Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: When Iraqi militants kidnap random Americans, it's considered outrageous, because it is outrageous.

Apples and oranges. "Random Americans" are civilians. Prisoners of war are enemy combatants, and thus are not civilians, and thus are not entitled to due process.

agentkgb wrote: Punished for what? We don't know they did anything.

Irrelevant, you are not the one determining punishment. Your personal knowledge of the situation is completely void in the discussion of prisoner "rights".

agentkgb wrote: I'm guessing.

Exactly.

agentkgb wrote: If I knew I had a chance for a trial, it would reduce the likelihood I would attempt to commit suicide, same thing if I were treated better.

Again, your personal views are irrelevant.

agentkgb wrote: The US came into their country and took them. It was basically kidnapping.

:td: :td: :td:

Kidnapping is the taking of a civilian. Those held within Gitmo are not civilians. Again, apples and oranges.

Your argument seems to be that we should allow prisoners to die because America "kidnapped" them. However, that entire point is irrelevant on the issue of prisoner "rights".

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: The government killing them would be them dying becaue the government wanted them to.

Prisoners have no choice, no rights, and their desires are completely irrelevant.

agentkgb wrote: The prisoner going on a hunger strike and dying would be dying because the prisoner wanted to.

Completely irrelevant. Prisoners are not sovereign persons, and thus have no choices or rights, and their desires are irrelevant.

agentkgb wrote: You seem to have a lot of faith in the morality of the government.

The law knows no morals.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: Punished for what? We don't know they did anything.

that's a dumb thing to say.

they're in gitmo for being militants. the military knows the exact reasons they're there. obviously you don't because you aren't in the military brass.
What about the71-year-old guy who was recently released?
SF Gate wrote: "We couldn't figure out why he was there," Ryan said. "He could barely walk and he could barely hear."

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: Punished for what? We don't know they did anything.

that's a dumb thing to say.

they're in gitmo for being militants. the military knows the exact reasons they're there. obviously you don't because you aren't in the military brass.
What about the71-year-old guy who was recently released?
SF Gate wrote: "We couldn't figure out why he was there," Ryan said. "He could barely walk and he could barely hear."

one person is sent to gitmo by mistake. and now that means they all were?

that's asinine.

[agentkgb]

It shows that people can get there despite not doing anything. If he were given a trial he would have been released earlier assuming the jury determined that he wasn't a threat. Also, he wasn't in the news until his release, there's no reason to believe that the military has it all fixed up now; it is quite possible that there are other completely innocent people at Gitmo.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: It shows that people can get there despite not doing anything. If he were given a trial he would have been released earlier assuming the jury determined that he wasn't a threat. Also, he wasn't in the news until his release, there's no reason to believe that the military has it all fixed up now; it is quite possible that there are other completely innocent people at Gitmo.


you're just guessing now.



there is no evidence AT ALL that the people remaining at gitmo(by the way something like 400 people have been released since the start of the war) are there for "no reason".

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: It shows that people can get there despite not doing anything. If he were given a trial he would have been released earlier assuming the jury determined that he wasn't a threat. Also, he wasn't in the news until his release, there's no reason to believe that the military has it all fixed up now; it is quite possible that there are other completely innocent people at Gitmo.


you're just guessing now.
That's kind of a little bit my point. I can't do anything but guess and neither can most Americans or most people. We don't know that these people are dangerous, and the government won't let them have a trial so there's no way to know. We jut have to take their word for it, and the US government doens't have a fantastic record on that issue.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: It shows that people can get there despite not doing anything. If he were given a trial he would have been released earlier assuming the jury determined that he wasn't a threat. Also, he wasn't in the news until his release, there's no reason to believe that the military has it all fixed up now; it is quite possible that there are other completely innocent people at Gitmo.


you're just guessing now.
That's kind of a little bit my point. I can't do anything but guess and neither can most Americans or most people. We don't know that these people are dangerous, and the government won't let them have a trial so there's no way to know. We jut have to take their word for it, and the US government doens't have a fantastic record on that issue.

considering they've released 400something back to iraq shows that the ones left are dangerous.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: It shows that people can get there despite not doing anything. If he were given a trial he would have been released earlier assuming the jury determined that he wasn't a threat. Also, he wasn't in the news until his release, there's no reason to believe that the military has it all fixed up now; it is quite possible that there are other completely innocent people at Gitmo.


you're just guessing now.
That's kind of a little bit my point. I can't do anything but guess and neither can most Americans or most people. We don't know that these people are dangerous, and the government won't let them have a trial so there's no way to know. We jut have to take their word for it, and the US government doens't have a fantastic record on that issue.

considering they've released 400something back to iraq shows that the ones left are dangerous.
How does it show that? It shows that 400 aren't dangerous but that means nothing about those remaining.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: It shows that people can get there despite not doing anything. If he were given a trial he would have been released earlier assuming the jury determined that he wasn't a threat. Also, he wasn't in the news until his release, there's no reason to believe that the military has it all fixed up now; it is quite possible that there are other completely innocent people at Gitmo.


you're just guessing now.
That's kind of a little bit my point. I can't do anything but guess and neither can most Americans or most people. We don't know that these people are dangerous, and the government won't let them have a trial so there's no way to know. We jut have to take their word for it, and the US government doens't have a fantastic record on that issue.

considering they've released 400something back to iraq shows that the ones left are dangerous.
How does it show that? It shows that 400 aren't dangerous but that means nothing about those remaining.

if the ones remaining weren't dangerous they would be released.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: if the ones remaining weren't dangerous they would be released.
agentkgb wrote: I can't do anything but guess and neither can most Americans or most people. We don't know that these people are dangerous, and the government won't let them have a trial so there's no way to know. We jut have to take their word for it, and the US government doens't have a fantastic record on that issue.
Again, why should I believe that the people still there are dangerous just because some other people were released?

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: if the ones remaining weren't dangerous they would be released.
agentkgb wrote: I can't do anything but guess and neither can most Americans or most people. We don't know that these people are dangerous, and the government won't let them have a trial so there's no way to know. We jut have to take their word for it, and the US government doens't have a fantastic record on that issue.
Again, why should I believe that the people still there are dangerous just because some other people were released?

common sense?

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: if the ones remaining weren't dangerous they would be released.
agentkgb wrote: I can't do anything but guess and neither can most Americans or most people. We don't know that these people are dangerous, and the government won't let them have a trial so there's no way to know. We jut have to take their word for it, and the US government doens't have a fantastic record on that issue.
Again, why should I believe that the people still there are dangerous just because some other people were released?

common sense?
The US doesn't have a tendency to exercise common sense when imprisoning people. Here the internment camps for Japanese come to mind. If I thought they used common sense now, then it would seem impossible to me that they would imprison 400 people who aren't dangerous, but they did.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote:
The US doesn't have a tendency to exercise common sense when imprisoning people. Here the internment camps for Japanese come to mind. If I thought they used common sense now, then it would seem impossible to me that they would imprison 400 people who aren't dangerous, but they did.


as lostsoul said, apples and oranges.


the internment camps were like a summer camp. gitmo is most deffinatly a prison.

the japanese were put there as a saftey precaution. the people at gitmo were found to be militants.

the japanese never tried to kill americans. the people at gitmo did.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote:
The US doesn't have a tendency to exercise common sense when imprisoning people. Here the internment camps for Japanese come to mind. If I thought they used common sense now, then it would seem impossible to me that they would imprison 400 people who aren't dangerous, but they did.
the internment camps were like a summer camp. gitmo is most deffinatly a prison.
This is even farther off-topic, but I doubt the Japanese felt like they were at summer camp. They probably felt like they were being unjustly imprisoned for no reason.
The Comrade wrote: the japanese were put there as a saftey precaution. the people at gitmo were found to be militants.
No, they weren't found to be militants. They haven't had a trial.
The Comrade wrote: the japanese never tried to kill americans. the people at gitmo did.
Again, I don't know that and since they've already released 400 people who weren't dangerous I am especially unwilling to take the government's word for it that they're dangerous.

[bigstick61]

The only ones which qualify as POWs legally are those who were/are members of the Taliban Army, since the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan. There is no need to try them, as they are not being held for crimes committed. In the case of many of the prisoners, however, they are accused of being terroists or non-legal combatants. In these cases they are being held on criminal accusations. However, they have been denied due process of law, the writ of habeus corpus, and they have been denied liberty without a conviction, without charges even. This is blatantly illegal. It is a violation of the Constitution and Common Law. Some who are citizens of allied countries were able to get out because proof was shown by heir governments that they were innocent; several of them were in fact kidnapped by bounty hunters seeking the bounty fo terrorists. They should be charged, and given a speedy trial through due process of law; it is their right. If they ae found guilty, they sould be executed; if they are innocent, they should be released. Some argue that the Constitution only protects US citizens, but this is false. The Constitution guarantees rights to all persons. Legal permanent residents of the US who were not also citizens could then be said to not have the right to due process, among other things, which is not true.

In the case of force-feeding, there's no constitutional or legal issues involved there. Prisons have an obligation to keep their prsoners alive and from harming themselves. They are just doing their job.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: This is even farther off-topic, but I doubt the Japanese felt like they were at summer camp. They probably felt like they were being unjustly imprisoned for no reason.

the conditions in those internment camps were very much NOT a prison.

but of course they felt they were there unjustly, because they were. gitmo prisoners however are there because of their actions in iraq.




agentkgb wrote: No, they weren't found to be militants. They haven't had a trial.

you're pulling a "ALALALALALLALA NOT LISTENING" right now.



agentkgb wrote: Again, I don't know that and since they've already released 400 people who weren't dangerous I am especially unwilling to take the government's word for it that they're dangerous.

the fact that 400 were released shows the government took the time to review why they were there and proved that they were of no danger.

[agentkgb]

bigstick61 wrote: The only ones which qualify as POWs legally are those who were/are members of the Taliban Army, since the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan. There is no need to try them, as they are not being held for crimes committed. In the case of many of the prisoners, however, they are accused of being terroists or non-legal combatants. In these cases they are being held on criminal accusations. However, they have been denied due process of law, the writ of habeus corpus, and they have been denied liberty without a conviction, without charges even. This is blatantly illegal. It is a violation of the Constitution and Common Law. Some who are citizens of allied countries were able to get out because proof was shown by heir governments that they were innocent; several of them were in fact kidnapped by bounty hunters seeking the bounty fo terrorists. They should be charged, and given a speedy trial through due process of law; it is their right. If they ae found guilty, they sould be executed; if they are innocent, they should be released. Some argue that the Constitution only protects US citizens, but this is false. The Constitution guarantees rights to all persons. Legal permanent residents of the US who were not also citizens could then be said to not have the right to due process, among other things, which is not true.
:tu:
bigstick61 wrote: In the case of force-feeding, there's no constitutional or legal issues involved there. Prisons have an obligation to keep their prsoners alive and from harming themselves. They are just doing their job. Not according to the district court judge in the original post. If it's a direct medical issue (diabetes, heart attacks, etc.) they have to provide them with medical care and keep them alive, but if the inmate wants to die it's another matter.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: This is even farther off-topic, but I doubt the Japanese felt like they were at summer camp. They probably felt like they were being unjustly imprisoned for no reason.

the conditions in those internment camps were very much NOT a prison.
I didn't say the conditions were like a prison, but they were imprisoned.
The Comrade wrote: but of course they felt they were there unjustly, because they were. gitmo prisoners however are there because of their actions in iraq.
Their kind of alleged actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: Again, I don't know that and since they've already released 400 people who weren't dangerous I am especially unwilling to take the government's word for it that they're dangerous.

the fact that 400 were released shows the government took the time to review why they were there and proved that they were of no danger.
It shows the government reviewed those 400 people's cases carefully eventually. It took an awfully long time for them to figure out that the 71-year-old wasn't a threat.

[LostSoul3412]

Seeing as how my past posts were ignored, I will restate my arguments in one phrase:

Prisoners do not have rights, and with that, they do not have the right to die.