As Gitmo Hunger Strike Continues, Lawyers Step Up Fight for Access

  • Thread starter Thread starter devotion2mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
SamCA:
Any thoughts on the fact that according to the US’ own intelligence, 70% to 90% of our Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, and are not in fact terrorists – and yet they’re being held without charges, and tortured, anyway?
Click to expand...
You got anything to back that up?
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Ah, a graduate of the Fox ‘News’ Channel school of ‘debating’ tactics

Mike
Click to expand...
Why, Mike, I thought you’d picked up your marbles and gone home.🙂
 
40.png
SamCA:
Any thoughts on the fact that according to the US’ own intelligence, 70% to 90% of our Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, and are not in fact terrorists – and yet they’re being held without charges, and tortured, anyway?
Click to expand...
My thought is that it more likely Cindy Sheehan claimed this than US intelligence. However I’ll give you the benfit of the doubt-can you point us to where US Intelligence said this?
 
40.png
estesbob:
My thought is that it more likely Cindy Sheehan claimed this than US intelligence. However I’ll give you the benfit of the doubt-can you point us to where US Intelligence said this?
Click to expand...
I asked the same question, and I eagerly await the answer.

Here’s a clue: The title to the thread is “As Gitmo Hunger Strike Continues, Lawyers Step Up Fight for Access.”

But SamCA says “Any thoughts on the fact that according to the US’ own intelligence, 70% to 90% of our Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, and are not in fact terrorists – and yet they’re being held without charges, and tortured, anyway?”

You see my point?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
 
vern humphrey:
Most of our wars have been undeclared. This war was authorized by Congress – and some of the people most stridently attacking it now voted for it.

Of course they are attacking it now! The only reasons they had for backing the president were based on crummy intelligence gathering and/or flat out lies - depending on how much credit you’re willing to give certain officials.

Wrong on two counts. The war in Iraq, while part of the general war on terrorism is based on consistent violations of the truce following the Gulf War.
Great. So now we’re fighting 2 different wars? History tells us that’s a real quick way to lose both, especially when the general population isn’t too enthusiastic about either.
Secondly, the organization that perpetrated the 9/11 attack is Al Qaeda. Most of the people at Gitmo are Al Qaeda.
**You do not know that and neither does anyone else here. We don’t even have names for most of them. **

So you are advancing the proposition that if we don’t fight evil everywhere in the world, at the same time, we can’t fight it anywhere, at any time?
**Since when was this a war on evil? Has the Pope made a statement that I’m unaware of endorsing this as some kind of crusade?? No. I’m advancing the proposition that we are supposed to be fighting a specific target with specific goals. Scatter-shot tactics don’t work. **

Nobody said Saddam Hussain was a key player in 9/11. But he was in violation of the truce terms and a danger to world peace.

Actually, that’s a hugely debatable issue. And again, not what the american population thought they were sending their sons and daughters to die for.

So we should have tried every Japanese, German, or Italian we captured in WWII? You mis-state the issue. These people are as legitimately prisoners as the Germans, Japanese, or Italian prisoners we captured in WWII.
Oh please, this is NOT the same as an opposing soldier dealt with in the line of combat. These are people brought in off the streets on suspicion. Some simply because of the way they look or because they donated money to their church. So you were okay with the Japanese and German american camps that the US created during that time?? Interesting. Most people consider it one of our more shamefull moments in history - including those who lived through it. Hence the reason it’s called the “red scare”.
 
You should use the quote factor properly – it’s hard to untangle your posts from the original you’re replying to.

I’ll address one point in this post. You said
**Oh please, this is NOT the same as an opposing soldier dealt with in the line of combat. These are people brought in off the streets on suspicion. **
Click to expand...
Tell me how many prisoners are in Gitmo who were “brought in off the streets on suspicion.”
 
vern humphrey:
You should use the quote factor properly – it’s hard to untangle your posts from the original you’re replying to.
You couldn’t figure out that you’re own words were in black and my replies were in purple???

Tell me how many prisoners are in Gitmo who were “brought in off the streets on suspicion.”
To the best of anyone’s knowledge - quite possibly all of them. They aren’t sending opposing fighters there are they - they’d have to declare them as P.O.W’s then wouldn’t they?
Click to expand...
 
Let me show you how it’s done:

Rob’s Wife said:
You couldn’t figure out that you’re own words were in black and my replies were in purple???
Click to expand...

I can figure them out – albeit with difficulty. The problem is that I have to keep jumping back and forth between my reply and the original post – because when I reply, your words do not appear in my reply form.

As a courtesy to other posters, please use the quote feature properly.
Rob's Wife:
To the best of anyone’s knowledge - quite possibly all of them. They aren’t sending opposing fighters there are they - they’d have to declare them as P.O.W’s then wouldn’t they?
You’re wrong. The people who were detained “on the streets” are in Iraq, not in Gitmo.

Those in GITMO are not POWs because they are not legitimate combatants. They wear no uniform, nor any insignia recognizeable at a distance, nor do they serve under a command responsible for their actions. To the contrary, they serve a criminal organization dedicated to the most horrific crimes.

Now, if you can present some facts here, with proper cites, I’ll gladly discuss them. But since you’ve so far only presented uninformed opinions, I think we’ve exhausted the issue.
 
Those in GITMO are not POWs because they are not legitimate combatants. They wear no uniform, nor any insignia recognizeable at a distance, nor do they serve under a command responsible for their actions.
Well now there you go. You should see my point then. That description could apply to anyone. If we are at war with them, we take them as prisoners during an act of war, that then makes them POW’s. Are you honestly going to claim that they can’t be POW’s because they don’t identify themselves via their appearance as our enemies?? Come on.
To the contrary, they serve a criminal organization dedicated to the most horrific crimes.
**All of that is yet to be proven to any degree for the GITMO detainees. **
Click to expand...
 
Rob’s Wife said:
**Well now there you go. You should see my point then. That description could apply to anyone. **
Click to expand...
To anyone? Are you equating US troops with terrorists?
Rob's Wife:
**If we are at war with them, we take them as prisoners during an act of war, that then makes them POW’s. **
Dead wrong.
Rob's Wife:
**Are you honestly going to claim that they can’t be POW’s because they don’t identify themselves via their appearance as our enemies?? Come on.
**
I certainly am. You need a quick course on the Geneva Convention. To claim status as a POW and protection under the Geneva Convention, one must wear a uniform or an insignia recognizeable at a distance and be under the command of an authority responsible for one’s actions.

One cannot rape, torture, and murder innocent civilians and claim to be a legitimate combatant.
**
Rob's Wife:
**All of that is yet to be proven to any degree for the GITMO detainees. ]

What has yet to be proven is any of your claims. Give us a cite to back up what you say.

And, out of courtesy to everyone else, learn to quote.
 
Very well, I’ll simplify it for you. You wrote:
To anyone? Are you equating US troops with terrorists?
Click to expand...
They wear no uniform, nor any insignia recognizeable at a distance, nor do they serve under a command responsible for their actions.
Click to expand...
Anyone who isn’t in a uniform could fit that description. Which may include some US military in certain operations. No, I don’t think US troops are terrorists.
I certainly am. You need a quick course on the Geneva Convention. To claim status as a POW and protection under the Geneva Convention, one must wear a uniform or an insignia recognizeable at a distance and be under the command of an authority responsible for one’s actions.
Click to expand...
.

So our gov’t has found a big fault in the Geneva Convention then because that is not logical nor is it common sense in the modern world of how wars are fought. The enemy rarely walks around in clothes declaring themselves the enemy anymore. We can no longer assume the good guys are in white hats and the bad guys are in black hats.
One cannot rape, torture, and murder innocent civilians and claim to be a legitimate combatant
Click to expand...
What nonsense. Is it right? Is it christian? Absolutely not. But it is also the reality of war that the innocent of both sides will suffer. Haven’t you ever heard that “all’s fair in love and war”? I agree it’s not right or ideal or to be condoned (which is the major complain with GITNO), but it is the nature of any war and has been since the beginning of man. To say they aren’t “legitimate combatant” is just foolish. The fact that we must battle them MAKES them a combatant, not a very honorable one, but certainly still an enemy. Legit or not is a non-issue for beaucrats to waste time and money over or to use as cover for their own wrong doing in retaliation.

**
**What has yet to be proven is any of your claims. Give us a cite to back up what you say.
**
Click to expand...
**
My claims are based on common sense and personal opinion and logic. I don’t feel a need to parrot others. I’m allowed my own thoughts - at least for now.
 
Rob's Wife:
My claims are based on common sense and personal opinion and logic. I don’t feel a need to parrot others. I’m allowed my own thoughts - at least for now.
Click to expand...
You are allowed your own opinion-you are not allowed you own facts. you have made serious allegations that slimed American troops-yet you provide no evidence to bakc them up. You also have claimed that the United States violated the Geneva Convention and then revealed you didnt know anything about it. If one wants to deabte one needs to have a little knowledge of what they are debating and needs to be able to back up their assertions. You have done neihter.

BTW-lose the purple.
 
Rob’s Wife said:
**Very well, I’ll simplify it for you. **
Click to expand...

Thank you.
Rob's Wife:
Anyone who isn’t in a uniform could fit that description. Which may include some US military in certain operations. No, I don’t think US troops are terrorists.
Did you miss the part about "be under the command of an authority responsible for one’s actions?

The enemy pursues a policy of terrorism – including sawing people’s heads off in front of the camera.

.

Rob’s Wife said:
So our gov’t has found a big fault in the Geneva Convention then because that is not logical nor is it common sense in the modern world of how wars are fought. The enemy rarely walks around in clothes declaring themselves the enemy anymore. We can no longer assume the good guys are in white hats and the bad guys are in black hats.
Click to expand...

In the case of terrorists, no we cannot assume they are what they purport to be. But my own experience is that even so-called guerillas can be expected to abide by the Convention. For example, when I was a company commander in '68 and '69 we fought “VC” units – and all the prisoners and dead wore uniform clothing and carried Geneva Convention cards – identifying them as North Vietnamese Regulars!

Terrorists are not afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Rob’s Wife said:
**What nonsense. Is it right? Is it christian? Absolutely not. But it is also the reality of war that the innocent of both sides will suffer. Haven’t you ever heard that “all’s fair in love and war”? **
Click to expand...

So you support those who behead civilians in front of the TV cameras? You think it’s “fair” for them to kill civilians as a matter of policy?

Rob’s Wife said:
I agree it’s not right or ideal or to be condoned (which is the major complain with GITNO), but it is the nature of any war and has been since the beginning of man. To say they aren’t "
Click to expand...

legitimate combatant**" is just foolish. **

No. To say they are legitimate combatants is just foolish. The essense of the Geneva Convention is to make combatants follow some basic humanitarian rules. Now how can that be done? Simple – Those who violate the rules do not get the protection!

Rob’s Wife said:
The fact that we must battle them MAKES them a combatant, not a very honorable one, but certainly still an enemy. Legit or not is a non-issue for beaucrats to waste time and money over or to use as cover for their own wrong doing in retaliation.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no background in international law or the Law of Land Warfare.

Rob’s Wife said:
My claims are based on common sense and personal opinion and logic. I don’t feel a need to parrot others. I’m allowed my own thoughts - at least for now.
Click to expand...

Yes – but the rest of us are allowed to point out the manifold flaws in your opinions.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
 
vern humphrey:
You clearly have no background in international law or the Law of Land Warfare.
Click to expand...
Ah, international law 🙂 That’s both you and gilliam changed your mind about the existence of international law in the last 3 months. Wonderful 🙂

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Ah, international law 🙂 That’s both you and gilliam changed your mind about the existence of international law in the last 3 months. Wonderful 🙂

Mike
Click to expand...
I changed my mind about international law? Can you back that up?

As I remember, Gilliam made the point that International Law is not like domestic law – that it is based upon mutually-agreed upon standards, and not imposed by authority.

Your failure to understand his point shows that you probably know little about the subject.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top