want to see Guantanamo closed? make a video!

Puck78

http://noise.amnesty.org/site/c.adKIIVNsEkG/b.2141873/k.2B98/Make_an_impact_Close_Guantanamo/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp

PaperPlates

Id like to see it opened for tourism. I'd love it. $5 to hose down a terrorist.

RainDog

PaperPlates wrote:

Id like to see it opened for tourism. I'd love it. $5 to hose down a terrorist.

Or $2.75 to hose down a person that simply looks like one?

And a $1.50 to hose down someone who probably didn't do anything wrong but, you know, came from a villiage where someone did once.

jlew24asu

RainDog wrote:

Or $2.75 to hose down a person that simply looks like one?

And a $1.50 to hose down someone who probably didn't do anything wrong but, you know, came from a villiage where someone did once.

awwwww did your pen pal from the bay convince you he was innocent

Puck78

jlew24asu wrote:

awwwww did your pen pal from the bay convince you he was innocent

you know, people there might be guilty or might be innocent. For sure they're there for more than 4 years without a trial. What we ask is that they should have a fair trial, so that if they're guilty they will stay in prison following the decision of the process. If they're innocent, they should be released. Any comment in support of the Bush administration, now?

jlew24asu

Puck78 wrote:

you know, people there might be guilty or might be innocent. For sure they're there for more than 4 years without a trial. What we ask is that they should have a fair trial, so that if they're guilty they will stay in prison following the decision of the process. If they're innocent, they should be released. Any comment in support of the Bush administration, now?

Bush has said he would like to close the prison once the Supreme Court decides how to try the prisioners.

redrock

..prisoners which have been illegaly detained, totured and submitted to degrading treatment. The youngest was 13 years old. Up to now, none of those detained there and subsequently released have been found guilty of anything. Guantanamo Bay is just another example of Human Rights abuse by the US Government.

And paperplates, even if your comment is followed by a , it's contemptible and offensive.

Puck78

jlew24asu wrote:

Bush has said he would like to close the prison once the Supreme Court decides how to try the prisioners.

Bush didn't declare it on the day in which he ordered to open Guantanamo, but only after that the Supreme Court declared Guantanamo illegal on the 29th of June 2006. This means that the Bush administration run illegal Human Rights abuses for more than 4 years. Don't you agree that keeping people there for more than 4 years without a trial is absurd and a grave violation of Human Rights? How do they want to "export Human Rights" if then they behave like this?

jlew24asu

Puck78 wrote:

Bush didn't declare it on the day in which he ordered to open Guantanamo, but only after that the Supreme Court declared Guantanamo illegal on the 29th of June 2006. This means that the Bush administration run illegal Human Rights abuses for more than 4 years. Don't you agree that keeping people there for more than 4 years without a trial is absurd and a grave violation of Human Rights? How do they want to "export Human Rights" if then they behave like this?

they are prisioners of war. the US entered a "grey" area for the first time since the Geneva convention. these prisioners did not fight for a country. they had no uniforms. the geneva convention protects specific people. islamic terrorists arent on that list. since abuse has been reported, that place has become a tropical resort. red cross full access to these people. I agree that these people should be tried in a military tribunal. there needs to be a protocal set in place for what to do with them. we cant risk letting someone go that might want to go buy nukes from kim jong il.

Hope&Anger

jlew24asu wrote:

they are prisioners of war. the US entered a "grey" area for the first time since the Geneva convention. these prisioners did not fight for a country. they had no uniforms. the geneva convention protects specific people. islamic terrorists arent on that list. since abuse has been reported, that place has become a tropical resort. red cross full access to these people. I agree that these people should be tried in a military tribunal. there needs to be a protocal set in place for what to do with them. we cant risk letting someone go that might want to go buy nukes from kim jong il.

Oof.

The whole point is that they are NOT prisoners of war. They are "enemy combatants." If they were prisoners of war, the Geneva Conventions would apply. But the Bush Administration has spent the past 5 years fighting the application of the Geneva Conventions.

In fact, some of the prisoners were the Taliban, and they were fighting for their country -- Afghanistan.

In fact, the Geneva Convention *does* protect people who are not fighting for a country. That protection is in Common Article 3, which has normally been interpreted to apply to combatants in civil wars. It's true that this was not a civil war, but the framers of Common Article 3 made a point of saying that the protection should be construed as broadly as possible.

And of course, you don't mean it's a tropical resort. Because people who have been released report beatings, waterboarding, etc. Just because a couple of Congressmen parade the chicken-and-pilaf meals doesn't mean the prisoners aren't being treated too harshly.

And the Red Cross does not publicly comment on the conditions in the prison, so we have no way of knowing what their conclusions are about the place.

And the military tribunals are a joke. No attorneys; no opportunity to confront the witnesses -- they don't even have a translator.

Face it -- the fact that they release groups of people from Gitmo every few months means that they have no earthly idea who's locked up there. Yeah, yeah, they've got some real bad guys. But it's taking them years, and they still don't know who some of these people are.

Maybe you trust them to figure this out without due process. I don't.

jlew24asu

Hope&Anger wrote:

Oof.

The whole point is that they are NOT prisoners of war. They are "enemy combatants." If they were prisoners of war, the Geneva Conventions would apply. But the Bush Administration has spent the past 5 years fighting the application of the Geneva Conventions.

right right, thanks for correcting me.

Hope&Anger wrote:

In fact, the Geneva Convention *does* protect people who are not fighting for a country. That protection is in Common Article 3, which has normally been interpreted to apply to combatants in civil wars. It's true that this was not a civil war, but the framers of Common Article 3 made a point of saying that the protection should be construed as broadly as possible..

still a grey area.

Hope&Anger wrote:

And the military tribunals are a joke. No attorneys; no opportunity to confront the witnesses -- they don't even have a translator.

Face it -- the fact that they release groups of people from Gitmo every few months means that they have no earthly idea who's locked up there. Yeah, yeah, they've got some real bad guys. But it's taking them years, and they still don't know who some of these people are.

Maybe you trust them to figure this out without due process. I don't.

if its going to keep me safer from one of those "real bad guys", I'll let the process play itself out. there are plenty of watchdog groups trying to fight for their rights. that they may or may not deserve from the geneva convention

redrock

jlew24asu wrote:

there are plenty of watchdog groups trying to fight for their rights.

.. with the American Government continuing to ignore them....

Puck78

jlew24asu wrote:

they are prisioners of war. the US entered a "grey" area for the first time since the Geneva convention. these prisioners did not fight for a country. they had no uniforms. the geneva convention protects specific people. islamic terrorists arent on that list. since abuse has been reported, that place has become a tropical resort. red cross full access to these people. I agree that these people should be tried in a military tribunal. there needs to be a protocal set in place for what to do with them. we cant risk letting someone go that might want to go buy nukes from kim jong il.

first: decide if they are prisoners of war or military prisoners. It is not clear to you like it's not for your administration, it seems to me.
You have to prove that they are "terrorist", like you called them, and to do that you need a trial. You can't call them "terrorists" without a trial to prove it.
The red cross indeed accessed to Guantanamo and condemned how people are kept.
Other human rights organizations don't have access to the place, coutrary like you said.
I'm undecided if you're filled of propaganda, to make such contradictory and false statements, or if you simply lie.

jlew24asu

Puck78 wrote:

first: decide if they are prisoners of war or military prisoners. It is not clear to you like it's not for your administration, it seems to me..

I'm not sure. like I said, its a grey area. The U.S. government has taken the position that the detainees are "enemy combatants" and not entitled to the protections normally given to prisoners of war.

It has begun a process of holding tribunals for each prisoner to determine their status.

Puck78 wrote:

You have to prove that they are "terrorist", like you called them, and to do that you need a trial. You can't call them "terrorists" without a trial to prove it.

you dont need a trail to prove they are terrorists. if they are sworn el queda members, they are terrorists. if the supreme court wants public trails for these people, ok lets do it. I believe military tribunals would suffice.

Puck78 wrote:

The red cross indeed accessed to Guantanamo and condemned how people are kept.
Other human rights organizations don't have access to the place, coutrary like you said.
I'm undecided if you're filled of propaganda, to make such contradictory and false statements, or if you simply lie.

prisoners should be treated better. I agree with that. I dont condone torture. I believe since the red cross has gone there, and the base has come under intense scrutiny, treatment has improved. and rightfully so.

Puck78

jlew24asu wrote:

you dont need a trail to prove they are terrorists. if they are sworn el queda members, they are terrorists. if the supreme court wants public trails for these people, ok lets do it. I believe military tribunals would suffice.

shame that people held in Guantanamo are not "sworn al queda members".
If they were, they could have made a trial already 4 years ago.

Hope&Anger

First, the treatment of detainees under Common Article 3 isn't a gray area to anyone outside of the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress. The consensus among the people who know something about the Geneva Convention is that it applies to the folks on Gitmo -- for the very reason that we don't know who they are.

jlew24asu wrote:

if its going to keep me safer from one of those "real bad guys", I'll let the process play itself out. there are plenty of watchdog groups trying to fight for their rights. that they may or may not deserve from the geneva convention

Two things -- this is the bottom line as far as I can tell. How much liberty are you willing to trade away for safety? How many mistakes are you prepared to tolerate for the sake of being protected from the real bad guys?

For me, I just want to know a little something about these guys who are supposedly so dangerous. You tell me that that guy was responsible for planning 9/11? Okay, I believe you. But I literally have no idea how dangerous the rest of these people are. And the Administration keeps telling me to trust them, but how can I when they've made so many mistakes in the past? They tell me it's a matter of national security -- and then they release a bunch of guys from Gitmo and dump them on the streets of Karachi in the middle of the night.

Second, do you actually feel safer? Guantanamo has been one of the most effective recruiting tools for Islamic jihadists because it exposes the contradicitons of America's commitment to due process, justice. I don't feel any safer. Yeah, the US hasn't been hit -- but Australians were targeted in Indonesia, and then there were the attacks in London and Madrid. Sorry, but I don't feel any safer.

jlew24asu

Puck78 wrote:

shame that people held in Guantanamo are not "sworn al queda members".
If they were, they could have made a trial already 4 years ago.

true, but they are there for a reason. I know thats what we are talking about here. "the reason" they are there. they were either picked up while fighting americans or someone implicated them, or they have a "born to Kill americans" tatoo on the chest, I dont know. at some point those reasons will come out. should the US speed up that process and do it fairly? yes.

Hope&Anger

jlew24asu wrote:

prisoners should be treated better. I agree with that. I dont condone torture. I believe since the red cross has gone there, and the base has come under intense scrutiny, treatment has improved. and rightfully so.

Do you have any evidence of this? I just read an article that says the Red Cross doesn't comment on conditions they find, except to the government holding the detainees.

Have there been any reports from neutral observers? Or even from the US military about improvements?

Hope&Anger

jlew24asu wrote:

true, but they are there for a reason. I know thats what we are talking about here. "the reason" they are there. they were either picked up while fighting americans or someone implicated them, or they have a "born to Kill americans" tatoo on the chest, I dont know.

Again, how on earth do you know this?

Some of these guys were fighting with the Northern Alliance -- who were on our side. But they were standing on a field with a rifle and they got arrested -- BUT THEY WERE ON OUR SIDE.

And some of them got ratted out by people in the Northern Alliance who were pissed at them, but they had nothing to do with fighting Americans.

The bottom line -- you don't know; I don't know; we don't know. And that's why we have trials -- to find out!!!

jlew24asu

Hope&Anger wrote:

For me, I just want to know a little something about these guys who are supposedly so dangerous. You tell me that that guy was responsible for planning 9/11? Okay, I believe you. But I literally have no idea how dangerous the rest of these people are. And the Administration keeps telling me to trust them, but how can I when they've made so many mistakes in the past? They tell me it's a matter of national security -- and then they release a bunch of guys from Gitmo and dump them on the streets of Karachi in the middle of the night..

I agree with you.

Hope&Anger wrote:

Second, do you actually feel safer? Guantanamo has been one of the most effective recruiting tools for Islamic jihadists because it exposes the contradicitons of America's commitment to due process, justice. I don't feel any safer. Yeah, the US hasn't been hit -- but Australians were targeted in Indonesia, and then there were the attacks in London and Madrid. Sorry, but I don't feel any safer.

do I feel safer? I'd like to think so. like you said we havent been attacked on US soil. sadly, yes, they have attacked elsewhere.

I'm not here trying to defend the bush admin. I dont feel what they are doing is completely right. hell I dont know what I would do either. alot of the people at gitmo hold very important information about future attacks or plans thereof. some were probably even involved. I am a firm believer that the US should NOT use toture. I am with John McCain on this one.

Puck78

jlew24asu wrote:

true, but they are there for a reason. I know thats what we are talking about here. "the reason" they are there. they were either picked up while fighting americans or someone implicated them, or they have a "born to Kill americans" tatoo on the chest, I dont know. at some point those reasons will come out. should the US speed up that process and do it fairly? yes.

do you have any proof for this? Give me just one proof of what you said...