ChkHandleDn Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 So I guess some detainees are trying to sue citing they have been permanently traumatized by listening to Rage Against The Machine, NIN, etc. Video here: CNN. Wow...just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 So I guess some detainees are trying to sue citing they have been permanently traumatized by listening to Rage Against The Machine, NIN, etc. Video here: CNN. Wow...just wow. You have got to be kidding me. The problem, IMHO, is that we should have simply treated them as POWs in the first place to avoid this mess. No right to a hearing. No right to sue. No rights outside of the Geneva Convention. I agree they don't deserve those rights, but it would be a lot less complicated. We could hold them until Al Qaeda surrenders or we both cease hostilities (not gonna happen anytime soon). Then we can charge 'em with crimes later, if we ever feel the need to do so. It's what we did with the Germans in WWII. For those complaining about treatment, guess what? The Geneva Convention allows just about everything you hear about: Sleep deprivation, noises, etc, so go read the friggin' document. These guys DO NOT get all the liberties an rights we get as American citizens. While we believe in certain rights for our citizens, you need to realize that with those rights come responsibilities too. If you aren't sharing the share of the burden of those responsibilities to which you are allocated (even if that means just paying local taxes), you don't deserve the rights. Example: A thief who steals a car. Guess what? You steal a car, you lose your rights. If you are a terrorist from another country, you never had those rights to begin with and you should be treated accordingly. Yes, there are some basic rights you should not be denied, but that's what the Geneva Convention was for. [/rant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitaryToFinance Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 There was an article today on eBird about a detainee who got released and called being at Gitmo "the worst treatment on earth." His reasoning? A guard broke one of his fingers and they threw the Qu'ran on the ground and sat on it. I've got a Vietnam vet or two who would be more than happy to explain to these fucksticks what inhumane treatment really means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenkspaz Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 This is war, not a f*cking tickle fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varmint Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 So I guess some detainees are trying to sue citing they have been permanently traumatized by listening to Rage Against The Machine, NIN, etc. Video here: CNN. Wow...just wow. I've been permanently traumatized by the new Britney Spears song on the radio--can I sue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Honcho Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 While I do think their bitch is utter bullshit, I don't want to ever hear a Yoko Ono song again after Fairchild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 So I guess some detainees are trying to sue citing they have been permanently traumatized by listening to Rage Against The Machine, NIN, etc. They ought to start a radio station...I'd listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PropWash Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 I've been permanently traumatized by the new Britney Spears song on the radio--can I sue? Watch the video, you'll feel MUCH better about it. Try fullscreen and mute (technique only). Link here, probably NSFW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkDerka Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 My only concern is the precedent set by not recognizing them as PWs. I'm not saying that the treatment the current detainees receive is unbearable torture or anything, just that it's going to be a real pain in the ass to argue GC rights the next time a conventional war kicks off and we have airmen getting rolled up early on. I am not advocating we let detainees make grocery runs into town like we did in WWII, but Guantanamo was a bad idea for everyone concerned. Good point, because our enemies all usually follow the geneva conventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Good point, because our enemies all usually follow the geneva conventions. If you are going to take to the world stage claiming the moral high ground, then it cannot matter how your enemies do or do not behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 If you are going to take to the world stage claiming the moral high ground, then it cannot matter how your enemies do or do not behave. That wasnt the point...the point was made that blaring music loudly will prevent our future enemies from following the conventions....my point was that they never have. If anyone really believes this is torture...this is insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techsan Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 (edited) They ought to start a radio station...I'd listen. I was going to say the same thing. I'd have that station programmed into my #3 button in my car. I love me some Rage. Edited December 20, 2008 by Techsan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 That wasnt the point...the point was made that blaring music loudly will prevent our future enemies from following the conventions....my point was that they never have. If anyone really believes this is torture...this is insane. Really? You think it's the loud music that will tip them over the edge? "Well, we were going to follow the Geneva Conventions...but when we found out those Americans were blaring Spice Girls music at Gitmo, we decided to start chopping off heads instead". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Really? You think it's the loud music that will tip them over the edge? "Well, we were going to follow the Geneva Conventions...but when we found out those Americans were blaring Spice Girls music at Gitmo, we decided to start chopping off heads instead". Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeepGuyC17 Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 just that it's going to be a real pain in the ass to argue GC rights the next time a conventional war kicks off and we have airmen getting rolled up early on. The difference is that our airmen are a uniformed military force of lawful combatants, and not some dude in civies who throws acid on some little girl's face, takes a few pot shots at an American patrol and then goes and hides in a mosque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 That wasnt the point...the point was made that blaring music loudly will prevent our future enemies from following the conventions....my point was that they never have. If anyone really believes this is torture...this is insane. I see. But, with respect, I think you have missed the subtle nuance in the question Swingin asked. I don't think he was discussing the realities of who does and does not follow the GC, but rather the moral implications behind failing to recognise combatants held in Guantanamo as PWs. And he's perfectly correct that this may well have ramifications in the future that the US finds unpalatable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 You have got to be kidding me. The problem, IMHO, is that we should have simply treated them as POWs in the first place to avoid this mess. No right to a hearing. No right to sue. No rights outside of the Geneva Convention. I agree they don't deserve those rights, but it would be a lot less complicated. We could hold them until Al Qaeda surrenders or we both cease hostilities (not gonna happen anytime soon). Then we can charge 'em with crimes later, if we ever feel the need to do so. It's what we did with the Germans in WWII. For those complaining about treatment, guess what? The Geneva Convention allows just about everything you hear about: Sleep deprivation, noises, etc, so go read the friggin' document. These guys DO NOT get all the liberties an rights we get as American citizens. While we believe in certain rights for our citizens, you need to realize that with those rights come responsibilities too. If you aren't sharing the share of the burden of those responsibilities to which you are allocated (even if that means just paying local taxes), you don't deserve the rights. Example: A thief who steals a car. Guess what? You steal a car, you lose your rights. If you are a terrorist from another country, you never had those rights to begin with and you should be treated accordingly. Yes, there are some basic rights you should not be denied, but that's what the Geneva Convention was for. [/rant] Though I fully agree with your rant, we as a nation have effectively screwed ourselves in this endeavor. Even illegal aliens coming across the mexican border have damn near just as many rights, if not seemingly more, than our own US citzens. That's BS I have to put up with in my job daily. I see. But, with respect, I think you have missed the subtle nuance in the question Swingin asked. I don't think he was discussing the realities of who does and does not follow the GC, but rather the moral implications behind failing to recognise combatants held in Guantanamo as PWs. And he's perfectly correct that this may well have ramifications in the future that the US finds unpalatable... The problem with Guantanamo was there was no end state. What was suppose to happen with the guys there? A perpetual state of limbo? Something had to be done with them one way or another....after so many years, their intelligence value declines due to no recency of experience, so to speak. So far as the precedent set, look at Jose Padilla. Enemy combatant held in a U.S Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. for years with no status, no contact to lawyers, no charges, nothing. Not a good precedent to set at all. Am in no means saying we should baby prisoners, but we need to do something with them...one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 I vote put these guys in regular federal prison. Let good ole US of A convicts take care of it. I bet those guys wouldn't last a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaJu Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 I love how they show the BRITISH lawyer who was arguing on behalf of the detainees. There was an op-ed in the WSJ the other day about how one was probably more likely to find recent law school graduates in the US who would argue on behalf of the detainees as opposed to prosecuting them. Sad, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 I would hope that the majority of recent law school graduates would know a simple habeus corpus case when they see it. Don't kid yourself. The vast majority of 'em only see an opportunity to get their names in the media, as a means to make partner and a 6-figure salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 The boots, the boots....I feel I'm entitled to millions now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucky60k Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 The boots, the boots....I feel I'm entitled to millions now. That was by far the worst for sure. As for Jimmy Jihad being iced in an American prison, those guys would be kept so far away from the general population it would be impossible for them to get shivved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallingOsh Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 That was by far the worst for sure. As for Jimmy Jihad being iced in an American prison, those guys would be kept so far away from the general population it would be impossible for them to get shivved. Shanked. It's a verb. 'to shank' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaJu Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 I'm encouraged to know that America's law schools still teach constitutional law. I would hope that the majority of recent law school graduates would know a simple habeus corpus case when they see it. Sorry, should've made it clear that I wasn't necessarily saying they SHOULD be agreeing with the way the Justice Dept. handles things. But while I think we must let those who we don't have enough evidence to convict free, I also don't delude myself into thinking that lack of evidence makes these guys innocent per se. I mean, why the hell else would foreign nationals of Middle Eastern descent be caught in Afghanistan? Sorry if I find it hard to believe that people would actually go through the effort of trying to be these peoples' lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now