Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/28/04 08:56 AM, H-Dawg wrote:

At 1/28/04 01:09 AM, Jimsween wrote:

if it was MY brother, sister, father, or myself, when I think a little harder, I PROBABLY WOULD think that 3 years in prison with no trial or evidence in a military prison was PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TREATMENT for any human being, ESPECIALLY when such a fair, democratic leader like George Bush - and such a SMART leader - says that's what has to be done!! Thanks, Sween, for clearing that up for me.

So your entire point is based on the blind rage of people who have been wronged, wow, you should just stop talking. And you managed to make it even more clear that you have no idea what the appeals process is. Your on a roll H-Dawg, all you have to do is call Bush stupid and.... oh... looks like you beat me to the punch.

All that idiotic ranting and still you managed to make it more obvious you have no idea what the appeals process is. Good for you.

OH and I ALSO LIKE to CAPITALIZE words, IT makes me FEEL BIG!

Ummmm, so, do you have a counter argument in there somewhere? Or should I spell out my SATIRICAL one in CAPITALS so you can understand it better?

Funny that you are asking me for a counter argument, when not one of your posts adressed mine at all.

a major point here, well two.
first one bumcheekcity(i think) went some way to addressing; is that they are not prisoners of war, but are in fact "battlefield detainees". as per the terms of the geneva convention, because they were not wearing the minimum70%(or so) "visible battle dress" required for legal combatant status, they basically have no rights.

secondly they were all arrested(so far as i have been able to tell, there is basically one source that has any credibility in the matter at all, the american government) during confrontations with allied troops. i really do not see how they could very easily make the mistake of arresting a guy without any weapons and who wasn't putting up any resistance at all.

Two points, first you should believe everything the government tells you. Second, if American special forces go in civilian clothing or remove all idtneification as US troops and are capture, would you expect them to be treated as POWs or as battlefiled detainees? And whats the reason for continueing to hold them while denying them legal rights?

i would expect all soldiers taking that risk to be treated as per the terms of the geneva convention.

there are very good reasons for holding the detainees, such as; interrogations(that may well save lives), investigation of their cases and any information they may divulge during interrogation, and preventing them from doing further harm. it would look pretty bad if they were released only to start trying to kill allied troops again wouldn't it?

as for not trusting everything the government says; i don't "trust" anyone but myself. but when the only remotely reliable source of information is the govenrment then i really have no choice, i can either accept their account or make something up off the top of my head with no basis in fact whatsoever.

At 1/29/04 10:31 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: i would expect all soldiers taking that risk to be treated as per the terms of the geneva convention.

there are very good reasons for holding the detainees, such as; interrogations(that may well save lives), investigation of their cases and any information they may divulge during interrogation, and preventing them from doing further harm. it would look pretty bad if they were released only to start trying to kill allied troops again wouldn't it?

Idea! Maybe a solution to this problem of holding people who, for all we know and until proven guilty, may well be innocent schmuks is to not treat them like prisoners but like guests. They should get paid a very good salary (say $150 a day on top of compensation for any loss in their incomes?), a guarantee that their old jobs will be there for them when they return, free gourmet food, free clothing and expenses allowances, and the ability to visit friends and family if closely supervised. They also shouldn't be in a prison but in hotel rooms. This would serve a couple of purposes: #1, those prisoners would be more humanly treated, particularly since there is no evidence or charges, and #2, if the US government was paying for their upkeep and the American public knew about it, maybe they would get a little quicker about trying those people.

do you want to actually contribute to the discusion or are you just going to make lots of stupid remarks?

Dawg, your ignorance amazes me EVERY SINGLE TIME. You see if they were kept in a hotel room, waht would porevent them from saving that money, leaving the hotel, and going to the nearest airport. If the hotel is put under guard, it is no longer a hotel, but becomes a prison:

WORDWEB:

prison 1)A prisonlike situation; a place of seeming confinement
2)A correctional institution where persons are confined while on trial or for punishment

hotel A building where travelers can pay for lodging and meals and other services

As you see what you suggest would no longer be a hotel

At 1/29/04 11:01 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: do you want to actually contribute to the discusion or are you just going to make lots of stupid remarks?

A) I started the discussion;
B) Guys, get a sense of humour!! An important political strategy has always been to take rediculous policies or concepts and follow them through to their absurd ends, to show how absurd those ideas really are, and what might happen if they are adopted. And an absurdity today is tomorrow's status quo. A great example of this sort of political satire is Johnathan Swift's famous "A Modest Proposal" ftp://gutenberg.mirror.cygnal.ca/pub/gutenberg/etext97/mdprp10.txt
My point was to underline the absurdly bad treatment we are dealing those prisoners when, for all we know, they have done nothing wrong! If there was any possibility of justice for those people given the present conditions of their incarceration, my "modest proposal" was meant to show the absurd length we should go to to make up for their abysmal treatment at the hands of the US government.

I heard they just let a couple of teen-agers go from Guantanamo Bay. Teenagers. They should have been in school, going to parties with their friends, hanging out at the mall, but because they fit a racial profile (and I know there are other reasons, but really, how many whites are in Guantanamo, even if they are friends of Timothy McVeigh?) they have been stuck in prison for months and months with no trial and no real evidence. This topic continues to enrage me!!

wow they must be racist if there are less white people than not in quantanamo bay!

even though the VAST majority of people in afghanistan were not white.

At 2/6/04 12:50 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: wow they must be racist if there are less white people than not in quantanamo bay!

even though the VAST majority of people in afghanistan were not white.

Does that make all Afghani's terrorists? This wasn't supposed to be a war on Afghanistan, it was supposed to FREE Afghanis from terrorism.

Let me clarify that - are all terrorists exclusively non-white? Because that is what racial profiling subtly implies. In practice, i think what racial profiling means is that U.S. sanctioned terrorism (eg: in Nicaragua, technically in Iraq) and terrorism by whites is generally overlooked, whereas "terrorism" by non-whites (or freedom-fighting, depending on what colour you are, apparently) or even suspected links with non-white terrorists can land you in Guantanamo bay. N'est pas?

what does the colour of the inmates of guantanamo bay's skin colour have to do with their incarceration therin?

i'll make it easy for you the word you're looking for is "NOTHING".

racial profiling is unfortunate but neccessary. the simple fact is that statistically there are a great many more arab muslims than there are whites. therefore an arab is statistically more likely to be a muslim. if we can assume that roughly the same percentage of both ethnicities will be terrorists(within our hypothetical muslim demographic)(which is unlikely as there is a great deal less islamic fundamentalist influence in the western world), then there will be more arab terrorists than whites. it's not racism, it's numbers.

At 1/28/04 05:22 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 1/28/04 11:45 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

At 1/28/04 01:11 AM, Jimsween wrote: Seclusion camps, but certianly not concentration camps. The y weren't gassing and starving the Japanese.

No just locking them up for no real reason other than the ethinic background. Hell some of them had never been to JApan. Oh and taking away all their possesions and sellign them off, and not reembursing them for their losses. A concentration camp doesnt need gassing and executions, thats an extermination camp.

Oh I see, you simply called them concentration camps for shock value. Selling peoples possesions and locking them up is nowhere near as bad as what happened in the concentration camps, so unless you were only comparing the two to imply that the US is as bad as the NAZI's, your completely wrong. It must feel real good to have weak enough convictions that you feel perfectly fine about misleading people.

Listen, dumb-ass, read back a number of posts and you'll see that another discussant has already made the distinction between concentration camp (meaning a concentration of prisoners) and an extermination camp (which the Nazi's used, for example at Auschwitz). Guantanamo Bay is most definitely a concentration of prisoners, and is identicle to what happened to Japanese Canadians during WWII in similar west-coast concentration camps. David Suzuki's parents went through that treatment at the hands of a reactionary, racist Canadian government at the time. Really, if you want to make flames, get some better fuel.

concentration camp
n.
1.A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
2. place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

n : a penal camp where political prisoners or prisoners of war are confined (usually under harsh conditions) [syn: stockade]

generally a concentration camp is considered by many to carry certain negative connotations, it might have been wise to inform people reading exactly how you intended it, rather than allow them their own interperetation.

So you don't think that being imprisoned for no reason, for an indeterminant length of time isn't cruel or unusual punishment, aka harsh?

C Camps, Its all happened before, is histroy repeating itself now?

At 2/6/04 01:38 PM, H-Dawg wrote: So you don't think that being imprisoned for no reason, for an indeterminant length of time isn't cruel or unusual punishment, aka harsh?

that would be, but those aren't the circumstances of the inmates of guantanamo bay.

"battlefield detainee", that is their official status. so called because they were arrested in connection with al-queda/the taliban or while fighting for them. the actual chance of them not being terrorists is near zero. they were illegal combatants and are being treated as such. had they researched the legislation concerning their circumstances then they would have known what to expect. they have nobody to blame for their current situation but themselves.

At 2/6/04 01:48 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 2/6/04 01:38 PM, H-Dawg wrote: So you don't think that being imprisoned for no reason, for an indeterminant length of time isn't cruel or unusual punishment, aka harsh?

that would be, but those aren't the circumstances of the inmates of guantanamo bay.

"battlefield detainee", that is their official status. so called because they were arrested in connection with al-queda/the taliban or while fighting for them. the actual chance of them not being terrorists is near zero. they were illegal combatants and are being treated as such. had they researched the legislation concerning their circumstances then they would have known what to expect. they have nobody to blame for their current situation but themselves.

That would presume that the U.S. military personnell who arrested and detained these people were being fair and following reasonable protocol in all of the cases, which is clearly not the case. Read:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/guan-j03.shtml
Also, had there not been a war on the entire country of Afghanistan, which I'm not so sure was necessary, most of those prisoners would not have been put in the position by the US of being prisoners of war in the first place. I mean, it has been proven that there are terrorist cells in the US, it has been proven by the World Court that US is technically a terrorist state, but there are no full-scale wars going on on American soil to ferret out and kill terrorists. It's all well-and-good to talk about the technicalities of war-jargon and legal precidents, but the law can only refer to the law, not to the human rights of the people it was meant to "protect," and the law really is about who has the power to enforce the law, which is always the U.S..

And here's yet another article outlining the unfair treatment of Afghanistan in Bush's war on terror by Noam Chomski on Znet (a great source for anyone interested in political issues, by the way):
http://www.zmag.org/lakdawalalec.htm

" it has been proven by the World Court that US is technically a terrorist state"

now i'm actually beggining to think you just like trolling these forums.

At 2/7/04 07:14 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: " it has been proven by the World Court that US is technically a terrorist state"

now i'm actually beggining to think you just like trolling these forums.

Oh really? Well, here's what Noam Chomski on the subject:
"Suppose you want to bring a president of the U.S. to justice. They’re guilty of horrendous terrorist acts. There’s a way to do it. In fact, there are precedents. Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed, it may never recover. The effects on the country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They didn’t respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called “unlawful use of force,” which means international terrorism, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which passed a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution that passed near–unanimously, which the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row (joined once by El Salvador). That’s the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the measures the U.S. could pursue, and nobody’s going to block it. That’s what they’re being asked to do by people throughout the region, including their allies" (from an interview with Chomski, "The United States is a Leading Terrorist State" _Monthly Review_ 53.6). To read the full article, go to: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm. Now if you want me to collect the actual World Court documents, well, tough - I'm not your teacher. Go do your own research.

At 1/20/04 02:05 PM, Stuporman wrote: Nahh, you're right...it's always been going on. Many a treaty has been broken by the US in the past. The US's catchphrase has been "we do what we damn well feel like doing and we're ready to kick ass if you think otherwise" ever since we told King George III of England to go screw himself.

Yes we are the bad guys.

We have broken so many treaties concerning research into illegal weapons and weapons testing (unlike the pure Soviet Union and their massive biological/chemical weapons program [in violation of the CBT] and the righteous French [who detonates nukes whenever and wherever they please regardless of treaties covering nuke testing]).

The truth is we are cleaning up a mess made by most of the other powers of this world who destroyed themselves between 1910 and 1945 so completely that they could no longer control the vast colonies and empires they had built up.

As for Getmo being a "concentration camp" your word usage is misleading (purposely perhaps?). We are not gassing the prisoners, nor are we killing them like cattle. We are treating them harshly (when compared to a law-abiding citizen) but these are people who indiscriminately murder innocents in Jihad to cleanse the world of infidels!

Why don't you go live in these countries ruled by the Sha' ria and then see how you like it. The people at Getmo are not good people.

At 2/7/04 09:04 PM, TheMason wrote: As for Getmo being a "concentration camp" your word usage is misleading (purposely perhaps?). We are not gassing the prisoners, nor are we killing them like cattle. We are treating them harshly

concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

At 2/7/04 09:08 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 2/7/04 09:04 PM, TheMason wrote: As for Getmo being a "concentration camp" your word usage is misleading (purposely perhaps?). We are not gassing the prisoners, nor are we killing them like cattle. We are treating them harshly

concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

Exactly, Skunk. Not only that, the prisoners are in there without real evidence and for an indeterminant length of time. Cruel and unusual punishment which is kinda harsh, n'est pas? And Mason, didn't you read the TWO previous times in this string where the definitions of concentration camp and death camp were clarified and contrasted? This is an old, already dead issue.

At 1/29/04 11:09 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: Dawg, your ignorance amazes me EVERY SINGLE TIME. You see if they were kept in a hotel room, waht would porevent them from saving that money, leaving the hotel, and going to the nearest airport. If the hotel is put under guard, it is no longer a hotel, but becomes a prison:

So, then we keep innocent men in a concentration camp? Bear in mind they are innocent. They have done NOTHING wrong, and have yet to be charged.

and you know they are innocent how exactly? i take it you have evidence?

At 2/8/04 06:04 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: and you know they are innocent how exactly? i take it you have evidence?

They're innocent, because they haven't been charged. For your source, have a poke around at Amnesty International. They're doing up their websit,e so I can't find the page, but it'll be on there somewhere.

At 2/8/04 06:04 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: and you know they are innocent how exactly? i take it you have evidence?

You only have to prove someone's guilty. Otherwise, they are innocent until proven guilty, at least for U.S. citizens. But I guess we don't judge "foreigners" as being as deserving of human rights as we "higher" American beings! (*gag*)

At 2/8/04 09:27 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: They're innocent, because they haven't been charged. For your source, have a poke around at Amnesty International. They're doing up their websit,e so I can't find the page, but it'll be on there somewhere.

That doesn't mean that they are innocent, it just means that you don't know what exactly they are there for.