Discussion on Gitmo

J

j.locke777

Guest
#1
This too is from another forum. I hope i can get some good debate on it

Well, I've noticed that while there are many intresting posts lately, There are not many ones that provoke discussion. So I kind of want to throw rocks at a hornets nest here. What should be done with Guantanamo Bay? Here's my answer

While I am a moderate conservative on most issues, I'm going to the right on this one. I would expand gitmo. It is a POW camp and POW's have no rights other than those stated by the Geneva Convention. Tourture would be unacceptable, but using rougher methods than the local poliece force use is okay. I would alson have a spy ring inside gitmo to find out information spoken between the prisoners.

I realise this is a sinsitive subject because of the subject matter so while keeping it civil, lets talk about the different ideas on the subject


Most of the prisoners at Gitmo are not US citizens so there is no reason to try them in US courts. As far as being tried in international courts, We are at war. and the people there are prisoners of war. while a handfull may be innocent, 98-99% are guilty of treason, terrorism (previous crimes or intent to commit crimes) and/or known to belong to one of many terrorist cells all over the world. We are not rounding up every muslum we can find and putting them in gitmo like what the germans did to the jews, We are taking prisoners and holding them there. and once the war is over, they will face trial and either be released or jailed/excecuted. Also, many of the terrorists we have caught that are US citizens are getting off easy. They are guilty of treason and during war time, that is punishable by death. Spending time in a prison during the war is like a slap on the wrist. Anyone who commits the crime of treason in a time of war should be hanged. not sent to take up space in a prison.

But still, most of the prisoners there are guilty. The media just takes the stories of a few innocent people who were wrongfully imprisoned and blows it way out of preportion. I would guess there are at least twice as many wrongfully imprisoned people in the US than the amout that Guantanimo Bay has
 
D

drs10

Guest
#2
Yes, you're are correct in your opinion on Gitmo. Terrorists are POWs not common criminals. Therefore, they do not deserve the freedoms the US offers to citizens.
 
P

Professor Longhair

Guest
#3
Yes, you're are correct in your opinion on Gitmo. Terrorists are POWs not common criminals. Therefore, they do not deserve the freedoms the US offers to citizens.
This administration has explicitly said that these people are NOT P.O.Ws. That's why the detainees in Gitmo haven't been offered the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is not war. Terrorism is a criminal act (albeit a very serious one), & terrorists should be offered the same rights as any other criminal. Everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.
 
E

enjoy

Guest
#4
It really comes down to what you value more: individual human rights or the rule of law. I don't really put too much trust in either, for both are man-made and as such are arbitrary: subject to change when the governing force feels change needs to be made. War could just as easily be declared on political dissidents and people such as myself could be rounded up and, if martial law were enacted, sent to one of FEMA's 600 prison camps that are currently operational in America.

What do I think? Gitmo doesn't help our standing with the rest of the world, but that doesn't appear to matter to those in office at this time. Gitmo is effective: at containing those involved with actions against the U.S., containing the innocent, serving as an examplar for terrorist organisations to help recruit new terrorists, etc. I think that, like anything else, when you create a market for something, in this case containing terrorists, you indirectly breed terrorism. It's the same principle as with our currently overcrowded prison system.

It will take a marked shift in foreign policy, a reaffirmation of basic human rights and a will to enforce the Constitution to bring about change. Expanding Gitmo would be a mistake.
 

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#5
I would expand gitmo. It is a POW camp and POW's have no rights other than those stated by the Geneva Convention. Tourture would be unacceptable, but using rougher methods than the local poliece force use is okay.
If members of al-Qaida were POW's, then no coercive interrogation would be allowed at all. The Geneva Conventions are very specific about that, and they give POW's rather extensive rights.


Terrorism is not war. Terrorism is a criminal act (albeit a very serious one), & terrorists should be offered the same rights as any other criminal. Everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.
It may not be a war in the conventional sense, but it certainly is a form of guerrilla warfare. Of course, one of the important purposes of the Geneva Conventions is to prevent the use of such tactics. This is why it explicitly denies protection to those who fight an armed conflict while attempting to hide amongst a civilian population.
 
P

Professor Longhair

Guest
#6
It may not be a war in the conventional sense, but it certainly is a form of guerrilla warfare. Of course, one of the important purposes of the Geneva Conventions is to prevent the use of such tactics. This is why it explicitly denies protection to those who fight an armed conflict while attempting to hide amongst a civilian population.
The Geneva Convention does forbid the use of civilian shields, but it doesn't deny protection to those who used that tactic once they're P.O.Ws.

All P.O.Ws are entitled to the same protection, regardless of what they may have done.
 

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#7
The Geneva Convention does forbid the use of civilian shields, but it doesn't deny protection to those who used that tactic once they're P.O.Ws.
Article 4 of GC III states who shall be considered a POW, and those who engage in guerrilla warfare are not included.
GC III said:
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.
This is the section most relevant to members of terrorist organizations, but by not carrying arms openly or wearing a fixed insignia they lose any claim to POW status.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#8
I think the folks in Gitmo just need to be given trials. We're just pissing off the world by holding folks there like we are. I don't know how it's supposed to help fight terrorism to give some dude in Gitmo's son or brother more motivation to hate us. Furthermore, we're locking up good decent folks there. A guy who used to run a hookah lounge in my town got locked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He spent a couple of years there before they let him go. How can we justify that crap? There is nothing that pisses me off more then people being led to do cruel things out of irrational fear. We're turning into p*ssies in this nation, and it's making us into monsters. F*ck that, I say.
 
P

Professor Longhair

Guest
#9
Article 4 of GC III states who shall be considered a POW, and those who engage in guerrilla warfare are not included.This is the section most relevant to members of terrorist organizations, but by not carrying arms openly or wearing a fixed insignia they lose any claim to POW status.
That's fine, I wasn't actually making a case for them having P.O.W status.
But if they're not P.O.Ws, that means they're civilians & entitled to a fair trial, which they are being denied.
 

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#10
But if they're not P.O.Ws, that means they're civilians & entitled to a fair trial, which they are being denied.
Also not true. Guerrillas are an explicit, and intentional, ommission from the Geneva Conventions. By providing certain protections to those who are either non-combatants, or who fight in accordance with the rules of war (i.e. make themselves easy to identify as combatants), the GC provide an incentive for those rules to be followed, and in doing so hopefully will minimize civilian casualties.

If al-Qaida fighters were to start wearing uniforms, and living in military camps, then they would qualify as POW's. I'll admit that it's difficult to surrender to a cruise missile, but that's what you get with rules of war written by major military powers.