Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Troll · Jun 21, 2006, 08:38 AM

Wow!! FINALLY! This is great news. Guantanamo has really hurt the US's image and ending the abuse can only be a good thing for the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5102528.stm

US President George W Bush has said he understands European concerns over the US prison at Guantanamo Bay and he "would like it to end".

Mr Bush pledged to send detainees back to their home countries, but added that the outcome must not result in freeing "people who can do us harm".

The comments came after talks with EU leaders at a one-day summit in Vienna.

Leaders also discussed trade, global energy security, climate change, Iraq and the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Socially Awkward Solo · Jun 21, 2006, 09:02 AM

Good, now onto the 1000 other causes for the US bad image.

chabig · Jun 21, 2006, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

Wow!! FINALLY! This is great news. Guantanamo has really hurt the US's image and ending the abuse can only be a good thing for the US.

I agree with you completely. The U.S. has taken a lot of abuse for keeping dangerous prisoners in a prison. Ending the abuse that the U.S. has suffered can only be a good thing.

Troll · Jun 21, 2006, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by chabig

I agree with you completely. The U.S. has taken a lot of abuse for keeping dangerous prisoners in a prison. Ending the abuse that the U.S. has suffered can only be a good thing.

If they were so dangerous, how come the US released a whole heap of them two years down the line? If there had been due process, the guys that weren't dangerous would have been separated out long ago.

BRussell · Jun 21, 2006, 09:48 AM

Troll do you really believe this means something? Nothing will change.

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by BRussell

Troll do you really believe this means something? Nothing will change.

Very true. Nothing will change. It's not like GWB suddenly found his concience behind his bed or something

V

Y3a · Jun 21, 2006, 09:58 AM

Due process! LOL How about dropping them out of airplanes on the way back to drop them over the cities in the middle-east?

If it wasn't for the US, who would protect the Europeans? They sure can't do it. (Think commie Spain, and Islamic France...)

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Y3a

blahblah

what about the ignorant, overweight, inbred, redneck, hick United States?

V

ghporter · Jun 21, 2006, 10:13 AM

Ummmm, what would YOU do with a large number of violent fanatics willing to die very violently to undermine and destroy your way of life? They had to do something with these people-who, remember, were captured on the battlefield under arms but not in uniform, violating the Law of Armed Conflict in a number of ways (hey, what's a little "firing on your opponent from a hospital or mosque, or hiding among women and children, eh?). These are not simple goat herds who were rounded up by some oppressive group (like the Taliban or Sadam's secret police), but actual combatants-UNLAWFUL combatants.

And there's something else I'd like to point out. They are not being held on criminal charges, so where's the issue about lawyers? Did U.S. POWs get lawyers when the Germans captured them? (Let's not even discuss the North Vietnamese treatment of U.S. POWs.) No, because they were captured by a military force in combat. There's a huge difference between military captives and civil captives. And these guys are not even covered by the protections POWs get because POWs, by definition, are LAWFUL combatants, wearing uniforms, complying with military protocols, etc.

Kevin · Jun 21, 2006, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Ummmm, what would YOU do with a large number of violent fanatics willing to die very violently to undermine and destroy your way of life? They had to do something with these people-who, remember, were captured on the battlefield under arms but not in uniform, violating the Law of Armed Conflict in a number of ways (hey, what's a little "firing on your opponent from a hospital or mosque, or hiding among women and children, eh?). These are not simple goat herds who were rounded up by some oppressive group (like the Taliban or Sadam's secret police), but actual combatants-UNLAWFUL combatants.

And there's something else I'd like to point out. They are not being held on criminal charges, so where's the issue about lawyers? Did U.S. POWs get lawyers when the Germans captured them? (Let's not even discuss the North Vietnamese treatment of U.S. POWs.) No, because they were captured by a military force in combat. There's a huge difference between military captives and civil captives. And these guys are not even covered by the protections POWs get because POWs, by definition, are LAWFUL combatants, wearing uniforms, complying with military protocols, etc.

Come on gh, lets not let facts get in the way.

Sky Captain · Jun 21, 2006, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by voodoo

what about the ignorant, overweight, inbred, redneck, hick United States?

V

STFU Bigot.

moodymonster · Jun 21, 2006, 10:50 AM

I think a lot of them in there were handed in to the US just to make money, not because they were AQ/Taleban.

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

STFU Bigot.

V

Troll · Jun 21, 2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

They had to do something with these people-who, remember, were captured on the battlefield under arms

Not true, a lot of them were captured in Pakistan and a lot of them were handed over to US troops by warlords. The US released people that courts determined had nothing at all to do with the Al Qaeda or any military action whatsoever.

Originally Posted by ghporter

They are not being held on criminal charges, so where's the issue about lawyers? Did U.S. POWs get lawyers when the Germans captured them?

This makes no sense since they aren't being treated as POWs. If you're a POW, you have all kinds of rights that these guys don't have. They aren't POWs and haven't been charged with ANYTHING. The US claims that they're in a legal black hole. We've shown legally why that analysis is wrong before and I don't want to go into it again. The simple point is that if a country wants to have a good reputation for human rights holding people for years without charge or legal representation isn't the way to go about it - even if the people you're holding are suspected terrorists.

I'm not sure this will make a huge difference, but I like the trend. To date, they've defended Gitmo to high hilt. Now at least they're realising what an attrocious abuse of human rights it is. I'll tell you something though - this does make me wonder what the Saudi autopsies on the guys who "committed suicide" are going to reveal. The timing of this is rather suspicious.

typoon · Jun 21, 2006, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

Wow!! FINALLY! This is great news. Guantanamo has really hurt the US's image and ending the abuse can only be a good thing for the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5102528.stm

Abuse? okay. Let's see they are allowed 3 meals a day, They are given Prayer rugs, they are allowed fresh air, They are given Koran's. If that is abuse then hell all prisoners should be abused like that.

Sky Captain · Jun 21, 2006, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by voodoo

V

You're still a bigot.

olePigeon · Jun 21, 2006, 11:35 AM

Leaders also discussed trade, global energy security, climate change, Iraq and the Iranian nuclear crisis.

"OK, we'll close Guantanamo as long as we don't have to hear about this "climate" sh*t."

Kr0nos · Jun 21, 2006, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Y3a

If it wasn't for the US, who would protect the Europeans? They sure can't do it. (Think commie Spain, and Islamic France...)

Protect us from what? A bunch of middle-eastern goatfarmers?

Y3a · Jun 21, 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

STFU Bigot.

Gee, whats wrong with you today? Cut your back while shaving?

UNTeMac · Jun 21, 2006, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

what about the ignorant, overweight, inbred, redneck, hick United States?

V

Now now, Y3a isn't all of us.

Sky Captain · Jun 21, 2006, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Gee, whats wrong with you today? Cut your back while shaving?

You wouldn be so rude to my face.

ThinkInsane · Jun 21, 2006, 01:15 PM

What an excellent opportunity to pay Castro back for the Marial boat lift where he empty Cuba's jails into our back yards. I say toss these prisoners right over the fence into Cuba proper and let them blow up Fidel's **** for a while.

Wiskedjak · Jun 21, 2006, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Ummmm, what would YOU do with a large number of violent fanatics willing to die very violently to undermine and destroy your way of life?

Keep them behind bars.

What would you with the large number of non-violent, innocent Arabs being imprisioned along side the fanatics, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by UNTeMac

Now now, Y3a isn't all of us.

I made that overly descriptive generalization in response of his generalization in a (probably vain) attempt to demonstrate that like we don't all (or even a significant part) fall under his desscription, neither do Americans fall under mine.

I wonder if he cought it..

V

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

You're still a bigot.

..and you still don't get it.

V

Kevin · Jun 21, 2006, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

I made that overly descriptive generalization in response of his generalization in a (probably vain) attempt to demonstrate that like we don't all (or even a significant part) fall under his desscription, neither do Americans fall under mine.

I wonder if he cought it..

You explain it like it was some clever ploy.

It was silly. And not needed.

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

You explain it like it was some clever ploy.

It was silly. And not needed.

You don't get it either.

V

Kevin · Jun 21, 2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

You don't get it either.

Oh I got your point. I just don't think you did a good job putting it out there.

It was tactless.

K

Sky Captain · Jun 21, 2006, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

..and you still don't get it.

V

I do, you're a bigot.
Otherwise the thought would have never entered your head. Bigot.

And I would say it to your face.

davesimondotcom · Jun 21, 2006, 04:15 PM

So when do we start treating them like they treat us? And by that, I mean slowly sawing their heads off.

Oh, right, let's get back on topic about how the US is bad and everyone else is pure and good.

BTW, congrats to voodoo on officially being clinically insane. (I'm talking about post count, not making a personal attack.)

typoon · Jun 21, 2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Keep them behind bars.

What would you with the large number of non-violent, innocent Arabs being imprisioned along side the fanatics, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

HOw do you know they are innocent? Many of them were captured while fighting our forces. Those "innocent" ones who were released some if not all have gone back to fight our troops again.

BRussell · Jun 21, 2006, 05:00 PM

Clearly this guy who says about Gitmo that he "would like it to end" and "send detainees back to their home countries" is an unhinged leftist anti-American Bush-hating Saddam-loving fascist who wants the terrorists to win.

FeLiZeCaT · Jun 21, 2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Due process! LOL How about dropping them out of airplanes on the way back to drop them over the cities in the middle-east?

If it wasn't for the US, who would protect the Europeans? They sure can't do it. (Think commie Spain, and Islamic France...)

Don't take it personal, but, somehow, I am sure that whenever you speak, there is a strong smell of low tide. Am I not right?

Seriously, wipe your nose; you might learn something about yourself.

FeLiZeCaT · Jun 21, 2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by UNTeMac

Now now, Y3a isn't all of us.

You're right. The only thing we can hope for, is a nation for the bigot diaspora; those would be worth nuking big time.

analogika · Jun 21, 2006, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

You're still a bigot.

Maybe so, but he WAS replying to Y3a.

analogika · Jun 21, 2006, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh I got your point. I just don't think you did a good job putting it out there.

It was tactless.

K

Well, he WAS replying to Y3a...

analogika · Jun 21, 2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

HOw do you know they are innocent? Many of them were captured while fighting our forces. Those "innocent" ones who were released some if not all have gone back to fight our troops again.

Isn't finding out WHO is innocent and who ISN'T what "due process" is about?

I actually remember when the US was still a Beacon of Freedom™ and "innocent until proven guilty" had the same meaning as in civilized countries.

Y3a · Jun 21, 2006, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Don't take it personal, but, somehow, I am sure that whenever you speak, there is a strong smell of low tide. Am I not right?

Seriously, wipe your nose; you might learn something about yourself.

Do you always impress youself with such nonsense?

Is spain STILL a commie haven?
Isn't france still having its collective chain yanked by the islamic occupiers?

No comments about THAT, but the personal attack is taken for what it's worth, and where.

analogika · Jun 21, 2006, 05:58 PM

Spain a commie heaven? "Still"?

When was Spain EVER a "Commie heaven"?

And didn't you get the memo? The McCarthy Era is over. No, really.

Y3a · Jun 21, 2006, 06:02 PM

Haven <> Heaven..

FeLiZeCaT · Jun 21, 2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Do you always impress youself with such nonsense?

Me? Certainly not.

You? Big time.

Now what kind of soap do you want to wash that mouth of yours?

ghporter · Jun 21, 2006, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Troll

Not true, a lot of them were captured in Pakistan and a lot of them were handed over to US troops by warlords. The US released people that courts determined had nothing at all to do with the Al Qaeda or any military action whatsoever.

The Pakistanis didn't just go out and round up goatherds either. They DID capture people with guns who were doing violence on the other side of their Afghan border and then hiding in Pakistan. That makes them pretty much the same thing as battlefield captures.

Originally Posted by Troll

This makes no sense since they aren't being treated as POWs. If you're a POW, you have all kinds of rights that these guys don't have. They aren't POWs and haven't been charged with ANYTHING. The US claims that they're in a legal black hole. We've shown legally why that analysis is wrong before and I don't want to go into it again. The simple point is that if a country wants to have a good reputation for human rights holding people for years without charge or legal representation isn't the way to go about it - even if the people you're holding are suspected terrorists.

They ARE in a legal black hole. The Conventions call for specific treatment of every single captive who has a legal status. It is silent on illegal combatants. No rules, no standards, nothing. Remember what the Germans did to Partisans they captured-in spite of the Partisans' wearing distinctive uniform items (covered in the Conventions and thus making them lawful combatants) the Germans executed them as spies. We locked these dudes up and fed them. Big difference.

The whole point is that U.S. civil law has absolutely no connection to people captured in a combat zone. The zone is neither U.S. territory nor covered by any U.S. civil extraterritoriality. No connection at all! Civil law-those laws covering civilan issues from murder to treason-in the U.S. does not apply in or around combat off U.S. soil. So we're treading lightly and not "trying" people captured on the battlefield until the rules are settled. And of course there are issues about international monitoring and such that take a long time to even start working out. Isn't it better to keep them locked up than to decide what to do with them rashly or hurridly? Especially since the majority who were shown to be just caught up in what the Taliban were doing have already been released (those who haven't weren't just caught up)?

Originally Posted by Troll

I'm not sure this will make a huge difference, but I like the trend. To date, they've defended Gitmo to high hilt. Now at least they're realising what an attrocious abuse of human rights it is. I'll tell you something though - this does make me wonder what the Saudi autopsies on the guys who "committed suicide" are going to reveal. The timing of this is rather suspicious.

Why is it so hard to accept that these guys are, for the most part, fanatically committed to doing anything at all to hurt us? That they were ready to die in combat or worse, wearing a bomb vest, and that now they're willing to kill themselves for some negative press against the U.S.? Really, is that so hard to accept?

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 21, 2006, 07:30 PM

This is ridiculous. The Bush Administration is not about to reverse the US prosecution of the War on Terror. It's the centerpiece of the Bush presidency, not to mention US foreign policy and has received bipartisan support in Congress and was the issue largely responsible for Bush's reelection. That is especially not going to happen when the Hamdan case decision is pending before the Supreme Court. Nor is it going to happen in response to pressure from the suicide of some terrorists. And especially not in a week when two US soldiers taken captive by al-Queda were brutally tortured and murdered in total defiance of all civilized standards of the conduct of war.

The BBC is just too parochial and frankly, institutionally too dim, to perceive that Bush simply knows how to be diplomatic and polite when he is a guest on foreign soil. That is all this is.

FeLiZeCaT · Jun 21, 2006, 07:35 PM

Let's wait and see.

Now as for Bush being polite, shall we translate that as republican appeasement?

vmarks · Jun 21, 2006, 08:49 PM

Call it appeasement, call it being a politician, call it compassionate conservatism.

Shoot, call it being nansy-pansy in Old Europe.

What we know is that more than a few of the people released from Gitmo have been recaptured, right back on the battlefield.

Wiskedjak · Jun 21, 2006, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Now as for Bush being polite, shall we translate that as republican appeasement?

Nice one!

davesimondotcom · Jun 21, 2006, 08:53 PM

I actually don't see anything in those statements that means the closing of Club Gitmo. When he says he wishs it to end he could mean the threat of terrorism, the interview or some gas pains he had at the time.

There are no specifics.

And I promise that if Gitmo closes, the prisoners, um, detainees, won't be free to go on their marry way. They'd end up in another prison somewhere.

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Do you always impress youself with such nonsense?

Is spain STILL a commie haven?
Isn't france still having its collective chain yanked by the islamic occupiers?

No comments about THAT, but the personal attack is taken for what it's worth, and where.

Spain never was a commie haven or heaven or any such thing. Quite the opposite.

I have no idea where you got that idea. If anything it was a nazi haven.

V

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I do, you're a bigot.
Otherwise the thought would have never entered your head. Bigot.

And I would say it to your face.

I think about a lot of things and I'm sure you'd say it to my face. Depending on how you'd say it would have a lot to do with if you'd walk out or be carried out though.

V

voodoo · Jun 21, 2006, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh I got your point. I just don't think you did a good job putting it out there.

It was tactless.

K

What comes around goes around.

V