Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Space_Time, Dec 10, 2021.
He was an unlawful combatant not entitled to any protections.
They admitted to this publicly
Says who ? Define "Unlawful combatant" - and if after doing so -- you don't come up with some huge problems .. I will help you out.
LOL, and you have no reason to believe Fauci is lying to you.
Not true. I view Fauci as a liar. You don't know me at all. Stop pretending you do.
But not at Guantanamo.
That guy was dragged across the world for a year from black site to black site to be tortured.
There is a year missing between him being picked up, and him arriving at Gitmo.
Didn't you notice?
The US forcefully sent them off to other countries in the Middle East to do their dirty work for them.
In many cases the prisoners did not even know what county they were in, and they still do not know.
It goes without saying that many of these countries have much lower human rights standards.
They had the guy tortured. And in a normal case of a normal prisoner, the US federal government paid 50K for each year of a wrongful conviction. So it's obvious this guy should get lavishly more.
It would have been been best to have a military trial and execute them, but they wore no uniforms or adhered to a code of conduct other than
So we’d were stuck with them.
The US never had the stomach to execute them, nor the balls to take the political heat by letting them go and killing them on the battlefield.
In the last skirmish over there taking prisoners became “Plan B”.
Compensation? Sounds like a typical democrat idea.
It would have been a mock trial like in the worst of banana republics to end up with the idea that they are guilty and get executed because of some law breached. The GOP simply almost had no evidence to convict those people with. So it's such a fail of a policy from the GOP to have ever taken those people into "custody". It was also the idea of the GOP that those people were no POW's and so were able to be kept and tortured with zero intent to start a honest trial.
The GOP simply went all "look at us being tough". But they didn't think crap true at all how this would backfire by being stuck with tortured people who they can't prove they did something wrong in any kind of acceptable court. It's the American concept of innocent until proven guilty that the GOP didn't follow through. And they simply should pay up for trashing what America stands for.
It's a terrible slippery slope. Russia just as well can take your butt to one of their gulags for some decades, claim you supported terrorism against their country. Torture you until you confess, and so have "the prove" needed to justify what they did. No normal person would ever support such a policy. That's how insane the idea's of the GOP were.
Oh well, there was a movie. No dispute after that.
Prisoners of war and illegal combatants aren't imprisoned and charged with crimes, In the case of POWs thats against international law. They are imprisoned to prevent them from continuing to wage war.
Do you think this reasoning should apply to American citizens who are accused of being enemy combatants?
Unfortunately terrorism is "the war that never ends". So out the window goes civil liberties and safeguards on individual rights.
The Geneva convention was a nice idea but it was designed with "civilized" European powers in mind.
I'm aware of rendition and black sites. But you miss the point. The point is that a prisoner of war claims he was tortured at Guantanamo and there is no evidence of torture occurring there other than the statements of this man. Bringing up the rendition of a terrorist is what we call a red herring. You are free to believe him but I see no reason for me to believe him.
That pretty much sums it up. When we release prisoners from Guantanamo they normally return to the war against America.
Yes, and it does. International law applies to all nations citizens.
Thats why they were treated as illegal enemy combatants as opposed to POWs
Since WWII the US has always been in one conflict or another. Even now we still have troops in Iraq and Syria. So the US is perpetually in a state of war even if its very small and not officially declared. Do you think the government should perpetually have these war powers to detain citizens without trial? If a US citizen is accused by someone in the government or military of being an enemy combatant, should this person be imprisoned for life without due process? What interrogation tactics should the government be allowed to use on this person?
The term 'enemy combatants' was a bit of sophistry introduced by the neocons in the Bush administration. It allowed them to violate Geneva Conventions more easily.
How do you know he was a combatant?
I was still on active service when he was detained. I know the case.
Why should I have faith in your judgement? Are you privy to all the facts in the case?
As a matter of fact, I was.
Separate names with a comma.