IF POW's are allowed to be held until there is no longer a conflict to which they can return and fight...
AND illegal combatants are of a status somewhat below that of POW's....
WHY the legal problem with holding them indefinitely during the course of this conflict?

Absolutely nothing, as long as you can make that pesky Fifth Amendment go away. I'm sure Congress is working on it.

I think the problem arises in the definition of the word war.

POW in a traditional sense are prisoners captured on a battlefield - enemy soldiers, when the war is over they are released.

In this instance - there is a war on terror, but it's not a typical war in the traditional sense, therefore we cannot say that POW's are the same in a traditional sense. Given the nature of the war I think we have to look at these "POW's" in a different way otherwise we could keep them in POW camps for the next 30 years with no recourse.

Given the nature of the war - its feasible that a 12 year old boy (non US citizen) could be taken off the streets in any place we deem is part of the war on terror, called a POW and sent to Gitmo for the rest of his life with absolutely no trial or investigation. That is clearly wrong.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
Absolutely nothing, as long as you can make that pesky Fifth Amendment go away. I'm sure Congress is working on it. Are illegal combatants protected by that?

apparently everybody in the world is covered by our constitution but our constitution doesnt have to be recognized by anyone but us. talk about have your cake and eat it too. All the protections, none of the taxes.

Its not an issue of the constitution - if it were Gitmo could not exist. It's valid to hold POW - but the war on terror is not like a typical war, there are may valid problems with the whole concept of Gitmo.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Drew, however I also think Trav's perspective is completely valid as well. Brooks, it's a good question, and it's answer is one in which I'm not sure people will ever see eye to eye on. Protecting enemy combatants with OUR constitutional freedoms and rights seems ludicrous to me, but by the same token, I can't see jailing them indefinitely as a fair solution. Talk about a quandary...

lets just let them loose in the nearest blue state

They'd be in good company.

actually, I think the nearest blue state would be Lousiana, they have enough problems to worry about. but then again, if these guys are innocent bystandards there should be no problem. A few strong, hard working young men may be helpful

Especially in a Chocolate city.

Originally posted by Travh20
if these guys are innocent bystandards there should be no problem.

?!?

We might need to watch out for infiltration by *innocent bystandards*.

ROTFL.

Louisiana is republican, the governor is a democrat (narrow win only because the republican candidate was an Indian & the folks down here don't vote for minorities). As for releasing them - sure, after they have a trial and if they are innocent, but they wouldn't come to the US. There are no US citizens in Gitmo - why? because the constitution does apply to US citizens and it would never fly.

I don't think Trav's point of about the constitution is valid because its not a constitutional issue.

where are you getting the idea they deserve a trial if not from the constitution?

You didn't need to italicize the word, FT - we get it.

Originally posted by Travh20
where are you getting the idea they deserve a trial if not from the constitution?

er...civilized nations don't hold people without a trial. Many countries don'y have a constitution but don't hold people without some kind of due process. Where are you getting the idea that people can be held indefinately without due process? It's not rocket science.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You didn't need to italicize the word, FT - we get it.

I seriously doubt that all here do.

There are a couple here who probably would not *get it* if it were in 2 inch high red letters.

________________________________

THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS---
by Doug Fuller

'Twas the night before Christmas,
when all through the land,
not a critic was stirring,
for stirring was banned.
A thousand brown prisoners,
snug in their cells,
all held without charges
or tinsel or bells;
and momma was wrapped in the national flag,
while we sang, "Where there's never a boast or a brag."
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the TV I flew like a flash;
I then watched "Survivor" and reruns of "Mash."
The fireworks, exploding above the new snow,
gave a luster of objects to people below.
When what saw my wondering eyes in the flashes:
a miniature George Bush and eight tiny fascists!
Their jerseys were blue and said "WORLD DOMINATION";
I knew right away this was not just claymation.
More rapid than eagles the warlords they came,
as the little Bush whistled and called them by name:
"Now, Daschle! Now, Ashcroft! Now Strom, don't relent!
On Poindexter, Rumsfeld! On Henry and Trent!
To the top of the globe,
while the crowd's at the mall,
now bomb away, bomb away, bomb away all!"
His sack had a war game for each girl and boy;
his pocket, four billion from just Illinois.
Far up on his high seat the driver did mount,
with more massive weapons than Kofi could count.
And then, I heard sounds from away off somewhere,
the booming of bombs that were bursting in air.
As I drew in my head,
and was turning around,
down the chimney old Dick Cheney
came with a bound.
He said not a word, nor disclosed his location;
he wire-tapped my house in the name of the nation.
Then holding the strings of his little Bush puppet,
he went to the chimney and quickly rose up it.
The sleigh was still running, but Dick didn't hurry;
gas guzzlers, it seemed, were no longer a worry.
He popped the champagne
and exclaimed as he served it,
"The world is now ours, and GODDAMN it, we deserve it!"

Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you Freethinker ~ AllForums newest spelling nazi.

Originally posted by es347fan
Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you Freethinker ~ AllForums newest spelling nazi.

LOL. It was in fact not simply a mispelled word, but a malapropism.

IOW, the usage of "bystandards" was not merely the misspelling of a word, but was more a complete lack of understanding as to what the word was (i.e., "bystanders") that he was trying to use.

I just though it was funny, (in much the same vein of humor as comedians such as Norm Crosby) and was poking a little fun at him.

No need to get yourself in such a lather over something so trivial. ROTFL.

esfan,
It wasn't an insult.
For all intensive purposes, I see his point

:corn:

Originally posted by Brooks
esfan,
It wasn't an insult.

No, it wasn't

And although I see numerous words each day misspelled on these boards (sometimes by myself) I seldom if ever make a criticism over anyone's spelling. It's pointless.

I just thought that the word *bystandards* was funny.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I just thought that the word *bystandards* was funny.
I remember a long time ago thinking the exact same thing Trav did until I was made fun of for it. In all honesty, that's probably the best way to learn, and I'm not kidding.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I seldom if ever make a criticism over anyone's spelling. It's pointless.
Remember "fairy"??? :)

Anyway, if I incorrectly use punctuation or misspell a word, then please tell me. I could always use the help.

I only enjoy pointing it out if the misspeller's post questioned someone else's intelligence.

And I used to go after Echo, but that's fish in a barrel, and she admits it, which takes the fun out of it.

Originally posted by Brooks
And I used to go after Echo, but that's fish in a barrel, and she admits it, which takes the fun out of it.
Remember the "Echo2 math team" quip, Brooks? Jesus, that was priceless. That woman begged to be made fun of continually. Speaking of which, where did she go???

its all good, I just spelled it how it sounded. I take no offense, so anyone who is getting offended for me, thanks, but dont worry about it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Speaking of which, where did she go???
I don't know, but I miss her. I get the impression she has led an interesting life, which makes her interesting.

Also, once the election partisanship came to an end, her posts were politically unpredictable. Not a knee jerk leftist.

Originally posted by Brooks
For all intensive purposes, I see his point :)

Originally posted by Travh20
its all good, I just spelled it how it sounded.

Well then, that takes the humor out of it.

I wrongly assumed that you had always thought that when somone used the word *bystanders*, they were actually saying the word -- *bystandards*.......

.......it truthfully never occured to me that anyone would think -- hearing the phonetic pronunciation of the word bystanders --- that the word contained a *d*.

Much ado over nothing, methinks.

Originally posted by sedan
:)

I was gonna let that one go until everyone decided they like to be corrected. :)

Intents and purposes, Brooks.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I was gonna let that one go until everyone decided they like to be corrected. :)

Intents and purposes, Brooks.
I'm glad Sedan got the joke.
I was really CHOMPING at the bit (I think I need to be less subtle).

Are illegal combatants protected by that? Until there is some sort of judicial review, they are not 'illegal.' If they are found to be illegal by a member of the judiciary, then lock them up and throw away the key. But I am not comfortable with doing so on Rumsfeld's say-so...
All the protections, none of the taxes. I feel your pain Trav, but the Fifth Amendment refers to persons, not citizens.

Gitmo makes a mockery out of everything the US stands for here & abroad. If we are to be a country that sets a standard for decency and the right thing then Gitmo is contrary to that.

If somebody was captured then they were captured for a reason - but that reason was not that they were part of a uniformed army employed by a state we are at war with in direct conflict. Whatever the reason they are in Gitmo - lets put them in front of a court of law and let them be either convicted or released. If we are holding them for valid reason then lets those reasons stand up for themselves - by never presenting a reason and holding them indefinately - then it only appears that we have no valid reason to hold them.

I am sure there are people that need to be locked up in Gitmo - maybe the majority, but I am also sure some innocent people are being held in Gitmo - that is unnaceptable for a country like the US to involved with.

If the US was so confident in it's actions in Gitmo then these prisoners would be held in the US not in Cuba.

Actually pretty much everyone in Gitmo was kidnapped first by Afghan warlords then the US military. When the US invaded Afghanistan they told the warlords well pay you $3000 a head for all Al Q members. Of course they merely went and rounded up locals who had nothing to do with terrorism, but the US military could care less.
Gitmo makes a mockery out of everything the US stands for here & abroad. If we are to be a country that sets a standard for decency and the right thing then Gitmo is contrary to that. Yup. Same goes for the Afghan and Iraq war.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Actually pretty much everyone...
Express this as a percentage (in your opinion).

Originally posted by Brooks
I'm glad Sedan got the joke.


Doh!

Express this as a percentage (in your opinion). Only after you say what percentage of innocent people kidnapped, tortured and jailed indefinatly you would find acceptable...
:D

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Actually pretty much everyone in Gitmo was kidnapped first by Afghan warlords then the US military. When the US invaded Afghanistan they told the warlords well pay you $3000 a head for all Al Q members. Of course they merely went and rounded up locals who had nothing to do with terrorism, but the US military could care less.
Yup. Same goes for the Afghan and Iraq war.

Saying Gitmo is a poor process is one thing, saying all the people in Gitmo are innocent is a different thing entirely.

One can comment on the Gitmo process because it's clear, but as to the innocence or guilt of the Gitmo guests - one can only guess. Your assertions 500lb - why not provide some proof to back up what you are saying & by proof I don't mean the radical website that feeds you all your "facts"

So for those who never even bother to read my posts or links. Here for the third time I am posting this...
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Gitmo Detainees Say They Were Sold

They fed them well. The Pakistani tribesmen slaughtered a sheep in honor of their guests, Arabs and Chinese Muslims famished from fleeing U.S. bombing in the Afghan mountains. But their hosts had ulterior motives: to sell them to the Americans, said the men who are now prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified during military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

"It's obvious. They knew Americans were looking for Arabs, so they captured Arabs and sold them — just like someone catches a fish and sells it. " - Guantanamo prisoner

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
....for those who never even bother to read my posts or links........

You must constantly keep reminding yourself, 500lb, that the power of the sheep to ignore (or just flat out refuse to believe) any wrongdoing on the part of Amuuuurica is limitless.

You could present them vidoetape evidence of the worst wrongdoing imaginable, and people like waldo and Darth and Trav and Drew would immediately strap on the blinkers and cry -- "Why, the cameraman had to be a durty pinko or a peacenik or an America-hater!!!!"

________________________________

The difference between what America's political leaders are doing and what the American Public THINK they are doing is one of the greatest propaganda accomplishments in the history of the world.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm

I said proof - not hearsay on a leftie website.

I said proof - not hearsay on a leftie website.

Thanks for proving my point asshole.

You still didn't even follow the link or use simplistic reasoning skills.

I linked to an AP report that was merely hosted by common dreams. It cites:

"A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces."

and

"There have been reports of Arabs being sold to the Americans after the U.S.-led offensive in Afghanistan, but the testimonies offer the most detail from prisoners themselves.

In March 2002, the AP reported that Afghan intelligence offered rewards for the capture of al-Qaida fighters — the day after a five-hour meeting with U.S. Special Forces. Intelligence officers refused to say if the two events were linked and if the United States was paying the offered reward of 150 million Afghanis, then equivalent to $4,000 a head.

That day, leaflets and loudspeaker announcements promised "the big prize" to those who turned in al-Qaida fighters.

Said one leaflet: "You can receive millions of dollars. ... This is enough to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life — pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people."

Helicopters broadcast similar announcements over the Afghan mountains, enticing people to "Hand over the Arabs and feed your families for a lifetime," said Najeeb al-Nauimi, a former Qatar justice minister and leader of a group of Arab lawyers representing nearly 100 detainees.

Al-Nauimi said a consortium of wealthy Arabs, including Saudis, told him they also bought back fellow citizens who had been captured by Pakistanis."

but hey good job proving you can deny reality with the best of 'um...

:bike:

(BTW I intentionally left the AP tag of of the title in this thread because I predicted you would do exactly what you just did, though I hoped you wouldn't...oh well)

Total number released or transferred to home countries now stands at 242 (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=July&x=20050720174600adynned0.488476&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html)

The Defense Department announced July 20, 2005 that eight more detainees who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center have been released or transferred.
...
Prior to this transfer, DoD has transferred or released 234 detainees from GTMO -- 167 for release, and 67 transferred to other governments (29 to Pakistan, five to Morocco, seven to France, seven to Russia, four to Saudi Arabia, one to Spain, one to Sweden, one to Kuwait, one to Australia, nine to Great Britain and two to Belgium). There are approximately 510 detainees currently at Guantanamo.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

So 167 released / 744 total = at the very least a 24% innocence rate

A reward does not mean people were rounded up & the US just took them in without investigation. That is where the liberal license gets ahead of itself & that's why your links are mostly crap - they take a few facts & turn them into fairy tales for the hearty consumption of folks like you.

Keep Flailing...its funny.

I like how you try to justify what you have no clue about.

1st you have no clue if they ever bother to try and investigate people that are brought to them.

2ndly If they had information on these people they could go arrest them themselves or ask for specific people. Collecting information is exactly what they consider what they are doing. They pay some guys to tell them who is and isn't a terrorist. Just like they paid some guys to bring them terrorists. Now if you can find me something saying it isn't like this I'd love to see it. But as it stands you are looking like the Busheviks; Deny whats in front of your face till you convince yourself it isn't there....

The rewards most likely work like this: Guy brings in "terrorist". Gay says this "terrorist" did X,Y and Z. Guy walks out $4,000 dollars richer and 1 annoying neighbor poorer.

Feel free to demonstrate that this isn't how it works. I'd love to see it since it'd prove the US isn't kidnapping innocent people. As it stands that seems to be all they really are doing.

That is where the liberal license gets ahead of itself & that's why your links are mostly crap - they take a few facts & turn them into fairy tales for the hearty consumption of folks like you. The link was to an AP sotry you douche. Chrsit is it to much to ask that you actually read something or look it up before declaring it Bunk? Thats why youre brainwashed/mindless/whateverelseyoucalledme. You have no clue about what you are currently talking about yet will deny what you read because it doesn't fit into your stereotype of the US.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla, in response to Drew
Keep Flailing...its funny. I like how you try to justify what you have no clue about. .

Drew holds a Master's degree in it.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla, in response to Drew
Christ is it to much to ask that you actually read something or look it up before declaring it Bunk?

And THAT, faithful listener, is what Drew's other Master's degree is in.

Any criticism of the government, or any wrongdoing on the part of the RightWing leadership that he finds uncomfortable to have exposed, any critique of the Rightwing faction, or any embarassing news story detailing the criminal behavior of some Rightwing crook that is impossible for him to refute is instantly declared by him to be **crap**.

Yeah but at least he has the decency to try and debate it...I was kicked off of another board a long time ago because one of the moderators was an egotistical asshole who 'would not be disagreed with.'

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
........ one of the moderators was an egotistical asshole who 'would not be disagreed with.'

IOW, he was a perfectly typical RightWinger.

Big surprise.

Freethinker - I have a master's degree in business but not in anything you mention. What's your masters degree in Freethinker? Crying and whining no doubt. Just because I make you look like a fool on a daily basis is no reason to be so bitter!

500lb - I do not agree with the concept of Gitmo, and it's perfectly reasonable that the US paid people to bring people in, but where I diverge is the leap you make in assuming that the US consequently locked up innocent people without any form of investigation - this is 100% assumption on your part.

And - fyi - the only reason anybody could get kicked off Allforums is for posting get rich quick schemes, the purpose of this forum is to disagree - so to kick anybody off for their opinion would be somewhat retarded, no matter how much I disagree with somebodies views, although how cool would it be to be somebody who 'would not be disagreed with' - sounds like fun.

Umm...yes I have go look at the last page. At least 24% of the people there were innocent. I assume this because the US let them go. And I assume the US would not let someone go who was a terrorist. But then again...

Just because 24% were released - it does not follow that they locked up people with no initial investigation, only going on the word of people bringing people in for a bounty.

The fact that 24% were released means that they found that 24% were innocent. 1 + 1 does not = 3

Just because 24% were released - it does not follow that they locked up people with no initial investigation, only going on the word of people bringing people in for a bounty.
I guess you just plum forgot about the article I presented hmmm? And what evidence have you presented that they did any sort of background check at all? 0, none, zero, ziltch...yet you persist that my sources are wrong and you are right (based on absolutely nothing)...

You see the problem yet or you wanna keep talking out your ass?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yeah but at least he has the decency to try and debate it...

He's also generally more polite than you are. :)

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I guess you just plum forgot about the article I presented hmmm? And what evidence have you presented that they did any sort of background check at all? 0, none, zero, ziltch...yet you persist that my sources are wrong and you are right (based on absolutely nothing)...

You see the problem yet or you wanna keep talking out your ass?

I did read the article - your article is not evidence. It's an article, that contains some points.

I am not saying anything specifically - certainly I am not saying they did or they didn't do what you assume - so I am not as you say "persist that my sources are wrong and you are right" , I am simply saying that you cannot take one item and then extrapolate it to mean something else.

You tend to do this a lot 500lb in your posts - you take some points from an article that may well be very true - ie they have some reasonable evidence to back them up, then you take that & extrapolate it to therefore mean xyz is true & then claim you have undisputable evidence for it.

An example is they paid a bounty, 24% were later released ==> therefore they just threw anybody in jail that was brought to them. That is extrapolation. If you qualified by saying "so it looks like this .... may well have occurred" - it'd be different, but you never say that.

You see the problem yet or you wanna keep extrapolating out your ass?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla, in response to Drew
What evidence have you (Drew) presented that they did any sort of background check at all? 0, none, zero, ziltch.......yet you persist that my sources are wrong and you are right

THAT happens to be his speciality.

Freethinker - why not take the shit out of your mouth so we can hear more clearly

Originally posted by DrewM
Freethinker - why not take the shit out of your mouth so we can hear more clearly

Excuse me, but is that a misprint on your age?

It says 36, but judging by your method of discourse, I'd guess it as being closer to 6.

In all seriousness, Drew, aren't you just the slightest bit embarrassed by acting in such a buffoonish way, with the ridiculously immature -- "take the shit out of your mouth" -- commentary??

I mean, god DAMN, i've seen childish imbeciles on bulletin boards get their widdle feewings hurt and blurt out some puerile remark, but you've truly gone off the deep end.........

Get a grip, man.........I will lighten up and stop making you look like such a clueless clod so often, if that'll help you. Grow up a bit. Take a few deep breaths, and think about what you're posting and how it makes you look.

Yeah you found me out - I am 6.

Lets face it Freethinker - your a bulletin board Troll - pretty much everything you post is pure crap - rehashed over & over again.

An example is they paid a bounty, 24% were later released ==> therefore they just threw anybody in jail that was brought to them. That is extrapolation. If you qualified by saying "so it looks like this .... may well have occurred" - it'd be different, but you never say that. No the article, along with the high number of people simply realised points to them just paying off people for warm bodies. But hey if you want to ignore key evidence go ahead and just debunk anything that fancys you...gravity...entropy....

Extrapolation : an inference based on known facts and observations:

Fact : A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened

Worth to take the time to understand the difference between these 2 things.

Many Guantanamo detainees not tied to 'hostile acts'
Wed Feb 8, 9:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - More than half of the US "war on terror" detainees at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prison camp never committed any "hostile acts" against the United States, two lawyers said in a report.

Based on an analysis of government documents regarding the more than 500 people held at the US naval prison facility, lawyers Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux estimated that 55 percent "are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies".

Moreover, they said that only eight percent of the detainees were characterized in the documents as Al-Qaeda fighters, while 60 "are detained merely because they are 'associated with' a group or groups the (US) government asserts are terrorist organizations".

The lawyers, who represent two Guantanamo detainees, noted that only seven percent of the 500 detainees had been captured by US and coalition forces.

Of the rest, 47 percent were turned over to the United States by Pakistan and Afghan Northern Coalition forces, and the captors of another 44 percent held were unknown.

The study suggests that at least some of these detainees were turned over to US forces by bounty hunters and reward-seekers without verification of the detainee's status.

In the wake of the October, 2001 invasion of
Afghanistan, US forces offered "millions of dollars" for the capture of Al-Qaeda and Taliban members.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060209/ts_afp/usattacksguantanamo_060208231004
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tough U.S. Steps in Hunger Strike at Camp in Cuba
...
Another lawyer, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, said one of his three Bahraini clients, Jum'ah al-Dossari, told him about 10 days ago that more than half of a group of 34 long-term hunger strikers had abandoned their protest after being strapped in restraint chairs and having their feeding tubes inserted and removed so violently that some bled or fainted

Detainees' lawyers said they believed that the tougher approach to the hunger strikes was related to the passage in Congress of measure intended to curtail the detainees' access to United States courts.

"Because of the actions in Congress, the military feels emboldened to take more extreme measures vis-à-vis the hunger strikers," said one lawyer, Sarah Havens of Allen & Overy. "The courts are going to stay out of it now."

"He said that during these force feedings too much food was given deliberately, which caused diarrhea and in some cases caused detainees to defecate on themselves," Mr. Colangelo-Bryan added. "Jum'ah understands that officers told the hunger strikers that if they challenged the United States, the United States would challenge them back using these tactics."
....
http://nytimes.com/2006/02/09/politics/09gitmo.html?ei=5094&en=cccf8cfc8f39c100&hp=&ex=1139547600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1139495661-WZ6tFsxNANpWOtKw7b7tFw
++++++++++++++++++

guerilla, you are becoming a caricature of yourself. We try to keep these guys from starving to death and you bitch about it. It really is true that no matter what hapens, you will have an article denouncing it lined up and ready to go. You really do have mental health problems.