PDA

View Full Version : Why don't we hear about Gitmo anymore?



bobroberts
01-20-2011, 01:01 PM
Now that the left has taken over , we don't hear about shutting down Gitmo. We don't hear about the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan being condemned anymore.
Why is that.
When Bush was POTUS that was all we ever heard.
Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the far left.

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:49 PM
Because Barack Hussinsein Obamao is POTUS now.

LWW

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:05 PM
UH OH!!!

Military courts are a go.
Gibbs says that was Obama's position all along.

WFT????

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 10:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that the left has taken over , we don't hear about shutting down Gitmo. We don't hear about the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan being condemned anymore.
Why is that.
When Bush was POTUS that was all we ever heard.
Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the far left. </div></div>

I'm guessing you don't know or read any far left sources. They aren't happy that the promised closing has not yet occurred. However you'd have to seek out that opinion, since there is no far left presence in any major media. Center left, socially liberal, yes. Far left, no.

But maybe the answer is that it was attempted, and it has proven far harder to do than to say you'd do it. Congress refused to provide funding for relocation, a furor was created that even supermax facilities weren't able to contain such evil goatherders, feverish local opposition has been mounted, and there is yet another problem that may be worse.

None of those prisoners had dossiers, files of any kind, to show what they supposedly did or to whom, and most of them have undergone at least torture-lite. Information gained that way cannot be used in court, and without it, many cannot be tried with any chance of successful prosecution.

Stretch
01-20-2011, 10:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that the left has taken over , we don't hear about shutting down Gitmo. We don't hear about the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan being condemned anymore.
Why is that.
When Bush was POTUS that was all we ever heard.
Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the far left. </div></div>

I'm guessing you don't know or read any far left sources. They aren't happy that the promised closing has not yet occurred. However you'd have to seek out that opinion, since there is no far left presence in any major media. Center left, socially liberal, yes. Far left, no.

But maybe the answer is that it was attempted, and it has proven far harder to do than to say you'd do it. Congress refused to provide funding for relocation, a furor was created that even supermax facilities weren't able to contain such evil goatherders, feverish local opposition has been mounted, and there is yet another problem that may be worse.

None of those prisoners had dossiers, files of any kind, to show what they supposedly did or to whom, and most of them have undergone at least torture-lite. Information gained that way cannot be used in court, and without it, many cannot be tried with any chance of successful prosecution. </div></div>

Yet another huge cluster f8ck that Obama inherited but has to deal with. St.

bobroberts
01-21-2011, 04:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that the left has taken over , we don't hear about shutting down Gitmo. We don't hear about the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan being condemned anymore.
Why is that.
When Bush was POTUS that was all we ever heard.
Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the far left. </div></div>

I'm guessing you don't know or read any far left sources. They aren't happy that the promised closing has not yet occurred. However you'd have to seek out that opinion, since there is no far left presence in any major media. Center left, socially liberal, yes. Far left, no.

But maybe the answer is that it was attempted, and it has proven far harder to do than to say you'd do it. Congress refused to provide funding for relocation, a furor was created that even supermax facilities weren't able to contain such evil goatherders, feverish local opposition has been mounted, and there is yet another problem that may be worse.

None of those prisoners had dossiers, files of any kind, to show what they supposedly did or to whom, and most of them have undergone at least torture-lite. Information gained that way cannot be used in court, and without it, many cannot be tried with any chance of successful prosecution. </div></div>


You mean like MSNBC or Huffington post? Face it he talked out his as before he really had all the facts. like he did with the beer professor. It's about time you all cut your losses and reakize he was a far cry from what you expected.
No real life or job experience and it shows,.
maybe next time you might find someone who is not full of himself and is willing to work for all the people.

He might of inherited it but had no real ideas on how to deal with it.

Sev
01-21-2011, 07:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that the left has taken over , we don't hear about shutting down Gitmo. We don't hear about the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan being condemned anymore.
Why is that.
When Bush was POTUS that was all we ever heard.
Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the far left. </div></div>

I'm guessing you don't know or read any far left sources. They aren't happy that the promised closing has not yet occurred. However you'd have to seek out that opinion, since there is no far left presence in any major media. Center left, socially liberal, yes. Far left, no.

But maybe the answer is that it was attempted, and it has proven far harder to do than to say you'd do it. Congress refused to provide funding for relocation, a furor was created that even supermax facilities weren't able to contain such evil goatherders, feverish local opposition has been mounted, and there is yet another problem that may be worse.

None of those prisoners had dossiers, files of any kind, to show what they supposedly did or to whom, and most of them have undergone at least torture-lite. Information gained that way cannot be used in court, and without it, many cannot be tried with any chance of successful prosecution. </div></div>

It just shows what a Wet behind the ears, inexperienced empty suite sock puppet Obama is.

Qtec
01-21-2011, 08:37 AM
Tell me, when bush kidnapped these people and transported them out of the country to Cuba - a violation of the Geneva Convention - did he ever think what would happen in the future?

When BC handed over the keys to the WH it was a sunny day. The first surplus for eons and a forecast to eliminate the Nat debt in 10 years.

GW knew better. he immediately borrowed 1.3 T and gave a third of that to his sponsers, the rich. The rest is history.


Q

Gayle in MD
01-21-2011, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that the left has taken over , we don't hear about shutting down Gitmo. We don't hear about the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan being condemned anymore.
Why is that.
When Bush was POTUS that was all we ever heard.
Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the far left. </div></div>

I'm guessing you don't know or read any far left sources. They aren't happy that the promised closing has not yet occurred. However you'd have to seek out that opinion, since there is no far left presence in any major media. Center left, socially liberal, yes. Far left, no.

But maybe the answer is that it was attempted, and it has proven far harder to do than to say you'd do it. Congress refused to provide funding for relocation, a furor was created that even supermax facilities weren't able to contain such evil goatherders, feverish local opposition has been mounted, and there is yet another problem that may be worse.

None of those prisoners had dossiers, files of any kind, to show what they supposedly did or to whom, and most of them have undergone at least torture-lite. Information gained that way cannot be used in court, and without it, many cannot be tried with any chance of successful prosecution. </div></div>

Yet another huge cluster f8ck that Obama inherited but has to deal with. St. </div></div>

Exactly. Shows how ridiculous these RW posts are, on here.

Republicans always blame the Dems, for what their own failed policies created. Always have, always will.

Sev
01-21-2011, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me, when bush kidnapped these people and transported them out of the country to Cuba - a violation of the Geneva Convention - did he ever think what would happen in the future?

When BC handed over the keys to the WH it was a sunny day. The first surplus for eons and a forecast to eliminate the Nat debt in 10 years.

GW knew better. he immediately borrowed 1.3 T and gave a third of that to his sponsers, the rich. The rest is history.


Q

</div></div>

Bush mad a lot of maneuvers that I disagreed with. GITMO being one. It is far to visable. Spending being another. He should have used his veto power more often and never should have signed TARP.


There was never a surplus. Just because mathematical gymnastics were performed to make appear so does not make it so.

That Obama immediately signed a an executive order to close GITMO without investigating the truth of the difficulties of doing so shows him to be both ignorant of facts and a showboater.

eg8r
01-21-2011, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congress refused to provide funding for relocation, a furor was created that even supermax facilities weren't able to contain such evil goatherders, feverish local opposition has been mounted, and there is yet another problem that may be worse.
</div></div>This is the same Dem-controlled congress that pushed through Healthcare correct? Are you kidding me? Let's be honest here, Congress was more interested in spending all their time pushing the healthcare bill than anything else. Now the other stuff is being remembered and we are once again seeing more "promises of change" being left on the stump.

eg8r

eg8r
01-21-2011, 10:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me, when bush kidnapped these people and transported them out of the country to Cuba - a violation of the Geneva Convention - did he ever think what would happen in the future?
</div></div>How are you so out of touch with reality? You people like to talk about all these illegal actions but now we have the libs in Congress to save the day. They had 4 years to make this "travesty" right and they did nothing. If they were kidnapped our judicial system would have been all over it and released everyone by now. You live in a fantasy.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-21-2011, 10:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that the left has taken over , we don't hear about shutting down Gitmo. We don't hear about the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan being condemned anymore.
Why is that.
When Bush was POTUS that was all we ever heard.
Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the far left. </div></div>

I'm guessing you don't know or read any far left sources. They aren't happy that the promised closing has not yet occurred. However you'd have to seek out that opinion, since there is no far left presence in any major media. Center left, socially liberal, yes. Far left, no.

But maybe the answer is that it was attempted, and it has proven far harder to do than to say you'd do it. Congress refused to provide funding for relocation, a furor was created that even supermax facilities weren't able to contain such evil goatherders, feverish local opposition has been mounted, and there is yet another problem that may be worse.

None of those prisoners had dossiers, files of any kind, to show what they supposedly did or to whom, and most of them have undergone at least torture-lite. Information gained that way cannot be used in court, and without it, many cannot be tried with any chance of successful prosecution. </div></div>


Good post.

I'd say he just showed the hypocrisy of the right. The left, didn't start the wars. The neocon RW of the Republican Party had pushed for the invasion of Iraq, for decades.

The opportunity to fully succeed in smashing al Qaeda, in Afghanistan, long ago, was lost, due to Bush's diversion to his War for Oil contracts, in Iraq, which sadly, despite all of his lies, was in fact, proven to be no immediate threat.

Bush put the bulk of our money and troops, in Iraq, while al Qaeda managed to franchise their operations around the world, very sucessfully, by using the torture disgrace, as a rallying call, to their radical elements.

The occupation of Iraq, also known by virtually all former Secretaries of State, from both parties, as the worst foreign policy decision in American History, contributed to our huge debts, and disastrous difficulties in trying to recover from his crashed economy, annd the Bush pending Depression.

The damages we are still facing, due to the expense of that mistake, are a huge part of all of our economic problems, given the massive debts from that bad decision, which are still piling up to this day, as our current president, struggles to get out of Bush's Fiasco in the Middle East, with some dignity.

Secondly, I, for one, have written that I am against spending money killing people on the other side of the world, throughout, while China, is in the same region, collecting allies which Bush lost, and raking in profit, by contracting for precious metals, and many other investments, and taking advantage of the disastrous foreign quagmire left the Bush Administration, the worst in history, IMO..we are financing their efforts with the massive debts which Bush squandered on NOTHING of any good consequence to America.

And lastly, the current administration made serious efforts to solve this very difficult legal problem, of Gitmo, created by Bush, and his failed policies, such as, illegal torture, secret, hidden renditions, and haphazard, radically illegal and irresponsible methods for capturing people and jailing them, without any documented proof that they did anything wrong or illegal, at all, in the vast majority of cases.

The legal quagmire, left by corrupt Republican policies, and followed up by Republican obstructionism, are the sole reason why closing Gitmo is such challenge. Just one more step forward, which Republicans have blocked. One of many, I might add.

Everything I read from the right, consistantly fails to either address, mention, acknowledge, or even recall, who created the subject problem, in the first place.

Every single challenge we face at the present, and struggle to meet, is a result of either Republican failed policies, Republican obstructionism, or Republican corruption and incompetence, yet the right accuses hypocrisy?

LMAO!

Funny...particularly since those of us from the left, predicted exactly these results, long ago, while we were being viciously attacked for daring to say what we believed, and still, now, attacked for writing the obvious, predicted consequences of Republican failed policies..which continue as we write.

Bush didn't leave any "Little" Disasters. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

eg8r
01-21-2011, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everything I read from the right, consistantly fails to either address, mention, acknowledge, or even recall, who created the subject problem</div></div>Everything I read from this post of yours consistently fails to either address, mention, acknowledge or even recall, the actual subject of the thread.

eg8r

Qtec
01-21-2011, 10:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congress refused to provide funding for relocation, a furor was created that even supermax facilities weren't able to contain such evil goatherders, feverish local opposition has been mounted, and there is yet another problem that may be worse.
</div></div>This is the same Dem-controlled congress that pushed through Healthcare correct? Are you kidding me? Let's be honest here, Congress was more interested in spending all their time pushing the healthcare bill than anything else. Now the other stuff is being remembered and we are once again seeing more "promises of change" being left on the stump.

eg8r </div></div>

You still have no idea of context or time.

Q

eg8r
01-21-2011, 12:07 PM
LOL, you and context again. When will you quit shooting yourself in the foot?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 12:20 PM
[/quote]This is the same Dem-controlled congress that pushed through Healthcare correct? Are you kidding me? Let's be honest here, Congress was more interested in spending all their time pushing the healthcare bill than anything else. Now the other stuff is being remembered and we are once again seeing more "promises of change" being left on the stump.

eg8r [/quote]

Yes, they pushed it through by an eyelash, and more than once, the effort appeared dead in the water and sinking. (Scott Brown's election time, for one).

Imagine if they'd diverted their time to safeguard the civil rights of alleged terrorists. There is no lobby for that outside of the good government types, and they have no money, power, or voice that is heard in DC.

eg8r
01-21-2011, 01:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, they pushed it through by an eyelash</div></div>It is a shame the eyelash did not flip the other direction. Now we have Gitmo still open and an HC bill that is going to surely bankrupt us if it has a chance to continue.

eg8r

Sev
01-21-2011, 05:44 PM
Its a shame they opened GITMO in the first place. They should have given them all over to the tender mercies of the Saudi's. You would not have heard a peep then. That was SOP for quite some time.

LWW
01-22-2011, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me, when bush kidnapped these people and transported them out of the country to Cuba - a violation of the Geneva Convention -

Q

</div></div>

Link me to the section he violated.

LWW

LWW
01-22-2011, 05:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you and context again. When will you quit shooting yourself in the foot?

eg8r </div></div>

In his defense, he has ran out of propellers ... so feet would be a logical progression.

LWW

LWW
01-22-2011, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine if they'd diverted their time to safeguard the civil rights of alleged terrorists. There is no lobby for that outside of the good government types, and they have no money, power, or voice that is heard in DC. </div></div>

Incorrect. They have vast amounts of money flowing into USAG Eric Holder's old employer.

LWW

Sev
01-22-2011, 09:47 AM
HAHHAHAHHA!!!

Soflasnapper
01-22-2011, 02:56 PM
Link me to the section he violated.

These people were treated according to enemy combatant status, instead of being given Geneva Accord protections.

Which can be legal, by the GA, only as of when a military tribunal of jurisdiction formally decides they have that status. UNTIL such a finding, those persons must be treated at the higher level of protected status.

Show me where any of them had their enemy combatant status ratified by the formal review of a military tribunal.

LWW
01-22-2011, 03:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Link me to the section he violated.

These people were treated according to enemy combatant status, instead of being given Geneva Accord protections.

Which can be legal, by the GA, only as of when a military tribunal of jurisdiction formally decides they have that status. UNTIL such a finding, those persons must be treated at the higher level of protected status.

Show me where any of them had their enemy combatant status ratified by the formal review of a military tribunal. </div></div>

Link me to where the Geneva Conventions state this.

LWW

LWW
01-22-2011, 03:46 PM
WOW!

You posted in 6 threads ... yet danced around this one.

Why is that?

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-22-2011, 04:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW!

You posted in 6 threads ... yet danced around this one.

Why is that?

LWW </div></div>

As you note, I've been making the rounds IN OTHER THREADS. Therefore, far from dancing around this new demand, I didn't see your second request.

Since I've given a true and undisputably correct answer, I don't see any need to do your homework for you by pawing around in the weeds for the reference. It may not be in the GA themselves, per se, but rather in the WW II-vintage Supreme Court treatment of the enemy combatant situation that was raised at that time.

Soflasnapper
01-22-2011, 04:39 PM
No, it was in the GC concerning POW treatment, and those who are not properly considered POWs.

This should get you started:

Article 5

...

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

-----------------

These terms thus divide combatants in a war zone into two classes: those in armies and organised militias and the like (lawful combatants), and those who are not. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws and customs of war; and if captured, a lawful combatant has to be treated as a prisoner of war by the enemy Power under the conditions laid down in the Third Geneva Convention.

bobroberts
01-22-2011, 08:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, it was in the GC concerning POW treatment, and those who are not properly considered POWs.

This should get you started:

Article 5

...

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

-----------------

These terms thus divide combatants in a war zone into two classes: those in armies and organised militias and the like (lawful combatants), and those who are not. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws and customs of war; and if captured, a lawful combatant has to be treated as a prisoner of war by the enemy Power under the conditions laid down in the Third Geneva Convention. </div></div>

Well if thats indeed the case why hasn't your man Obama released these poor souls?

Qtec
01-22-2011, 10:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Imagine if they'd diverted their time to safeguard the civil rights of alleged terrorists.</div></div>

Exactly.

I can see the Fox headlines now.

"Good morning,

Its said the biggest problem facing America is the rising costs of health insurance. 30 million people in America have no health insurance at all <span style='font-size: 14pt'>so why is it that all Obama can think about is freeing his Muslim terrorist brethren from Guantanamo Bay?</span>
Get this, he wants to bring them to America so that when they are aquitted, because somehow you can't use a confession made under torture- go figure- they will be released to spread their terrorist ideas amongst ordinary innocent Americans.

Why does Obama hate America"

Q

LWW
01-23-2011, 06:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW!

You posted in 6 threads ... yet danced around this one.

Why is that?

LWW </div></div>

As you note, I've been making the rounds IN OTHER THREADS. Therefore, far from dancing around this new demand, I didn't see your second request.

Since I've given a true and undisputably correct answer, I don't see any need to do your homework for you by pawing around in the weeds for the reference. It may not be in the GA themselves, per se, but rather in the WW II-vintage Supreme Court treatment of the enemy combatant situation that was raised at that time. </div></div>

Why don't you just admit that you made it up.

LWW

LWW
01-23-2011, 06:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, it was in the GC concerning POW treatment, and those who are not properly considered POWs.

This should get you started:

Article 5

...

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

-----------------

These terms thus divide combatants in a war zone into two classes: those in armies and organised militias and the like (lawful combatants), and those who are not. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws and customs of war; and if captured, a lawful combatant has to be treated as a prisoner of war by the enemy Power under the conditions laid down in the Third Geneva Convention. </div></div>

So, being that AQ meets none of the criteria for being a lawful combatant ... what exactly was the doubt?

LWW

LWW
01-23-2011, 06:49 AM
How strange that you can read article 5 yet miss article 4.

Which of these categories do you suppose jihadists fit?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. </div></div>

LWW

LWW
01-23-2011, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, it was in the GC concerning POW treatment, and those who are not properly considered POWs.

This should get you started:

Article 5

...

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

-----------------

These terms thus divide combatants in a war zone into two classes: those in armies and organised militias and the like (lawful combatants), and those who are not. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws and customs of war; and if captured, a lawful combatant has to be treated as a prisoner of war by the enemy Power under the conditions laid down in the Third Geneva Convention. </div></div>

Well if thats indeed the case why hasn't your man Obama released these poor souls? </div></div>

Because they are deadly terrorists under Obama ... they were innocents under Bush.

The far left will collectively recite whatever they are told to recite.

LWW

Sev
01-23-2011, 10:24 AM
They dont.

Soflasnapper
01-23-2011, 03:27 PM
How strange that you can read article 5 yet miss article 4.


It took a lot of time for me to make up article 5 which didn't exist before I retrofitted all the web to agree with my forgery.

As you noted, when saying I was just making it up.

Lookit, many if not most of these alleged jihadis picked up were not picked up in the field of combat.

We paid bounties to locals in the amount of maybe $10,000 a head, and they took advantage of our unconcern with facts to basically throw long-held tribal rivals under the bus. We indiscriminately picked up people with no knowledge of anything they'd done, because personal or tribal enemies falsely labeled them terrorists (and got a nice chunk of money for fulfilling their own agendas against these people).

Which is why the Bush team eventually released about 700 of those held in Gitmo without a single charge.

In your view, was it because they were hard-core jihadis, or because they were not that at all?

Sev
01-24-2011, 07:23 AM
The recidivism rate for those released is above 20%.
More than 1 in 5 going back to the battle field is not good.
So not all of those released were innocent.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 01:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The recidivism rate for those released is above 20%.
More than 1 in 5 going back to the battle field is not good.
So not all of those released were innocent. </div></div>

Perhaps being picked up on false or no charges, held in conditions so appalling that there were some 100 or more suicide attempts, being subjected to torture-lite or real torture, for years, MIGHT JUST HAVE radicalized even the formerly entirely innocent?

pooltchr
01-24-2011, 02:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i]
Lookit, many if not most of these alleged jihadis picked up were not picked up in the field of combat.

</div></div>

Would you care to share with us what defines the field of combat in our present war on terrorists? Is it in the parking deck of a federal building? Is it in the cabin of a passenger liner? Is it on the street in times square? Is it in a cave in the hills of Afghanistan? Is it in a subway terminal in London? Is it in the 3 bedroom house in suburban middle America?

Where exactly is the field of combat?

Steve

Sev
01-24-2011, 03:13 PM
But then again perhaps not.

Club GITMO seems to be pretty posh as far as containment facilities go.

Gayle in MD
01-24-2011, 04:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The recidivism rate for those released is above 20%.
More than 1 in 5 going back to the battle field is not good.
So not all of those released were innocent. </div></div>

Perhaps being picked up on false or no charges, held in conditions so appalling that there were some 100 or more suicide attempts, being subjected to torture-lite or real torture, for years, MIGHT JUST HAVE radicalized even the formerly entirely innocent? </div></div>

GITMO was another of Bush's no-win quagmires, one of many, inherited by President Obama.

G.

pooltchr
01-24-2011, 05:45 PM
It's been two years, and it's still open...one can only assume that Obama has discovered that Bush had the right idea. If that weren't the case, he would have closed it down as he promised he would do in his campaign.

Sometimes when you are given all the information, it changes your mind. I suspect Obama and Bush knew far more about Gitmo than anyone on this forum. The fact that both a Rep and a Dem president have kept it going says a lot.

Steve

Sev
01-24-2011, 05:47 PM
On this one I agree with you Gayle. All those people should have been given over to the tender mercies of the Saudis. This has been SOP for many administrations.

GITMO was much to public.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 06:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's been two years, and it's still open...one can only assume that Obama has discovered that Bush had the right idea. If that weren't the case, he would have closed it down as he promised he would do in his campaign.

Sometimes when you are given all the information, it changes your mind. I suspect Obama and Bush knew far more about Gitmo than anyone on this forum. The fact that both a Rep and a Dem president have kept it going says a lot.

Steve </div></div>

A fair point. Once one knows things that are restricted to top levels, opinions may change.

However, knowing everything he did, Bush also thought we should close Gitmo and he supported closing it.

He was against it after he was for it.

Apparently Obama is for it after he was against it.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i]
Lookit, many if not most of these alleged jihadis picked up were not picked up in the field of combat.

</div></div>

Would you care to share with us what defines the field of combat in our present war on terrorists? Is it in the parking deck of a federal building? Is it in the cabin of a passenger liner? Is it on the street in times square? Is it in a cave in the hills of Afghanistan? Is it in a subway terminal in London? Is it in the 3 bedroom house in suburban middle America?

Where exactly is the field of combat?

Steve </div></div>

We are told it is the entire world, including the entire US.

pooltchr
01-24-2011, 06:24 PM
In that case, many if not most of the jihadis were actually picked up on the field of combat, contrary to your contention.

Steve

Sev
01-24-2011, 07:45 PM
Wet behind the ears, empty suit sock puppet.

Gayle in MD
01-24-2011, 07:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's been two years, and it's still open...one can only assume that Obama has discovered that Bush had the right idea. If that weren't the case, he would have closed it down as he promised he would do in his campaign.

Sometimes when you are given all the information, it changes your mind. I suspect Obama and Bush knew far more about Gitmo than anyone on this forum. The fact that both a Rep and a Dem president have kept it going says a lot.

Steve </div></div>

A fair point. Once one knows things that are restricted to top levels, opinions may change.

However, knowing everything he did, Bush also thought we should close Gitmo and he supported closing it.

He was against it after he was for it.

Apparently Obama is for it after he was against it. </div></div>

I don't think one can assume that the President is "FOR" keeping it open, when we've all seen the Republicans fight every effort, by this administration, to close it.

We hve to have someplace, to put these people, while we determine, their current condition, and history of their capture.

IIRC, Republicans attacked the intent to put these prisoners, some of whom, had become radicalized, due to their treatment, temporarily, into an empty, Federal Prison, until their individual cases, could be examined, which, BTW, would have also provided jobs, to a very depressed area.

Republicans went berzerk over the very thought of it, in spite of the fact, that no one has ever escaped, a Federal Prison. they did what they always do, used it for another, Fear Mongering, exploitation, through political attacks, for political gain.

The use of torture, against the Geneva Conventions, another illegal action, and a Republican policy, is the sole cause of our difficulty in closing GITMO.

It not only prohibits our ability to convict, in a Federal Court, but also has turned those innocents, who were captured, many prisoners, who should never have been imprisoned, into angry, potential future terrorists.

Bush's incompetence during the invasion, and occupation, of Iraq, and Afghanistan, is the cause of this quagmire.

The use of extremely radical, irrational methods for capturing people, as you pointed out, created a very complicated legal situation.

Just another HUGE Bush/Cheney F-up!

"Oh what a tangled web...."

GITMO, and Bush's torturing of prisoners, was blamed, by our own National Security Estimate, as having been a recruitment bonanza, for Al Qaeda.

President Obama, has forbidden the disgraceful use of torture, which will forever be a black mark, which will remain on our country, forever.

Al Qaeda, franchised, and spread their operations, around the world, AFTER the word of torture, GITMO, Secret Renditions, etc., was revealed.

We can see, Iraq, is still a battlefield. Political gains, which were suposed to follow "The Surge" have not been reached.

Iraq, was the worst foreign policy decision in our history, according to five former Secretaries of State, Republican and Democratic.

G.

Sev
01-24-2011, 08:03 PM
Military court will take care of it.
Your hero is approving.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 08:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In that case, many if not most of the jihadis were actually picked up on the field of combat, contrary to your contention.

Steve </div></div>

True, if we assume that is true. Since it is not, then it is not true.

I thought it was clear enough that I disagreed with the wild claim. If not, when do we bomb Hamburg and Saudi Arabia?

pooltchr
01-25-2011, 07:35 AM
Alright, you say it's not true. Then tell us what specifically is the battlefield. Where can we capture terrorists where they would fall under the terms outlined in the GC? What is "off limits"?

The war on terrorists in not specific to one country. The combatents do not wear uniforms. They do not restrict the war they declaired on us to certain areas. They can do their fighting anytime and anywhere.

So I ask again...where specifically is this battlefield?

Steve

Qtec
01-25-2011, 08:04 AM
Lets say tomorrow the Cubans launch an invasion and land on your lawn. As a patriot, you grab your gun and confront them. Outnumbered, you surrender. They call you a terrorist, an enemy combatant at the least and deport you to N Korea for torture.

Fair?

Q

Sev
01-25-2011, 08:11 AM
Shit happens if you dont die fighting.

Qtec
01-25-2011, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shit happens if you dont die fighting. </div></div>

You are still alive.

Q

Sev
01-25-2011, 08:25 AM
Seppuku.

Qtec
01-25-2011, 08:35 AM
LOL

Q

pooltchr
01-25-2011, 11:36 AM
If I have vowed to do anything to destroy Cuba, I guess that would probably be fair. I wouldn't particularly like it, but I understand that there will be consequences for my choice to grab my gun and confront them in the first place.
Maybe it was a stupid thing to do, and I deserve what I get.

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-25-2011, 01:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alright, you say it's not true. Then tell us what specifically is the battlefield. Where can we capture terrorists where they would fall under the terms outlined in the GC? What is "off limits"?

The war on terrorists in not specific to one country. The combatents do not wear uniforms. They do not restrict the war they declaired on us to certain areas. They can do their fighting anytime and anywhere.

So I ask again...where specifically is this battlefield?

Steve </div></div>

I find this whole enterprise to lack legitimacy. Since we declared war on a noun, maybe we should restrict the battlefield to a dictionary?

Actually, we do not have a real war or an actual opponent, and instead a task to pacify and control a God-forsaken faraway land with people and a culture there who have opposed invaders of all stripes since Alexander the Great invaded.

The Taliban did not strike us or threaten us in any way, and in fact, they were among the some dozen countries who sent us warnings (they sent their foreign minister) that we were about to be attacked by bin Laden or AQ. There are either zero or up to 20 AQ in Afghanistan, and we're still chasing them down with 150,000 troops?

The Afghan war was no more legitimate than the Iraq war-- neither was legal under the supreme law of the land (as the Constitution places signed and ratified treaties), assuming we honor the Constitution.

Probably every household with a man in it there has an AK-47, since everywhere's a dangerous neighborhood. So we knock down a door, find the weapon that is surely there, and drag that person out to abuse them, torture them, and possibly torture them to death, because we find technical ways around the GC's prohibitions?

"When I consider God is just, I tremble for my country."

Thomas Jefferson

Sev
01-25-2011, 01:32 PM
Dictionary?
Well I have known some woman that take dictation very well.

pooltchr
01-25-2011, 03:57 PM
OK, so now you say we aren't really in a war. Then why bring up the rules of the GC????

Steve

Gayle in MD
01-26-2011, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I find this whole enterprise to lack legitimacy. Since we declared war on a noun, maybe we should restrict the battlefield to a dictionary?

</div></div>

LOL, hilarious!

LWW
01-26-2011, 10:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shit happens if you dont die fighting. </div></div>

You are still alive.

Q </div></div>

That's what didn't die fighting means.

LWW

LWW
01-26-2011, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so now you say we aren't really in a war. Then why bring up the rules of the GC????

Steve </div></div>

Doublethink allows one to believe anything ... and everything ... all at the same time.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-26-2011, 11:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so now you say we aren't really in a war. Then why bring up the rules of the GC????

Steve </div></div>

As is well known, the US doesn't declare war anymore (since WW II). Not in Korea (a police action), not in Vietnam (same thing I guess), not in Iraq (either time), not in Bosnia, not in Afghanistan.

That we choose to engage in de facto war without the declaration does not mean we are free from our treaty commitments to violate the GC terms of prohibitions against maltreatment of targeted populaces, whether they are technically war opponents or not.

LWW
01-26-2011, 11:16 AM
Have you ever read the authorization to use force?

Of course not.

Although done in a cowardly manner, so as to appease the paintywaist leftists who feel "WAR" is such a harsh word to call a war. it was a D of W.

LWW

pooltchr
01-26-2011, 11:32 AM
You keep going back and forth to the point where I'm no longer sure I understand your position.
Are we at war or are we not?
If we aren't, then how does the GC apply to anything?
If we are, then define the battlefield, so we will know how to apply the GC to any prisoners we take into custody.
Come on, man. Take a stand.

Steve

LWW
01-26-2011, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You keep going back and forth to the point where I'm no longer sure I understand your position.

Steve </div></div>

It is obviously whatever the regime tells him it is at the moment.

LWW