Hey GNL

Yeah, I think about the closest they've called them are political prisoners, but that still entitles them to a trial, I believe anyway.
 
AlphaTroll said:
PT, I've said my bit about it in my blog so I'm going to refrain from commenting here.

(Added the link to it in case you get really bored and want to see what I said before going out to buy that gun)
Click to expand...

That's just fun to read trying to figure out what it sounds like when you say it. You don't use as much "accent" here as you do there.
 
PuterTutor said:
That's just fun to read trying to figure out what it sounds like when you say it. You don't use as much "accent" here as you do there.
Click to expand...

LOL, no I guess not - but that's because there I'm not trying to make sense to anyone but myself really, if I did that here I'd have to constantly explain what I was on about :D
 
AlphaTroll said:
But then please answer my question - which rights would you take away from prisoners?
Click to expand...



I am for minimal sentencing, against letting them into society unless they have been able to prove themselves in prison.




GNL:



yes that is somewhat true but again there is reason. what is the reason? you are threat to society you are in(terrorism)?, selling secrets which other govts can use on you. there are always reasons.
 
freako104 said:
yes that is somewhat true but again there is reason. what is the reason? you are threat to society you are in(terrorism)?, selling secrets which other govts can use on you. there are always reasons.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my point. We have been told that these people are dangerous terrorists, yet they have not been charged with any crime, we have been told they are enemy combatants in the war in Afghanistan yet they haven't been declared POWs, we have been told absolutely fuck all except that you have them and you will keep them as long as you see fit whatever the actual circumstances surroundinfg their capture.

Lets say they were stupid and got themselves into the wrong place at the wrong time, it is their responsibilty we can say. That way we can absolve all our guilt, but lets face it, if stupidity was a crime enough to get you locked up indefinitely then the prisons would be bursting at the seams.

We can say, well they must have done something wrong or they wouldn't be there. That way we can sleep sound in our beds knowing that we are safe. We can lull ourselves to sleep chanting "it won't happen to me, it won't happen to me," but deep down some of us know that when we let it happen to anyone at all it takes away all our rights, and makes it much more likely to happen again. Who knows, next time it might be you in the wrong place at the wrong time. How do you know that if there is another terrorist attack you won't be there looking guilty. Do they need evidence to lock you up? NO. Do they need to put you on trial in fron to f a jury of your peers and prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were involved? NO. Can they just lock you up and throw away the key because you happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and looked as if you were involved? YES

If these people are terrorists and there is evidence then put them on trial in a fair and open court where the entire world can see and if they are then found guilty I will be the first to say they should be locked away for life. If you are neither willing nor able to do so then release them.
 
while Ill admit i dont like imprisoning the innocent by any means(read earlier posts I have made), there are instinces where this was necessary. not imprisoning the innocent but getting the "terrorists" away from people and break communication.
 
freako104 said:
while Ill admit i dont like imprisoning the innocent by any means(read earlier posts I have made), there are instinces where this was necessary. not imprisoning the innocent but getting the "terrorists" away from people and break communication.
Click to expand...

Just how do you know the prisoners are terrorists?

If Bush started selling cow shit and called it burgers would you eat it?
 
Gotnolegs said:
Just how do you know the prisoners are terrorists?

If Bush started selling cow shit and called it burgers would you eat it?
Click to expand...

How do you know they aren't? I know how you'll answer, anyway (Innocent until proven guilty), but, in a way (small), you are right. Most of those folks were captured on battlefields fighting against US soldiers, so the point is moot, really. The war is not yet over, and turning them loose only ends them right back to the enemy camps. Some, however, are being held because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or hanging out with the wrong people at the wrong time.

Anybody notice that most, if not all, of the Iraqi soldiers were turned loose? Know why? They were part of a uniformed military, and were accorded the rights of such under the Geneva convention. Un-uniformed enemy combatants are not seen as soldiers, so are not accorded rights under the Geneva Convention per se. They are only entitled to humane treatment (3 hots and a cot). Don't believe me? Read it...
 
Gotnolegs said:
Just how do you know the prisoners are terrorists?

If Bush started selling cow shit and called it burgers would you eat it?
Click to expand...




no. I tend not to believe Bush. you damn well should know that by now. I just happen to fell this way about this situation.
 
Gato_Solo said:
How do you know they aren't? I know how you'll answer, anyway (Innocent until proven guilty), but, in a way (small), you are right. Most of those folks were captured on battlefields fighting against US soldiers, so the point is moot, really. The war is not yet over, and turning them loose only ends them right back to the enemy camps. Some, however, are being held because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or hanging out with the wrong people at the wrong time.

Anybody notice that most, if not all, of the Iraqi soldiers were turned loose? Know why? They were part of a uniformed military, and were accorded the rights of such under the Geneva convention. Un-uniformed enemy combatants are not seen as soldiers, so are not accorded rights under the Geneva Convention per se. They are only entitled to humane treatment (3 hots and a cot). Don't believe me? Read it...
Click to expand...

The thing that makes me doubt this is that your government is unwilling to follow international law.

Quite simply they won't put their money where their mouth is.

I am sure that they believe these people to be a threat but if they have actually done nothing wrong then they should never have been imprisoned, if they have then they should be charged, tried and punished accordingly.

You tell me you knnow of people that have been involved in the capture of enemy combatants, I'm happy to accept that this is true but I can't understand why they were never declared as POWs (I am not aware of the status of every prisoner, just the UK citizens).

It seems to me that your government is fully aware that it is acting illegally and doesn't give a shit because it is the biggest kid in the playground.
 
freako104 said:
no. I tend not to believe Bush. you damn well should know that by now. I just happen to fell this way about this situation.
Click to expand...
I know you usually seem to make up your own mind based on the facts, which makes it all the more strange when you do accept the bullshit without questioning it.
 
you should know how I am GNL. I just take this stand on this situation. It is just how I feel. sorry but it is who I am
 
freako104 said:
you should know how I am GNL. I just take this stand on this situation. It is just how I feel. sorry but it is who I am
Click to expand...

So you believe these people must be international terrorists and deserve to be locked up indefinitely without any form of trial?

How have you come to this decision?
 
Gotnolegs said:
The thing that makes me doubt this is that your government is unwilling to follow international law.

Quite simply they won't put their money where their mouth is.

I am sure that they believe these people to be a threat but if they have actually done nothing wrong then they should never have been imprisoned, if they have then they should be charged, tried and punished accordingly.

You tell me you knnow of people that have been involved in the capture of enemy combatants, I'm happy to accept that this is true but I can't understand why they were never declared as POWs (I am not aware of the status of every prisoner, just the UK citizens).

It seems to me that your government is fully aware that it is acting illegally and doesn't give a shit because it is the biggest kid in the playground.
Click to expand...

The Geneva convention is rather (un)clear on the imprisonment of unlawful enemy combatants...Basically, we could just shoot them out-of-hand. See someone with a weapon, no matter what age or gender, and put a bullet in them. :shrug: Would that be a better alternative for them, instead of imprisonment? I personally don't think so, so, until you can come up with a better, more logical solution...
 
Gotnolegs said:
So you believe these people must be international terrorists and deserve to be locked up indefinitely without any form of trial?

How have you come to this decision?
Click to expand...







ive been there. they violate international laws. and I did say with a fucking trial. thank you
 
Gato_Solo said:
The Geneva convention is rather (un)clear on the imprisonment of unlawful enemy combatants...Basically, we could just shoot them out-of-hand. See someone with a weapon, no matter what age or gender, and put a bullet in them. :shrug: Would that be a better alternative for them, instead of imprisonment? I personally don't think so, so, until you can come up with a better, more logical solution...
Click to expand...


ohh, ohh, can we....then this whole stupid problem would disappear
 
Gato_Solo said:
The Geneva convention is rather (un)clear on the imprisonment of unlawful enemy combatants...Basically, we could just shoot them out-of-hand. See someone with a weapon, no matter what age or gender, and put a bullet in them. :shrug: Would that be a better alternative for them, instead of imprisonment? I personally don't think so, so, until you can come up with a better, more logical solution...
Click to expand...

Why are you so clear on the fact that all of them were combatants despite all of the conflicting evidence?
 
freako104 said:
ive been there. they violate international laws. and I did say with a fucking trial. thank you
Click to expand...

Please tell me I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick because that looks like you are saying you've been in the same situation?

Sorry, I missed it you saying that. Was it in a different thread? I can't find it here.

How do they violate international law btw?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top