The 5 british detainees from Cmap X-ray that were released to be tried in the UK were immediately released upon arrival in Britain.

This doesn't look good for the US - I'm damn sure the British government would have held them if they had any doubt about them - but they were all released.

So they spent 2 years held with no due process and it looks like they are not in any way connected to terrorism.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woguan113703283mar11,0,1912151.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

They are "lucky" to be British citizen. I wonder howmany other detainees in Guantanamo are in the same situation.

I'm beginning to wonder if our government has any evidence at all to bring any of the detainees up on charges. They were ostensibly declared "enemy combatants" so they could be tried by military tribunals, but there seems to be no hurry to convene any such tribunals.

If they are merely POW's then they can't be tried at all, and if they are terrorists then why haven't the tribunals been convened? I hope that the Supreme Court decides at some point that they cannot be declared POW's in the absence of a declared war, and redesignates their status so that they can be tried or released.

I am sure they were just hanging with the taliban in afghanistan for the fun of it. I agree though, let the tribunals begin.

anyway, they will sue the US Government and become rich men. the same as people in this country who are falsely imprisoned.

Or sometimes they just get executed.

or sometimes they fly loaded planes into giant buildings

One of the british guys claims that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that they were all immediately released says clearly that there is not a single shred of evidence against them. The British government is not soft on terrorism and has powers to hold people because there is no constitution in the UK. If there was any chance these guys were terrorists they would be locked up in the UK right now awaiting trial.

I think Trav is right that 20 years from now - there will be official apologies and damages paid to some of these people being held.

It is completely un-american to be holding these people without trial for 2 years. It's plain wrong.

there are people being released, thats the point. these are not the only people who have been released. it is sad but you want us to relese the taliban guys back to the taliban for a trial? we release them to britian becasuewe trust britian

Originally posted by Travh20
or sometimes they fly loaded planes into giant buildings

Actually those were mostly Saudi's, our good friends in the middle east.

they all went through terrorist training in al queada training camps in afghanistan, which were allowed to be there by your good friends the taliban. the reason they were all saudis is becasue they were allowed greater leway on coming and going in this country prior to 9-11. of course they wouldnt use 19 iraqis, they would have never all made it onto the planes. since the saudis are supposed to be our friends, osama knew to use them as the hijakers, as they would have hte greatest chance of any arabs to get by security without raising to much alarm. I know such logical thinking doesnt pentrate your partisan mind, and that its far better to use the same old tired "why aren we invading saudi arabia? the hijackers were saudi arabian!" argument, but please, jsut try and do a little objective thinking please. if you try, its not hard to figure out why they were all saudis, and not iraqi, pakistani, afghani, iranian, syrian or palestinian.

Originally posted by Travh20
they all went through terrorist training in al queada training camps in afghanistan, which were allowed to be there by your good friends the taliban. the reason they were all saudis is becasue they were allowed greater leway on coming and going in this country prior to 9-11. of course they wouldnt use 19 iraqis, they would have never all made it onto the planes. since the saudis are supposed to be our friends, osama knew to use them as the hijakers, as they would have hte greatest chance of any arabs to get by security without raising to much alarm. I know such logical thinking doesnt pentrate your partisan mind, and that its far better to use the same old tired "why aren we invading saudi arabia? the hijackers were saudi arabian!" argument, but please, jsut try and do a little objective thinking please. if you try, its not hard to figure out why they were all saudis, and not iraqi, pakistani, afghani, iranian, syrian or palestinian.

You make some very well reasoned arguments about why al-quaida used Saudis as the hijackers on 9-11.

It's unfortunate however that you feel that anyone who disagree with the way the detainees are being treated must be "good friends" with the Taliban. Is that part of your logical thinking or is it part of your non-partisan mind?

I apologize for the taliban comment. sorry. it was sarcasm, which is hard to convery through text.

Originally posted by Travh20
there are people being released, thats the point. these are not the only people who have been released. it is sad but you want us to relese the taliban guys back to the taliban for a trial? we release them to britian becasuewe trust britian

They weren't "released" they were transfered to Britain after much political pressure.

Nobody has ever said anybody wants to release terrorists - but the point is I don't know they are terrorists & niether do you Trav - you can only go on what you are told. The only way to determine their status is a trial or some kind of proceeding.

Trav, nobody has any evidence showing that the people who were just released were terorists. They shouldn't have been locked up for two years if they were innocent. If there is evidence that the other pople there (including the teenager or two about my age) is a terrorists and a danger to anyone, then they should be puton traial, and not a fucking military trbunal, becasue there can't be POWs of non-wars, and it will be proved that they are guilty. the US obviously has something to hide if they aren't trying them right away.

hence, they were released. it took that long to figure it out. besides, they were in afghanistan for questionable reasons to begin with. one guy was there to find a wife. ya, ok. antoher guy sadi he was there to take a computer class. again... leave england to go take a computer class in afghanistan? come on. I am not saying that I know for sure they are guilty, or that holding people ther who are innocent is OK. I will say that I will trust the US government before I trust Mr shaman or whammybar from all forums. I dont believe the US government just drives around picking up innocent people and throwing them in jail. they are there for a reason.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
They shouldn't have been locked up for two years if they were innocent.

Not being able to prove guilt does not equal innocence.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont believe the US government just drives around picking up innocent people and throwing them in jail. they are there for a reason.

I'm not so trusting

Originally posted by Travh20
I will say that I will trust the US government before I trust Mr shaman or whammybar from all forums. I dont believe the US government just drives around picking up innocent people and throwing them in jail. they are there for a reason.


you shouldn't be so trusting of the government. remember that most poeple in power are there for the power, not to do good for others. our country is run accordingly.

be that as it may, I still dont trust you more than the US government.

Originally posted by Travh20
be that as it may, I still dont trust you more than the US government.

don't trust me, trust logic.

ya, save that for the classroom. in the real world there is more that applies to life than logic. if logic was the rule we would have no wars, no terrorism. cops, soldiers, they could not function at all if they only did what was logical, because they deal with illogical people all the time

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, save that for the classroom. in the real world there is more that applies to life than logic. if logic was the rule we would have no wars, no terrorism. cops, soldiers, they could not function at all if they only did what was logical, because they deal with illogical people all the time

I'm saying that everything runs by logic trav. you can deal with illogical poeple logically. all I'm saying is use your head.

not everyhting runs by logic. where is the logic in blowing up 3000 people with airplanes? how can you beleive everythign runs by logic?

Originally posted by Travh20
not everyhting runs by logic. where is the logic in blowing up 3000 people with airplanes? how can you beleive everythign runs by logic?

oops. meant to say that not everything runs by logic. sorry. sitck s not into my post. now does that make sense?

yes, OK, I see now

innocent or not those people shouldn't have had to have been detained for two entire years without any sort of trial. they have the right to a speedy trial, and that right was clearly violated. and they are still innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by sputnik
innocent or not those people shouldn't have had to have been detained for two entire years without any sort of trial. they have the right to a speedy trial, and that right was clearly violated. and they are still innocent until proven guilty. What document gives them these rights?

Originally posted by HaVoK
What document gives them these rights?

it's U.S. law, and as long as we're holding them, they should be treated according to our laws.

the UCMJ?

meh?

the Uniform Code of Military Justice

not exactly sure what that is. can you link to it?

Originally posted by WhammyBar
not exactly sure what that is. can you link to it? Google it. Pages and pages of stuff.

Originally posted by Travh20
the Uniform Code of Military Justice

The UCMJ covers crimes involving the members of our armed forces, I don't think that's what you mean Trav.

The people held at Guantanamo are being held as POW's. Their rights are covered by the Geneva Convention.

Just out of curiosity Trav...what do you think should be done with the detainees in Guantanamo?

Whatever code they use - they need to speed it up. This type of situation hurts the US in the end. The US has been a moral leader in the world for over 80 years and basic abuse of civil rights makes the US unable to be a moral authority.

No matter the situation, the ends don't justify the means. The administration seems to believe it does.

It took 2 years for the US to determine that 5 Brits could be released to the UK for prosecution in the UK and then it took the UK 2 minuites to determine that there was no case against them and release them. What is wrong with that picture! - The US needs to borrow the UK code book for an afternoon and move this process along before too much damage is done.

There are "terrorists" as young as 13 years old in that camp (well they were 2 years ago anyway - older now) - That's a disgrace.

ya, I know what the UCMJ is, and I said that because it makes as much sense to try them under UCMJ as tryign these people in our regular courts. I think they should be tried by military tribunal. of course this is not popular with the anti war crowd, suprise suprise,, so they want to make sure they can get it done right the first time, maybe you should be glad they are building a case agaisnt them instead of just taking them out back and putting a bullet in their heads. damned if you do damned if you dont. you hold them to build a case, your screwed, you hurry them t trial, you are screwed too. you cant please everyone.

I don't really see why they cannot be tried in regular courts. No war has ever been declared by congress, these guys weren't soldiers in any recognized army - it's hard to see how they are POW's. Also - POW's can't be tried anyway unless they committed an internationally recognized crime.

It gets a bit complicated, but military tribunals are just mock courts - they have no real credibility.

One attitude seems to be - heck these are foreigners so who cares if they rot.

Originally posted by DrewM

It gets a bit complicated, but military tribunals are just mock courts - they have no real credibility.

What do you mean by this Drew? Im not sure i understand what you are saying.

I thought it was a pretty clear statement - they are not really credible.

"Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."
Groucho Marx.

Comments from one of the UK prisoners released.

It may well not be a true account, but if it is true - then it's a bad picture

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042696_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-MY%2DHELL%2DIN%2DCAMP%2DX%2DRAY-name_page.html

that article is such bullshit propaganda. I couldnt open the link but I saw it another place, and it is so full of crap. anyone who knows the US military should be highly offended by this. this is nazi concentration camp guard stuff, not US Soldier stuff. I know it will be popular for those who already dislike the us military to bite on this horse shit, but anyone that doesnt believe our men are child killers and homicidal maniace will know that it is such a crock of BS. I guess that leaves joh kerry on the wrong side

My first reaction is also that the account is false.

Originally posted by DrewM
I thought it was a pretty clear statement - they are not really credible. OK...i'll play the dumb game. Why are they "not really credible"? In your experience with military justice, what has made you feel they are not credible?

I guess becasue there are no schiester lawyers involved, only military lawyers, as if thety are incapable of being objective

They are not credible because they are closed and do not follow the same strict standards of the judicial system.

strict standards of the judicail system? LMAO ya, people getting off on murder charge with a twinkie defense is real strict, sounds like they run a tight ship up there, LOL if anythign the military tribunal will be more strict

Strict standards? Or did you mean to say best justice money can buy? Here's an example of strict standards. Wonder if the 70 year old man who was murdered and mutilated(or his family) feels the same as you about the "strict standards" of our judicial system.

Robert Durst admits to killing this 70 year old man, cutting up his body in an attempt to hide the evidence, yet is convicted of nothing. He commited no crime in the eyes of the "strict standards" of our judicial system. What a joke.




http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/27/fugitive.heir.ap/

Yep - it's an example of strict standards.

You can always find an emotive example of somebody who 'got-off' - it proves nothing much apart from your ability to cherry pick an example.

If you were wrongly accused of something you would be extremely thankful for those strict standards.

On the other hand - Military Tribunal? - give me a break - it's a kangeroo court

how do you know drew? when was the last time there was a military tribunal? how about one hat wrongly accused someone? can you tell us the case and show us the evidence? it sounds more like YOU dont trust the military, not that you have any real proof of a real reason to not trust a military tribunal

how do you know drew? when was the last time there was a military tribunal? how about one hat wrongly accused someone? can you tell us the case and show us the evidence? it sounds more like YOU dont trust the military, not that you have any real proof of a real reason to not trust a military tribunal

In a military tribunal the proceedings are stacked against the defendant

- The panel is the judge AND the jury!
- Discussions between defense attorney & defendant are not private
- The defandant and his lawyer can be excluded from hearing evidence against him, at the total descretion of the prosecution
- The defense cannot do any fact finding without permission of the prosecution who can deny that right at will with no appeal
- There is no independant review process

= A Kangeroo court, sheesh you may as well just hang them and cut to the chase.

If you think for one second that process is fair then you are out of your mind.

It's not that I don't trust the "military" - I just don't trust Kangeroo courts to reach a fair verdict. There is a very fair process already - why use this type of justice that will only open the US up to massive critisim. There is no good reason to do it wrong while the world watches and gains the image that the US is one of the worst civil rights violators around.

how can you say you trust the military and call them a kangaroo court at the same time drew? and whats wrong with being the worst civil rights violator around? maybe the UN will make us head of the human rights board like they did Sudan, LOL, or better yet, when tehy made Iraq head of the disarmerment board at the height of the WMD controversy leading up to the war, LMAO

Yep and whats wrong with doing things right?

You always counter straigt ahead logical thinking with baloney. You'd rather cut off a limb than question anything you are told by your handlers.

ya,my handlers, nice. I guess anyone who doesnt agree with you is simply following their handlers right? I trust the military and the US government more than I trust any foreign government or the UN, end of story. if that makes me a robot, so be it. In cases of global politics, I give my government the benefit of the doubt first, not the other guys. if my government is wrong, then I will say so, bu the jury is still out.

Originally posted by Travh20
ya,my handlers, nice. I guess anyone who doesnt agree with you is simply following their handlers right? I trust the military and the US government more than I trust any foreign government or the UN, end of story. if that makes me a robot, so be it. In cases of global politics, I give my government the benefit of the doubt first, not the other guys. if my government is wrong, then I will say so, bu the jury is still out.

Yes, that's all very nice and all - but it's a simplistic answer, in fact you fail to address the issues. You have this irritating habit of never addressing the actual issue and always bringing it back to a childlike pissing contest. Where are your comments on the military tribunal process that you asked me to comment on??

I am not suggesting that a military tribunal would automatically result in an unfair trial - I like you have respect for the military and their general standards, but that isn't the point. The point is a military tribunal is a 100% one sided affair which is completely slanted toward the prosecution - in short, it could be by no measure considered a fair proceeding.

It's critical that these terrorists are brought to justice in a way that holds water. A military tribunal is just going to be laughed at by pretty much the rest of the world because anybody with half a brain can not trust that process. It has no credibility.

The founding fathers did not leave the system in the US upto the trust of people's good nature, although I am certain they believed in the general good nature of people. They understood well that power has it's own agenda and they built a system that specifically addressed the tendancy of people to work for their own agenda. In doing that they made no statement that people were dishonest - they made a statement based on reality.

It is the same with this issue - why use a judicial process that can never be looked upon as valid when the right thing to do is to do it right & use a process that stands up to every test.

That is the issue trav. Please comment on that rather than re-iterate your blind faith in all things apple pie.

Originally posted by DrewM

I am not suggesting that a military tribunal would automatically result in an unfair trial -

The point is a military tribunal is a 100% one sided affair which is completely slanted toward the prosecution - in short, it could be by no measure considered a fair proceeding.




what is this supposed to mean?

It's a simple statement - The proceeding is not a fair proceeding but that does not automatically mean the outcome will be wrong. For example you could use coin flip tribunals - it would be right 50% of the time but it wouldn't be exactly fair would it? and who would take it seriously?

Now quit avoiding please & comment on the issues.

Still waiting...I'm genuinely interested to hear how you feel a military tribunal is a fair proceeding & why it makes sense to go that route when it will simply make the US look underhand.

well, the reason we are going to do military tribunals is becasue these people were not arrested here in the united states by law enforcement officers for breaking american laws. they were captured by our military in combat operations in a foreign land for being terrorists. there is also the bunch of america hating lawyers who will defend them and try to turn them into victims. and I see they are already hard at work in this forum

Originally posted by Travh20
there is also the bunch of america hating lawyers who will defend them and try to turn them into victims. and I see they are already hard at work in this forum Good post Travh. And as you can see, there are a lot of bleeding hearts here in the states, no matter the cause. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
well, the reason we are going to do military tribunals is becasue these people were not arrested here in the united states by law enforcement officers for breaking american laws. they were captured by our military in combat operations in a foreign land for being terrorists. there is also the bunch of america hating lawyers who will defend them and try to turn them into victims. and I see they are already hard at work in this forum

Yet more babble - but you still avoid to address the issue & respond with your tired old line about any intelligent thought being american hating....boring

I guess the 5 brits released in 2 mins by the UK and the 13 year old were all hardened terrorists too. Plotting to terrorize what?

To the contrary Trav - America is about doing things right, is about being a moral authority and a world leader. You on the other hand have a strange view of the world - you cry yourself to sleep at night at the thought of gay people being married because it will be the end of life as we know it - yet when it comes to real issues that actually do shake the edifice you sail on through with no thought except yes sir no sir three bags full sir. What is happening in camp X-ray is un-American and not what this country is about. It seems that anybody who has a notion of right & wrong, fairness and decency is American hating in your book.

Keep on sucking it up Trav - keep on Saluting, it's never hard for mindless followers to find a worthy place created especially for them.

drew, have you been to cuba and to the prison? do you know the story of each and every inmate? no, you dont know shit. you are stating your opinion, jsut like me. your opinion happens to think we are doing the wrong thing, I dont. I have sympathy for anyone wrongly imprisoned. and if britain relased the guys 2 minutes after they got there then they either went on us realeasing them as proof of innocence or they didnt do a very good job of checking them out. if you want to believe that we are wrong, fine, we may very well be. but you dont know anymore than I do, you are going on nothing but emotion. you FEEL its wrong. you try to paint me as some kind of monster or robot for not geting all emotional about it too. sorry drew, but I am not going to get all hysterical about it when I dont know all the facts. your going on what released prisoners and left wing pressure groups are saying, hardly objective or reliable sources.

Originally posted by Travh20
you are stating your opinion, jsut like me. your opinion happens to think we are doing the wrong thing, I dont. (…)Your going on what released prisoners and left wing pressure groups are saying, hardly objective or reliable sources.

It's funny to read this from you ! Because the difference between you and Drew (and many other) is precisely that while you only post your opinions, never giving any source or fact to support them, Drew has been arguing on this topic (and many others) with precise data, quotes from newspapers, etc… Maybe these sources are biased, in this case tell us why. And please support your opinion with something. Then you will start to become more credible and maybe in the process you will have to check the facts.

Originally posted by Travh20
drew, have you been to cuba and to the prison? do you know the story of each and every inmate? no, you dont know shit. you are stating your opinion, jsut like me. your opinion happens to think we are doing the wrong thing, I dont. I have sympathy for anyone wrongly imprisoned. and if britain relased the guys 2 minutes after they got there then they either went on us realeasing them as proof of innocence or they didnt do a very good job of checking them out. if you want to believe that we are wrong, fine, we may very well be. but you dont know anymore than I do, you are going on nothing but emotion. you FEEL its wrong. you try to paint me as some kind of monster or robot for not geting all emotional about it too. sorry drew, but I am not going to get all hysterical about it when I dont know all the facts. your going on what released prisoners and left wing pressure groups are saying, hardly objective or reliable sources.

Trav it's not an issue of opinion - it's an issue of fact. Facts like :

- Military tribunals are a travesty of justice - just look at the process and tell me that it isn't
- The UK released these guys immediatelty
- They spent 2 years locked up in Cuba
- A 13 year old "terrorist" was locked up - God knows what threat that kid was to the US not to mention how he would have ever even got to the US to commit a terrorist act (maybe blow up a daycare center perhaps with explosive furry toys?)

If you think these facts are wrong then tell me why - I don't care to debate your opinion - Your opinion is already an open book and cannot be debated.

Originally posted by Travh20
when was the last time there was a military tribunal? how about one hat wrongly accused someone? can you tell us the case and show us the evidence? it sounds more like YOU dont trust the military, not that you have any real proof of a real reason to not trust a military tribunal

I have my reservations about the impartiality of military tribunals in general because of their lack of accountability.

Regarding a military tribunal that wrongly accused someone, there is the example of the captain of the U.S.S. Indianapolis...he was tried by a court-martial and convicted of "hazarding his ship and crew by failing to zig-zag". It took the Navy 56 years to admit that he never should have been court-martialed. For more info:

http://www.ussindianapolis.org/

I'm curious Trav, you want these Guantanamo detainees tried by a military tribunal. What would they be charged with? They are being held as POW's at the moment, and international law forbids putting POW's on trial.

Pagan, there is a big diffeence between trying foreigners in military tribunals and trying our own service men by court martial under the UCMJ.

pagan, we captured these guys in battle. we could have killed them, but they were captured, so legally we cant just kill them to get out of having to deal with them. so what do you do with them? if they are POW's you holdthem until the end of the war and let them go. since there doesnt seem to be an end to the war its looks like a long haul for these guys, hence the tribuanls, they wouldnt neccesarilly be charged with anything, unless we had specific evidence against them, it would be more to see if they were still a threat to rejoin the terorist. becasue there is no country to capitualte and end the war, this is the only way. What do you do with a terrorst you capture that comes from a country you cant trust to release them too? you do exactly what we did. it is extraordinary circumstances? for sure, but so was 9-11

Originally posted by Travh20
Pagan, there is a big diffeence between trying foreigners in military tribunals and trying our own service men by court martial under the UCMJ.

Indeed there is a lot of difference but it doesn't give me confidence in the military's ability to dispense justice fairly.

pagan, we captured these guys in battle. we could have killed them, but they were captured, so legally we cant just kill them to get out of having to deal with them. so what do you do with them? if they are POW's you holdthem until the end of the war and let them go. since there doesnt seem to be an end to the war its looks like a long haul for these guys, hence the tribuanls, they wouldnt neccesarilly be charged with anything, unless we had specific evidence against them, it would be more to see if they were still a threat to rejoin the terorist. becasue there is no country to capitualte and end the war, this is the only way. What do you do with a terrorst you capture that comes from a country you cant trust to release them too? you do exactly what we did. it is extraordinary circumstances? for sure, but so was 9-11

Ok...so you admit we will either have to let them go at some point, or try them by military tribunal...again I ask, what would the charges be?

Trav - we didn't capture these in battle - we rounded them up in Afganistan - including the 13 year old kid.

If you remember we bombed Afganistan until they gave up & then we moved in.

we didnt just drive by and pick these guys up for no good reason. I know some of your opinions about our military are a littel skewed, but i can assure you people in the military are normal people like you would meet any day. they are not mindless robots.

if the guy there are all innocent, and just picked up for no reason, why are there not more of them? why not have thousands down there? why would we even tell anyone about it?all your arguments sound good and humanitarian, but when looked at with a realistic eye just dont hold up. they are thee for a reason. the ones who arent are released.

Originally posted by Travh20

if the guy there are all innocent, and just picked up for no reason, why are there not more of them? why not have thousands down there? why would we even tell anyone about it?all your arguments sound good and humanitarian, but when looked at with a realistic eye just dont hold up. they are thee for a reason. the ones who arent are released.

What's the reason?

If these guys are POW's they can't be charged with anything...if they're not POW's then we should have been able to find evidence in the past 2+ years to try them in court. We should either try them or release them.

Trav - nobody ever said anything negative about the military - you read between the lines and make 1+1=3.

Nobody ever said these guys were all innocent - some are, we know that factually.

The problem is you automatically think in extremes - if a person is not far right then they must automatically be far left, hate the military, hate America and want guilty people to walk free.

Can'y you look at these issues rationally or does that shake the bedrock too much?