07 Oct 07
Originally posted by smw6869See, there's the importance of assuming innocence until you can prove the guy guilty. Emotion has no place in a justice system. Also, locking a guy up in what amounts to solitary confinement, for years on end, is generally not how those assumed innocent awaiting trial are treated.
Only the ghosts from 911.
G.
07 Oct 07
I don't ask you to have any compassion with terrorists. I ask you to have compassion with persons who have been incarcerated without having been convicted, without even having been charged with anything.
Yes, most persons in Guantanamo are people I'd rather have jailed. But there are, more likely then not, innocent persons in there. Who have had years of their lives taken away from them without ever having done anything wrong. For them, we must have trials. We must prove those who are guilty guilty and we must acquit those who are not. Your lives will not become more dangerous because of that. No terrorists attack will be carried out because we release the innocent.
PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL FINALLY CONVICTED BY A COURT,
no one has as of yet given me a reason why we should forget this rule.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonI presume that the US military, CIA, and Spec Ops know a lot more than anyone about this prisoner and by giving him a public trial would expose secrets vital to US interests and safety. They have left other prisoners go, including that American kid. Fair trials are not part of the rules of war no matter how much of a bleeding heart you are.
See, there's the importance of assuming innocence until you can prove the guy guilty. Emotion has no place in a justice system. Also, locking a guy up in what amounts to solitary confinement, for years on end, is generally not how those assumed innocent awaiting trial are treated.
G..
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by smw6869You're not at war. You can't wage war against a mode of combat.
I presume that the US military, CIA, and Spec Ops know a lot more than anyone about this prisoner and by giving him a public trial would expose secrets vital to US interests and safety. They have left other prisoners go, including that American kid. Fair trials are not part of the rules of war no matter how much of a bleeding heart you are.
G..
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by BartsThis man was captured in a combat situation. He is a Prisoner of War. When the Gernans captured thousands of US GI's did they give each one a trial. No! They were prisoners of war. What you are talking about is rediculus. And so is my spelling.
I don't ask you to have any compassion with terrorists. I ask you to have compassion with persons who have been incarcerated without having been convicted, without even having been charged with anything.
Yes, most persons in Guantanamo are people I'd rather have jailed. But there are, more likely then not, innocent persons in there. Who have had years of t ...[text shortened]... CONVICTED BY A COURT,
no one has as of yet given me a reason why we should forget this rule.
G.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by smw6869When the Germans captured US GI's, they were at war with a nationstate allowing for a resolution of the conflict in the event of one side or the other winning the war. This "War on terrorism" (terrorism neither being a nationstate nor a thing which can ever be fully eradicated) leaves the G Bay prisoners absolutely no recourse for liberation except at the whim of the US. If his guilt is so clear, as you suggest, I don't see why the military etc. are so scared of a fair trial.
This man was captured in a combat situation. He is a Prisoner of War. When the Gernans captured thousands of US GI's did they give each one a trial. No! They were prisoners of war. What you are talking about is rediculus. And so is my spelling.
G.
Your suggestion earlier of it being impossible to have a public trial is easily dealt with. Make it a trial whereby all parties involved are bound to secrecy. That way a decision can be made as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoners without state secrets being plastered all over the media. If it requires extra legislation, fine, but laziness on the US's part to pass such legislation for special private tribunals is not a sufficient reason to let potentially innocent people to rot.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by smw6869It's tantamount to saying that your waging a war against the use of fists in hand to hand combat. You wage war against states or political groups, not their methods of combat.
We're not at War? I told you that cheese is bad for you. See what it has done to your mind. Who says you can't wage war against a mode of COMBAT?
G.
American Heritage Dictionary: "war"
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonThe American Heritage Dictionary needs to be updated to reflect the reality of our times.
It's tantamount to saying that your waging a war against the use of fists in hand to hand combat. You wage war against states or political groups, not their methods of combat.
American Heritage Dictionary: "war"
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonThe boxer rebellion ?
It's tantamount to saying that your waging a war against the use of fists in hand to hand combat. You wage war against states or political groups, not their methods of combat.
American Heritage Dictionary: "war"
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by smw6869If only they were treated as POW's. The Geneva conventions aren't really being followed in Guantanamo, even G.W.Bush agrees to that so he calls them "enemy combatants" so he can ignore the convention.
This man was captured in a combat situation. He is a Prisoner of War. When the Gernans captured thousands of US GI's did they give each one a trial. No! They were prisoners of war. What you are talking about is rediculus. And so is my spelling.
G.
As a little extra : POW's should have been released some time ago as both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have endend. If there is any change of them joining the resistance movements in those countries, then trial them so you can put them away for a good reason.
The argument of sensitive information wich may be released in court is mostly a moot one. Many of the inmates have been captured half a decade ago, what kind of information that is still relevant today might leak during these trials. (Well, this might still be so in some cases, but in all ??) Add to this your assertion that they were captured on the battlefield, so many of your witnesses are US soldiers, their memories are hardly classified info.