Awesome News From Guantanamo Bay

[European Lee]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1230/guantanamo.html

Just think of all that money the U.S is going to be saving

Regards,

Lee

[CIVMatt]

I lived there for about 6 years... GREAT fishing

[psili]

Every time I read

Regards,

Lee

I want to go on a hunger strike too.

Fuck that.
I'll just stop clicking on these stupid threads.

[fris]

Originally Posted by psili

Every time I read



I want to go on a hunger strike too.

Fuck that.
I'll just stop clicking on these stupid threads.

i am still waiting on the thread, i am paying back for...

[stickyfingerz]

I hear alot of people are in there for stealing lollipops from bad people and sliding down rainbows to give the pops to dancing poor children flying kites. Poor guitmo robinhood like prisoners.

[8 Characters]

I like Lee.

[AcidMax]

They should force feed them pork in those plastic tubes, that way people will really be up in arms.

[8 Characters]

BTW a hunger strike which has been going for 5 months is not really much of a fucking hunger strike..

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by 8 Characters

BTW a hunger strike which has been going for 5 months is not really much of a fucking hunger strike..

They have all skipped dessert for 5 months. Really they only do it in order to get back to their rooms to watch Nip/tuck.

[Antonio]

send them to Australia like in the good old times

[Redrob]

I'd be sick of bolgna sandwiches after five years, too.

[BlueDesignStudios]

Originally Posted by European Lee

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1230/guantanamo.html

Just think of all that money the U.S is going to be saving

Regards,

Lee

talking about money, when are you going to pay your design bill?

[pornguy]

Yep. More torture by the US.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by pornguy

Yep. More torture by the US.

and 4 years without being charged ...

Gotto love Democracy, USA style ...

[SilentKnight]

But they HAVE TO force-feed those prisoners. Otherwise the battery cables would keep sliding off their emaciated toes.

[kenny]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

and 4 years without being charged ...

Gotto love Democracy, USA style ...

unlawful combatants can be executed on the battlefield

What do you think happens to spies when they are caught during war time?

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by kenny

unlawful combatants can be executed on the battlefield

What do you think happens to spies when they are caught during war time?

Yes sir, George !

[kenny]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Yes sir, George !

Would you prefer us to give terrorists the right to remain silent and appoint them lawyers?

Believe it or not there is good reasons why unlawful combatants aren't protected by some of the articles of the Geneva Convention.


Thats all I'm saying - it has been this way forever

Bush didn't start it

[European Lee]

Originally Posted by kenny

Would you prefer us to give terrorists the right to remain silent and appoint them lawyers?

'Suspected' terrorists

But yeah im in agreement with you, id much rather these people be locked up than able to roam the globe freely and being able to prove that they actually are terrorists.

Regards,

Lee

[pr0]

its called GITMO

get it straight lee

[European Lee]

Originally Posted by pr0

get it straight lee

Oxymoron alert

LOL

Regards,

Lee

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by kenny

Would you prefer us to give terrorists the right to remain silent and appoint them lawyers?

Believe it or not there is good reasons why unlawful combatants aren't protected by some of the articles of the Geneva Convention.


Thats all I'm saying - it has been this way forever

Bush didn't start it

" Unlawfull " ... from the mouth of the horse, George!

Quite frankly, then, all this talk about whether the Geneva Convention applies to these particular prisoners is a bunch of evasive balderdash. There might be doubt about whether those in Guantanamo are part of a regular military force or a bunch or illegal irregulars. But they were taken by American regular military forces, and until their status is determined properly, the US is obligated to abide by the Geneva Protocols in its treatment of them.

Go back to spreading " FREEDOM ", but please, keep a bit for you...

[kenny]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

" Unlawfull " ... from the mouth of the horse, George!

What do you mean by this?

Do you think Bush invented the term "unlawful combatant" ?

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Quite frankly, then, all this talk about whether the Geneva Convention applies to these particular prisoners is a bunch of evasive balderdash. There might be doubt about whether those in Guantanamo are part of a regular military force or a bunch or illegal irregulars. But they were taken by American regular military forces, and until their status is determined properly, the US is obligated to abide by the Geneva Protocols in its treatment of them.


Go back to spreading " FREEDOM ", but please, keep a bit for you...

lol

Thats a load of shit.

The detaining power is NOT required to extend any rights to unlawful combatants

As far as their status is concerned it's a no brainer. They are NOT legal combatants so try taking a guess on what they are.

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Go back to spreading " FREEDOM ", but please, keep a bit for you...

German spies were executed during WW2 as illegal combatants - why don't you go bitch about this imposed injustice

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by kenny

What do you mean by this?

Do you think Bush invented the term "unlawful combatant" ?



l

Sure did and is keeping those so called " unlawfull combatants" outside of the capture zone and outside of the capturor ( USA ) country .... so to evade his own laws

Enlightened me of any other similar situation ....


Any way, you are right Kenny Bush ... Move to Gitmo all dark skinned males, and all non-americans ....

Amazing how the USA has gone from the most respected-love country to the most hated one ... in a bit more than 2 years Well, people like you contribute wholy to that

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Sure did and is keeping those so called " unlawfull combatants" outside of the capture zone and outside of the capturor ( USA ) country .... so to evade his own laws

Enlightened me of any other similar situation ....


Any way, you are right Kenny Bush ... Move to Gitmo all dark skinned males, and all non-americans ....

Amazing how the USA has gone from the most respected-love country to the most hated one ... in a bit more than 2 years Well, people like you contribute wholy to that

Hated? Perhaps you mean envied?

[kenny]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Sure did and is keeping those so called " unlawfull combatants" outside of the capture zone and outside of the capturor ( USA ) country .... so to evade his own laws

Enlightened me of any other similar situation ....

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...wful+combatant

Sorry bro, but that term has been around far longer then Bush has been in office.

And not being a member of a recongized nation/military, not carrying open arms, etc. Is precisely why they are "unlawful combatants"

You answered your own question.

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Any way, you are right Kenny Bush ... Move to Gitmo all dark skinned males, and all non-americans ....

Amazing how the USA has gone from the most respected-love country to the most hated one ... in a bit more than 2 years Well, people like you contribute wholy to that

This is just a bunch of opinionated nonsense that doesn't merit a reply

[kenny]

With all the technical bullshit aside.

Lets hear a effective proper means of detaining and holding foreign terrorist.

Since it's in the opinion of some people that it isn't being done right.

How do we detain them and how do we extract information?

Believe it or not - they aren't doing this to be "mean"

They do it because it yields results

[European Lee]

Originally Posted by kenny

With all the technical bullshit aside.

Lets hear a effective proper means of detaining and holding foreign terrorist.

Since it's in the opinion of some people that it isn't being done right.

How do we detain them and how do we extract information?

Believe it or not - they aren't doing this to be "mean"

They do it because it yields results

Line 'em up, shoot the first guy in the head.. Ask the 2nd guy a question, if he doesnt answer, shoot him in the head, ask the 3rd guy in the line a question, lather, rinse, repeat.

It worked for Stalin + Hitler and potentially would only cost $1 for a round

Regards,

Lee

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by European Lee

Line 'em up, shoot the first guy in the head.. Ask the 2nd guy a question, if he doesnt answer, shoot him in the head, ask the 3rd guy in the line a question, lather, rinse, repeat.

It worked for Stalin + Hitler and potentially would only cost $1 for a round

Regards,

Lee

Saddam ????

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Hated? Perhaps you mean envied?

No, I meant and wrote HATED

[European Lee]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Saddam ????

Yep, it worked for him too

I dont recall Iraq having explosions happening every day and thousands of people dying everyday when he was in power, people knew not to fuck with the guy, that says a lot about his methods. Unfortunately, 'we' liberated him and the country went to shit.

Regards,

Lee

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by kenny

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...wful+combatant

Sorry bro, but that term has been around far longer then Bush has been in office.

And not being a member of a recongized nation/military, not carrying open arms, etc. Is precisely why they are "unlawful combatants"

You answered your own question.




This is just a bunch of opinionated nonsense that doesn't merit a reply

From your own link ... for FREEDOM

With the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan some hawkish lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Aid and in the office of White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the war on terror. This applied not only to members of Al Queda but the entire Taliban, because, they argued, Afghanistan was a "failed state".[7]

Despite opposition from the U.S. State Department, which warned against ignoring the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration thenceforth began holding such individuals captured in Afghanistan under the military order and not under the usual conditions of Prisoners of War [8]. For those U.S. citizens detained under the military order, US officials, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, argue that the urgency of the post-9/11 environment called for such tactics in administration's war against terrorism.

Most of the individuals, detained by the U.S. military on the orders of the U.S. administration were initially captured in Afghanistan. The foreign detainees, are held Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba. Guantanamo Bay was chosen because although it is under the de facto control of the United States administration, it is not a sovereign territory of the United States and a previous Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. Eisentrager in 1950 had ruled that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over enemy aliens held outside the USA.

There have been a number of domestic legal challenges made on behalf of the detainees held in Camp X-Ray and in other places. These include:

* On July 30, 2002 The Washington D.C. District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction because Guantanamo Bay is not a sovereign territory of the United States. This decision was appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court which upheld the decision. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court on September 2, 2003.
* On November 10, 2003, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would decide on appeals by Afghan war detainees who challenge their continued incarceration at Camp X-Ray as being unlawful.
* On 10 January 2004, 175 members of both houses of Parliament in the UK had filed an amici curiæ brief to support the detainees' access to US jurisdiction.
* On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul_v._Bush that detainees in Camp X-Ray could turn to U.S. courts to challenge their confinement, but can also be held without charges or trial.
* On July 7, 2004, In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals, in compliance with Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.[9]
* On November 8, 2004, a federal court halted the proceeding of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, of Yemen. Hamdan was to be the first Guantanamo detainee tried before a military commission. Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[10] that no competent tribunal had found that Hamdan was not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.
* By March 29, 2005, all detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility had received hearings before Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The hearings resulted in the release of 38 detainees, and confirmed the unlawful enemy combatant status of 520 detainees [11]. Reuters reported on June 15, 2005 only four detainees had been charged and that Joseph Margulies, one of the lawyers for the detainees said "The (reviews) are a sham,... They mock this nation's commitment to due process, and it is past time for this mockery to end"[12].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

BTW,. the USA never declared WAR, so .....

[kenny]

Nothing in that page out lines a direct US violation of the Geneva convention.

"In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution and stated:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[5]
Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[6] which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely.

The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants".

[kenny]

BTW, there is a endless amount of loopholes and questionable text found in the Geneva convention articles.

Thats why it's so scrutinized.

Just tell me how you would operate differently. What do you think is the proper way to handle detained terrorist?