 into a detainment camp!!
I always thought that that is what is was to begin with...still laughing!!!


I figured with all their experience with aliens and junk this would be a breeze for them.



Ever been to that part of New Mexico?????


You mean the part that's in Nevada?


j/k, we were there recently.

[edit on 6 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
No trials? hmm OK...


To illustrate from your links:


Most Guantanamo detainees are innocent: ex-Bush officialwww.cbc.ca...

...which is precisely why the rule of law is so important. To maintain those standards that the troops are dying for.

All these threats and muttering from "Keyboard Kommandoes (with Action Avatars!!"...they seem to have lost track of what the fight was all about...at least what they were told it was all about. You know..."they hate us for our freedoms". Well, justice is not incidental to your political stripe.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

Got me!!
I was living in New Mexico at the time when I went to the area.
Still chortling!!!

Peace...



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I'm no keyboard kommando. You never, ever, take an armed, non-uniformed combatant prisoner.

Never.

It's dangerous, it's a waste of manpower, and it's a walking, talking liability.

If he had a weapon, and he engaged, then you conclude your original intent.

If he didn't have a weapon, didn't engage, and was just in the area, but he's the right age, his eyes are a bit wild, his manner is a bit beligerant, then you question him.

Hard.

If he gives you nothing, you let him go. You catch him engaging another time with a weapon . . .



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

I'm no keyboard kommando. You never, ever, take an armed, non-uniformed combatant prisoner.
Never.


Omar Khadr was 15. Even under US law, he shouldn't be there.
But you are saying that summary execution is the answer? How come they're not war crimes if the US does it?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Exactly what I was wondering.

By the logic that I'm seeing in here, I sure hope that all of us patriots are going to cheer and be happy as larks when other countries take our POW's and drive them to nondescript locations to torture, maim, and all the other lovely thoughts that my fellow countrymen can come up with so easily.

I wish nothing upon the captured combatants of other countries that I would not wish upon combatants from my country caught during battle.

Reading some of these comments, the USA is just going to keep getting what it wishes upon others, and I honestly can't say that is wrong, imo. We've become the very evil we claimed to have been fighting.


---

As far as what should we do with the prisoners? I personally believe that we should give them trials and try them by a jury. Why? Not because of any dogmatic political tripe, but because America is supposed to be that model of justice for the world to see, and we're supposed to be the "bigger man."


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

As far as what should we do with the prisoners? I personally believe that we should give them trials and try them by a jury.


Well, we are trying to take Khadr off your hands because he is actually a Canadian citizen, and was a child soldier when captured in Afghanistan, but our Steve is refusing to do what a Federal court has ordered him to do and bring him home.

Did I mention that Steve is an arse? Somebody tell him that Bush lost, and right wing isn't cool any more.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
You guys seem to forget that some of our men were captured. Their heads were cut off.

I'm talking exclusively about combatants - not in uniform - specifically.

They have zero protections under the Geneva Conventions, and I'll say it again - they are not prisoners. When they engaged, they legally ceased to exist.

You want to convey the same protections and rights accorded those who wear recognizable uniforms and follow the rules of warfare to those who do not follow the rules.

You follow the rules - you benefit.

You don't follow the rules - you don't benefit.

It is this same, pretentious crap that's actually getting a lot of our men killed.

Put that on your resume.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
You guys seem to forget that some of our men were captured. Their heads were cut off.

I'm talking exclusively about combatants - not in uniform - specifically.

They have zero protections under the Geneva Conventions, and I'll say it again - they are not prisoners. When they engaged, they legally ceased to exist.

You want to convey the same protections and rights accorded those who wear recognizable uniforms and follow the rules of warfare to those who do not follow the rules.

You follow the rules - you benefit.

You don't follow the rules - you don't benefit.

It is this same, pretentious crap that's actually getting a lot of our men killed.

Put that on your resume.


So they take Americans, and threaten us.

Meanwhile We take whatever, in spite ... Great example...

Personally I wouldn't mind it so much if we where actually takeing Prisoners of War, Which did Engage us to attack and was caught. But the ones Who didn't Should of had a trail, Should of had an investigation, before ever stepping foot into that camp.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 





I'm sorry but, really? Are you sure?


Absolutely


The whole point of a trial is to serve Justice, to prove guilt or innocence.


The United States Criminal Justice System is for Citizens and crimes committed by those same citizens. It was never intended for war criminals or prisoners of war.


How can you know wether or not somebody deserves something, without knowing the facts, without seeing the evidence, without a trial, how can you judge them?


I trust my Brothers In Arms that captured them..


Every human being on this planet deserves a trial


Your opinion, not mine.


but would you be in a hurry if you were held in a prison without trial?


Proudly served in the United States Marines and understood if I was ever captured I could be held as a prisoner of war, indefinitely and it was clear to me, and other fighting men, that if captured we would be held until at the very least, the conflict was over. So do the people we are discussing.


Are you sure your not letting your emotions cloud your judgement?


I never do..

Semper



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
You guys seem to forget that some of our men were captured. Their heads were cut off.

I'm talking exclusively about combatants - not in uniform - specifically.
It is this same, pretentious crap that's actually getting a lot of our men killed.
Put that on your resume.

Well, my resume says that the generals do not run the country, that it is ruled by law. You Keyboard Kommandos (with action avatars!) can say whatever you like...but if you get popped for it, you're charged, right? I mean it's not like the US has a sterling record over there...and your C in C and his lot are being investigated for war crimes. Don't tell me that this bluster is legal, and don't tell me it's moral. If you let them set the rules of engagement, you become them.

And then they win...and you have become the lawbreaker.

An incidental edit...

Supreme Court ruling on Military Commissions Act of 2006
Main article: Boumediene v. Bush

On 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, 5-4 that Guantanamo captives were entitled to access the US justice system.[55][56][57] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion:

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 7-5-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


At the risk of offending someone whom I consider a friend I have to say that I am rather taken aback by your disposition.

I realize that as an ex marine you are more qualified than most to understand what some of the US enemies are capable of ...

But I also know that you are not familiar with each individual case of every individual detainee.

To take such a general and simplistic stance is equivalent to dogmatically standing behind the thin blue line. As a law enforcement professional you are more aware than most than even your brethren are subject to human fallibilities and can act outside of the bounds of legality.

Though I have never been a marine, and will fully acknowledge that I have never taken arms in the defense of cause and country, I can't imagine that to acknowledge the above paragraphed statement is an automatic betrayal to your comrades, be they ex marines or police officers.

If you are comfortable enforcing the law knowing that just because you arrested someone it doesn't make them guilty, then it stands to reason that you must also acknowledge that the same standard is applicable to the Gitmo detainees. Nothing to do with citizenship, (btw as you well know we prosecute foreign nationals every day) but simply because we cannot be allowed to just throw somebody away simply because someone said so.

And honestly the semantic manipulation between POW and enemy combatants could not be more contrived or transparent. So if the justification here is that they didn't wear the proper hat then there's no point discussing this any further.

Either way, not withstanding your understandable dogmatic defense of all things military, the fact still remains that neither you or I have the facts specific to every individual detainee's circumstances. To lump them in into one morally convenient label isn't what this country was founded on.

It is almost as if the worst thing that could come from the trial process is that some might be found innocent because they are, and in the process embarrass those whom you consider above reproach.

The truth is what it is and it should never be feared.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Uhm, you kind of made my point.

US laws, I always thought, including Constitutional rights, are applicable in the US. The territorial US.

Everyone who keeps trying to apply US law, in times of war, on foreign soil, to military personnel, are quite simply, dreaming.

Our Constitution permits freedom of worship, right? Well go buy a piece of land in Saudi Arabia, and try to build a church.

So much for foreign application of Constitutional Rights outside the territorial US.

International law states very clearly, that to be afforded the rights of a prisoner of war, you have to have a commander, complete with insignia to define his rank, all parties must wear clearly identifiable uniforms, and no wearing civilian clothes, or hiding weapons under civilian clothing.

Our enemies do not follow the guidelines of international law, they do not practice international law, and just like spies or sabateurs, they legally cease to exist upon engaging.

You, as ranking military man present, even if a PFC, can hold a summary court, and then summary execution, all withing ten seconds, and be safely acting within the parameters of international law.

Our mistake was ever taking these guys prisoner. Either shoot them, or turn them loose. Now, due to pansies sensitivities, we've created a legal problem by getting the Supreme Court involved.

In the future? The lesson should be learned by our soldiers.

No more prisoners.

How's that for "law?"

Especially since it follows international law, established for decades and decades.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Our mistake was ever taking these guys prisoner. Either shoot them, or turn them loose. Now, due to pansies sensitivities, we've created a legal problem by getting the Supreme Court involved.

In the future? The lesson should be learned by our soldiers.

No more prisoners.

How's that for "law?"

Especially since it follows international law, established for decades and decades.


Show me where it is legal. Chapter and verse, please. Otherwise, you're talking a war crime yourself.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


The specific citation has been posted time and again here on ATS by others, when I couldn't find it.

But I have the quotes:

" . . . that of being commanded by a person of responsibility for his subordinates."

". . . that of having a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance."

" . . . that of carrying arms openly."

" . . . that of conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

You can find the chapter and verse, and it will match up EXACTLY as I just quoted.

Now, if you don't meet these conditions, you don't have any protections.

I used to participate in long range patrols. LOOONG range patrols. Just an handful of us, and we could not afford to take prisoners. Period.

And we didn't.

In the Pacific in WWII, after an action, our Marines used to gather up and go on a "Possum Patrol." They made absolutely certain that none of the bodies lying around still had any life in them.

When the brass lamented the lack of any prisoners to question, they started a program of a two-week leave for every prisoner taken.

Prisoners poured in. They stopped the program, and no more prisoners were taken.

You keep wanting to apply peacetime, civil principles to a wartime environment.

It doesn't work that way.

As for any war crimes I may or may not have committed, I know for a fact that any supposed victims will not be coming forth, and I know for a fact that no witnesses can be gathered, which means your suggestion is just a supposition.

There are principles, and then there are practicalities.

You start getting them confused, and you botch the whole job.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


The specific citation has been posted time and again here on ATS by others, when I couldn't find it.


Not my problem...I'm asking you for your justification for war crimes, and you're telling me "It's around here, somewhere" Got that from Bush, did you?


As for any war crimes I may or may not have committed, I know for a fact that any supposed victims will not be coming forth, and I know for a fact that no witnesses can be gathered, which means your suggestion is just a supposition.


I didn't mean to suggest that you, yourself were guilty of war crimes, and I apologise if it came off sounding that way. But if you were, as you seem to imply, you won't be answering to me, anyway.


There are principles, and then there are practicalities.
You start getting them confused, and you botch the whole job.


Which is why there is a rule of law, and why you were doing a 'job'...which involves taking orders. You are confused if you figure that you were hired to set policy...and if there is no rule of law keeping the military on a leash, then you get a military dictatorship. Seems like Bush and company are learning the nature of accountability.

This whole argument falls apart when you bring it home. So Canada decides to burn the White House down (again), and somebody comes out of their house with a shotgun and shoots a Canadian soldier. You telling me that we are then entitled to take said American and say, "Excuse me, but we're compelled to kill you because you aren't in uniform, eh?" Bang!

Yup...I can see y'all backing us up on that one. It's like you say "There are principles, and then there are practicalities. You start getting them confused, and you botch the whole job."



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Johnny, you can look up the Geneva Convention just like anyone else, especially since you seem to be so mistaken as to what's in them. Your assumptions are incorrect, therefore, I would suggest you read them. And by the way. Maybe the air between your ears may just be thawing out, but the Geneva Conventions do in fact precede George Bush.

So far, your blind preference is precluding you from taking facts and making a correlation with events.

There is no law on a battlefield. None. Zero. Zip. There truly are no laws or rules in combat. There are rules of captivity, but when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, there are no rules of warfare during combat.

I laugh when I see that bullets must be full metal jacket. I carried double-ought buckshot, technically a violation.

What if I got into some up close combat and beat my enemy to death with the butt of my rifle, pound the life out of him with my helmet, impale him with a stick, slice and dice with my machete, or split his skull with my US Army Issue tomahawk? (still have that) No rules about that, is there?

What if I wounded him, I approach him to conclude my original intent, pick up a cinder block and crush his skull? What if I jump into a Hummer and run over him since I'm out of ammo? What if the Hummer is out of gas, my weapon jammed, I turned him over, put my foot in the middle of his back, grab both arms, and jerk forcefully backwards until I hear the sound like a muffled carrot snap?

No rules or laws about that either, is there?

What if I catch him in a tunnel, enclosed building, or bunker, and pipe in propane gas? What if after a few minutes to let the gas spread and settle, I toss in a White Phosphorous grenade, and jump back to avoid the rather quick, but significant "whoof?"

What if we're near water, I get the best of him, and hold his head under water until he's dead?

No rules or laws addressing that either, is there?

In other words, in battle, when it comes to the killing, there are really no rules. The rules actually kick in if and when you elect to take someone prisoner.

If practicable, and if in uniform, you may take him prisoner, and if you do, you're responsible for him, his health, and his welfare.

If he's a combatant out of uniform, you are free to follow your conscious. And after a period of time watching these guys kill your friends, you'll find that your conscious will allow you a lot of leeway.

Your analogy about burning the White House is a non-event.

But if an American civilian shoots at your Canadian military, then kill the SOB. He's out of uniform. And a non-uniformed combatant without any protections.

Every wonder how it is that an armed criminal can be killed, and it's called "justifiable homicide?"

Yeah.

We have those in combat too.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by dooper]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join