Originally Posted by Missileer

I want Gitmo to stand as a fate worse than death and that's exactly what it is to most "terrorists." They are in a place that they earned, who are we to take that away from them. And as for suicides, what is that to them except that they can't take others with them with a suicide belt?

I don't think anybodys got a problem with that, the trouble is who exactly are these people? I forget which Humanitarian organisation stated that only 10% were the true hard core terrorist. If thats true, then what are the other 90%. The administration wont give any details other than "trust us". This admin had had trouble in the past with the whole "trust" bit, they are going to have to provide a better answer than that.

The other disturbing thing is this "enemy combantants" catagory. Nobody recognizes it, no even US law. Its a dangerous example to set if other countries get the idea that they can make the rules up as they go along. The US would do better to do a legal definition of what a terrorist is, and what rights he is/is not entitled to instead of leaving it up in Limbo.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/

RICHMOND, Virginia (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Wednesday ruled President Bush has the authority to designate U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" and detain them in military custody if they are deemed a threat to national security.

I don't know which "humanitarian organization you're referring to but I would dearly love to find out where they got those figures from. One would have to be omniscient to know what is in the mind of these enemy combatants, all we know for sure is that they were dragged from under cover when their ammo ran out. I know the old saw about figures not lieing and liars figure but I, for one, refuse to be one foolish enough to listen to liars who figure.

I cannot comment to the validity of the 10%, as I didnt do the survey, but I do think the Bush Administration could be alittle more forcoming about who these people are. Honestly I think its a publicity stunt. I think most of the people there are Taliban small potatoes made to make people think the government is winning the war on terrorism. I think the government would be bragging more if they had a few larger fish ("the worst of the worst") so to speak in the tank. The real big fish are probably getting the royal treatment in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. But thats just an opinion.

As for "enemy combants" thats not a law just a ruling, it could get overturned at any moment. There is no legal framework that defines a terrorist as a terrorist and I think thats missing. I think other countries (like the US and the Hamza situation) would be more willing to cooperate with the US if a recognized guideline was established.

I still worry about how US POW might get treated in the next conflict. You saw the news about those 2 GI's in Iraq who were butchered? I hope that aint the future.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I cannot comment to the validity of the 10%, as I didnt do the survey, but I do think the Bush Administration could be alittle more forcoming about who these people are. Honestly I think its a publicity stunt. I think most of the people there are Taliban small potatoes made to make people think the government is winning the war on terrorism. I think the government would be bragging more if they had a few larger fish ("the worst of the worst") so to speak in the tank. The real big fish are probably getting the royal treatment in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. But thats just an opinion.

As for "enemy combants" thats not a law just a ruling, it could get overturned at any moment. There is no legal framework that defines a terrorist as a terrorist and I think thats missing. I think other countries (like the US and the Hamza situation) would be more willing to cooperate with the US if a recognized guideline was established.

I still worry about how US POW might get treated in the next conflict. You saw the news about those 2 GI's in Iraq who were butchered? I hope that aint the future.

You may want to look up the accepted definition(s) of "terrorism/terrorists" and "enemy combatant" before you start saying what is and is not considered a law.

If while driving in a Humvee down a trail I am assaulted by insurgents, would they be considered "enemy combatants" or just "someone really pissed off at me"?

For the sake of argument let us say "soldiers" instead of enemy combatants. If a soldier is taken into custody during combat action(s) in a designated war zone then they are considered an EPW/POW. If a person is engaged in questionable activites such as information gathering while armed they are deemed a spy and if apprehended will be considered an EPW/POW. The people in GITMO, unless I am mistaken, have no particular moniker attached to them but I would designate them as EPW/POWs for my own self.

You call the US Soldiers POW but call the people held in GITMO. . . what? The people held in GITMO were detained for one reason or another during a time of war performing all manner of questionable activities that were sure to be a detriment to Coalition forces.

With the above statement: Reason follows that they can not be released until all hostilities in their countries of origin are halted. Otherwise they could, and probably would, cause more hate and discontent and provide grist for the mill known as "international media" when the crap hits the fan because they did get released.

As for the statement "Taliban small potatoes", how many small taters does it take to make a big tater?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

As for "enemy combants" thats not a law just a ruling, it could get overturned at any moment. There is no legal framework that defines a terrorist as a terrorist and I think thats missing. I think other countries (like the US and the Hamza situation) would be more willing to cooperate with the US if a recognized guideline was established.

What the "ruling" was is an interpretation of the President's war powers. It can't be overturned by any other branch of the Government. You need to study your facts a little closer before you make a statement.

Any reason why saddam gets a trial but these guys in Gitmo havn't yet?

Originally Posted by jequirity

Any reason why saddam gets a trial but these guys in Gitmo havn't yet?

Because he is in the custody of the Iraqi Government. There was no Government when these imbeciles were caught killing the allies and their own people.

I don't believe that they should close "Gitmo" down. It's there for a reason, and personaly I like it there. I feel that it's better for a prison (if that word is even right) such as that is better not on mainland America.

The people that hanged them selves are pretty smart. I think that the terrorists understand how public media can sway the publics opion of politics.

Originally Posted by Missileer

What the "ruling" was is an interpretation of the President's war powers. It can't be overturned by any other branch of the Government. You need to study your facts a little closer before you make a statement.

Perhaps you never heard of the USSC? Its that big building on the mall in Washington. In it there are these 9 people called Supreme Court judges, and these judges can overturn any ruling including their own. Checks and Balances, remember US History 101?

Why Lookee here (todays paper)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...233062,00.html

The Supreme Court could effectively shut down Guantanamo by ruling against the special tribunals set up by Bush to try the tiny minority who have been charged, and even against the principle of indefinite detention for the rest.

Oh and thanks for the advice about checking my facts, it really helped!

MarinerRhodes

You may want to look up the accepted definition(s) of "terrorism/terrorists" and "enemy combatant" before you start saying what is and is not considered a law.

Thats the whole trouble, there is no legal definition. There is nothing in international or US law that defines a terrorist. There is just the opinion of the Bush Administration, which happens to be 'the law is whatever we decide it is' and as I pointed out to Missileer the USSC is about to decide how far the president can go on that.

In a hypothitical Iran-US, whats to stop Ahmadinejab from declaring US POWs as illegal combantants and then sends them to be tortured? He would have the same legality as Bush does. You simply cannot make the rules up as you go along. This has already happened in Vietnam to captured US airmen. They were refered to as War criminals (not POWS) by the Vietnamese who promptly through the Geneva conventions out the window.

My point is that I want somebody (preferable the government) to define extactly the difference between POW, insurgent, terrorist and queen of the butterflies. As of now there is no distiction. I am not really taking a side on the GITMO situation as of yet, what I am asking for is for information of who these people are. Thats all.

As for the small taters (I like them mashed myself), I'm not saying let them all go (unless its into a deep frier), although I suspect some are of no consequence/useless. Besides, the best intelligence comes from small taters you can 'flip'. Big taters are harder and often have to be slowly peeled in order to talk, and their intelligence is unreliable at best. I suspect thats how they nailed Zarquiwi they got enough small taters to rat him out. My guess they did the math. $25 Mil does buy you alot more virgins than the feeble 72 promised by Zarquiwi. Plus you get to actually live to enjoy them.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Perhaps you never heard of the USSC? Its that big building on the mall in Washington. In it there are these 9 people called Supreme Court judges, and these judges can overturn any ruling including their own. Checks and Balances, remember US History 101?

Unlike you, I know that this law was passed by Congress;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/j...wers_3-28.html
"A new law passed by Congress after Hamdan appeal, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, or DTA, further complicates this case. That law limits enemy combatants' access to federal courts."

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Why Lookee here (todays paper)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...233062,00.html

The Supreme Court could effectively shut down Guantanamo by ruling against the special tribunals set up by Bush to try the tiny minority who have been charged, and even against the principle of indefinite detention for the rest.

Oh and thanks for the advice about checking my facts, it really helped!

If I was you, I'd read a few US papers instead of cherry picking quotes from an English newspaper with an extreme left leaning opinion. Believe me, if a law passes the smell test of a Federal Court, it will pass the Supreme Court's.

As for the advice, I don't think it helped you much at all. Give it another shot chief.