Suicides in Gitmo: coordinated or not?

Missileer said:
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.
 
mmarsh said:
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?
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
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.
 
jequirity said:
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.
 
Missileer said:
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/0,,11069-2233062,00.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.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
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/jan-june06/powers_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."


mmarsh said:
Why Lookee here (todays paper)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2233062,00.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.
 
There is no definition in the Geneva Conventions (yes, I've read them all) about terrorists or terrorism because the documents are old and antiquated. Although not irrelevant to many aspects of warfare, they have lagged behind as times have changed and combatants have stopped lining up in uniforms to face each other on the green. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists don't wear uniforms so they can't be POW's as required by law a POW must be in a uniform clearly identified. These people try as much as possible to NOT be identified as a combatant. Under the laws of war and the GC they most closely resemble spies, armed, out of uniform or in a false uniform and as such are subject to summary execution. Something that would stand the test in a court of law but since they aren't really spies as they DO intend to inflict casualties and not just collect information they are undefined by such legal precedents and statutes. That is why we have this new classification and why there is Camp Delta. This is a new breed of enemy and it requires new laws and new procedures. We are adapting and it takes time in a democracy... like Bush said it would be much easier if he were a dictator.
 
Missileer

Oh I see, if its contradicting the decisions of El Presidente its automatically leftist and therefore wrong. Thats a real narrow philosophy. I'm curious what papers do you read?

If you bothered to check I provided the whole link and only selected the part that contradicted your weak arguement, which was done in 2 sentences. I read both US and UK papers, and frankly the British news is far more aware of whats going on in the US than the American media are, unless you really are interested in Britney Spears boob job or watching grown white men drool over Bush.

And what does that link proove exactly? That hamza didnt have access to civilian courts? That 's sort of a no-brainer as a 'enemy combantant' he doesnt have any rights to begin with. All that does is state the obvious. He has no legal standing in the US and therefore no access to the court system, congratulations we are right back where we started. Whats your point?

You still didnt get the point the USSC can still overturn any decision or any law including the creation drumhead trials.

Bulldogg

I'll agree. The GC (I have read them too) are too obsolete to deal with there terrorism issue. They need to up updated so that what is and what is not a terrorist is clearly defined. Speaking hypothetically, they might be considered as Partisans depending on the group and the conflict. For example, the ex-baathists in Iraq.

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Missileer

Oh I see, if its contradicting the decisions of El Presidente its automatically leftist and therefore wrong. Thats a real narrow philosophy. I'm curious what papers do you read?

If you bothered to check I provided the whole link and only selected the part that contradicted your weak arguement, which was done in 2 sentences. I read both US and UK papers, and frankly the British news is far more aware of whats going on in the US than the American media are, unless you really are interested in Britney Spears boob job or watching grown white men drool over Bush.

And what does that link proove exactly? That hamza didnt have access to civilian courts? That 's sort of a no-brainer as a 'enemy combantant' he doesnt have any rights to begin with. All that does is state the obvious. He has no legal standing in the US and therefore no access to the court system, congratulations we are right back where we started. Whats your point?

You still didnt get the point the USSC can still overturn any decision or any law including the creation drumhead trials.

Do you understand that one can't walk up to the Supreme Court and knock on the door and demand to be heard?
Do you know anything about the lower courts appeals process? All you have done here is belabor an argument that has pretty well run it's course many times on the forum.

Bulldogg

I'll agree. The GC (I have read them too) are too obsolete to deal with there terrorism issue. They need to up updated so that what is and what is not a terrorist is clearly defined. Speaking hypothetically, they might be considered as Partisans depending on the group and the conflict. For example, the ex-baathists in Iraq.

Your thoughts?

Do you understand that one can't walk up to the Supreme Court and knock on the door and demand to be heard?
Do you know anything about the lower courts appeals process? All you have done here is belabor an argument that has pretty well run it's course many times on the forum. Nuff said on what may and may not happen scenarios.
 
bulldogg said:
Personally, I don't know and more importantly I don't care. There was a time not long ago I was bothered by Gitmo's Camp Delta but now, after I have spent more time researching my enemy I couldn't give a good god damn about their treatment or mistreatment. Suicides? Whatever... one less mouth my tax dollars have to feed and one less suicide bomber to worry about.
I didn't think I'd ever agree with the above statements ... but ... after seeing what is being done by terrorists worldwide, I don't give a G. G. D. what happens to them. As far as I am concerned, we should have stood them against a wall and executed them long ago as terrorists. They want to be martyrs and I think we should help them.
 
Chief Bones said:
I didn't think I'd ever agree with the above statements ... but ... after seeing what is being done by terrorists worldwide, I don't give a G. G. D. what happens to them. As far as I am concerned, we should have stood them against a wall and executed them long ago as terrorists. They want to be martyrs and I think we should help them.

I have to agree.
 
the ragheads were kind enough and thoughtful enough to spare the world the cost of buying some rope for them....thats the only God bless'em they will get from me
 
Missileer said:
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?

Problem is a good chunk of these people are probably innocent, as many of them are people siezed by Pakistanis and Saudis, or are just people plucked right out of the middle of a battlefield that may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Plus treating them as prisoners of war legitimizes their organization.
 
Back
Top