What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
113 Comments
- gothsquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22That maybe but they should still get the rights that we have. I thought we were trying to put ourselves on a higher ground and lead the world. Just because we have captured people does not mean that they are terrorists but with out any defense it doesn't really matter i suppose. We could lock them up for ever and ignore them. America should not act like a Gestapo, lets make sure we get the right people.
- plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19This is not surprising. I have had many arguments with people over the war, but by and large, even people who support the war think that the folks in Gitmo are not being treated fairly. Now that doesn't mean they think those people deserve "full due-process rights", but the POW standards set forth by the Geneva Convention are a good start.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1997083&page=1
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/24/saudi.gitmo.ap/index.html
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050608-112525-6483r.htm
Keep in mind I'm not saying that everyone there is innocent, but a good portion of them are. - chrizzler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Man.. what's wrong with you ppl?
The ppl in Guantanamo Bay don't get basic human rights! It's not the point they are being treated great or not.. if they don't have the rights then it means that the captors can do everything they like! Who says they won't misuse their power? Obviously it WILL be misused because legally they can do it.. WHY else would they come up with this?
And lastly.. these prisoners are SUSPECTS, they are not guilty yet! And even if they would get a fair process (which they won't in the current setup), someone who is found guilty maybe is not.. there is ALWAYS the chance that something (intentionally or not) went wrong during the process..
Guess what, this is the world we are living in.. we CAN'T rule out that sometimes guilty people will walk free, that is, if we want to have a world were we have basic human right protection as it still is thankfully..
Of course, it is a FACT that since 9/11 all major democratic societies have traded basic civil rights for more control and using terrorism as justification, that is, using ppl's angst to divide and conquer.. btw this is not conspiracy thinking, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4&mode=related&search=noam%20chomsky - chapium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12From page 16:
METHODOLOGY
In the United States, the poll of 1059 respondents was fielded June 27-July 2 with a margin of error of +/- 3.1-4.3% depending on the sample size for each question. The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.
This doesnt seem like a poll taken by their own people.
Also, There was a Michael Moore debut recently? That would be news to me. - chapium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I dont think the government should be acting outside the bounds of the constitution. Its not a list of rights, its a list of limitations on what the government can and cannot do.
- m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Personally, I believe that no matter what they did or didn't do we should hold them to our own country's level of due process standards. If we degrade ourselves enough to bypass our own laws then we're no better than they are.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"People caught on battlefields out of uniform, trying to kill American soldiers should be immediately tried by court marshal and executed if convicted!"
Why should they be tried by "court marshal" if they are not considered regular soldiers?
That is an extreme paradox.
It's also fascinating that some people seem to think that it's ok to capture another country's citizens who are defending their land and put them in concentration camps without trying them for any crimes.
What these people are saying is that if a foreign country invaded th U.S. any american citizen defending his home and country without wearing the standard U.S. military uniform could be rightfully sent to concentration camp for life without the invading forces telling his family where he was or even that he was captured? - chrizzler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@Greyhaven
Were do you live, what do you read that you don't know that???
The releases bring to 310 the number of detainees who have departed Guantánamo to other countries, including Albania, Afghanistan, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden and Uganda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/us/25gitmo.html?ex=1153368000&en=0fe1d0c6e99b5b72&ei=5070
And numerous of these
http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=98687
Try
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=release+Guantanamo+bay+prisoners&sa=N&start=60 - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14There's alot of arguments by people who argue that they're not in uniform and therefore aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions. The GC was made in an era where uniformed combatants was the norm but warfare in the modern age is different.
At stake here isn't a question of semantics; how they're dressed but a question of values and moral ground. How can you face your decendents when they ask you why you held an innocent bloke in Gitmo for 10 years and tortured him? How can you face your decendents when they ask you why you have perverted the founding principles of the American nation-that of which was founded on freedom, liberty and the right of man to dignity?
To me, the very existance of Gitmo is shameful to the founding fathers, its a disgrace to your proud beginnings and an absolute abberation. I'm not even American and these things go through my mind.
Patriotism isn't condemning your enemies to torture and imprisonment without due process. Patriotism is accepting their right even as fighters to be judged lawfully and humanely.
If you can't take the moral high ground, what hope do you have of being better than these guys? Look not into the abyss lest the abyss looks into you. - Brokenrhino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10But we are not them. The fact that we have civil liberties and are trying to spread those civil liberties around the world is what sets us apart from them.
If we want succeed in that goal then we need to be Americans all the time and not give the Bill of Rights and tear here and a little tear there whenever it is becomes inconvenient. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Vote Democrat. Give a terrorist a lawyer."
Apparently innocent until proven guilty is as outdated as the Constitution. *sigh* - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"So if we're releasing them... WTF are you all complaining about?"
How about the fact that they were held and tortured, in many cases for 4 or 5 years for no ***** reason? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15@Greyhaven:
Dude. You're a ***** idiot. Pull your head out of Bush's ass for a second.
Most of the people in Gitmo are not terrorists, they are just farmers and villagers who were 'apprehended' near a battle. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"proof? article?"
There is a search engine called google.com, you should try it sometime...
Here are a couple of links..
Guantanamo prison sends 14 Saudis home
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/24/saudi.gitmo.ap/index.html
British Guantanamo Prisoners Released, Criticism Remains
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1136161,00.html
17 prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay handed over to Afghan authorities
http://english.people.com.cn/200504/20/eng20050420_181836.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10You neocon morons do realize that they already released a whole bunch of people from Gitmo who were found to be 'innocent' right?
- Brokenrhino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9But we still need to find out if they are guilty. And we do that by due process.
- frostcrow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I have read that a lot of the Iraq people in Gitmo are farmers who were arrested on information provided by their neighbors. The neighbor got reward money (for turning them in) and since the farmer is likely to not see the light of day for many years to come (and their neighbor now has some extra cash) it is also likely the neighbor will own their land by the time the farmer gets out (if he ever gets out).
Of course everything most people know about any of this is from information provided by our new media so it is likely to be BS. Or it may actually be true.
If true, I really don't think due process should be skipped when the people turning them stand to profit from it. - ZenTaff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The colossal problem with this argument is that even by the US Defense Dept's own data, only 8% of detainees are characterized as al-Qaeda fighters.
The rest were picked up by the Pakistani authorities and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan when the US authorities were offering huge bounties.
In most cases there is no evidence to support your assumption that these people are terrorists. If there is evidence, then they should be put on trial. - relaxd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9There is no problem to defend something not under attack. What you Americans has showed the world, is that your high ground on free speech, human rights and such are just words. Considering the Indians and the African-americans, no one should be surprised by this. But then again, I must say that the last six years really took me by surprise.
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Ok, so if we are in a war on "terror" does that mean that anyone who brings terror to me can be arrested without due process. Can an American be arrested without due process if he conspires to blow something up. Why isn't everyone who attacks americans considered a terrorist? Why wouldn't the DC Snipers be considered terrorists? Is it because of the reason why they kill?
The point is, the war on terror is too broad and far-reaching. People have scared themselves ***** over the past few years, when being killed by a terrorist is extremely unlikely. You have more of a chance of being killed in almost any other way, but yet, we don't have wars against the other ways that you can die. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7They are not trying to kill us. You do not understand the purpose of terrorism. They do not want to kill every last American man, woman and child. Even if they did, that is impossible. All they want to do is keep the American population afraid, terrified, that they COULD be killed at any minute. They do this by killing a very small portion of Americans in a very visible way. The goal is to get us so afraid, so utterly terrified that the "evil doers" could kill us at any second, that we live our lives in fear and eventually destroy ourselves from within. I hate to say this, but so far their plan seems to be working pretty damn well. If you are afraid of terrorism, you are part of this problem. Every time another right or freedom of the American people is limited or destroyed in the name of "security from terrorism", the terrorists move one step closer to their goal.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9A lot of headlines on digg take the mickey. In tribute to the inherent humour I present some follow up stories.
Latest: 74% oppose summary execution for shoplifting suspects.
Poll: Americans unsure about castration for guy that looked a little perverted.
Breaking news: Majority oppose 'float test' for witches.
Where does real life end and 'The Onion' homepage begin? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9If we're tuly 'at war against terrorism', then why aren't the people responsible for the PATRIOT Act in Gitmo? I feel terrorized by that. I want John Ashcroft held and tortured for 5 years dammit!
- relaxd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If every man arrested were guaranteed guilty I agree that there would be no need for due process. And if you're so sure on behalf of your governments intelligence why don't you just give up due process alltogether ? It would be great if we could save both money and time, but that would'nt be something you'd ever consider. Would it ? Due process is there for a reason, mostly to make sure the people arrested is in fact guilty as charged. If you cant even charge them chances are they're not guilty. Get that into your neocon head.
- violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Greyhaven7 = troll.
- Brokenrhino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Actually letting them lie in pig blood would be worse....
But if our way of life is supposedly the correct way then we should at least fallow the GC. If not, then we are as bad as they are. - Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Greyhaven7
"So you support terrorism then? We just let them all go and if they are terrorists then that's cool?
@m0nk... we're not bypassing our own laws... THEY'RE NOT CITIZENS... they don't get due process. They get military tribunals... that's how it works. YOU'RE asking that we bypass our laws."
Don't put words that aren't there in somebody elses mouth. M0nk clearly said these people out to receive due process, not that they should go free without a look at if they did something.
In fact it is the Bush government that is bypassing the laws by kidnapping and torturing foreigners without ever even having any proof of these captives deeds.
Quite frankly your attitude scares me as it reminds me of what the Nazi's and Communists did. Have a total disregard for peoples rights because they were not in their own little group. - ZenTaff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"why should we extend this to ANY foreign person fighting against US troops or civilians without proper designation (which could be as simple as tying a red Scarf around their arm)?"
But you're ignoring the fact that over half of the current detainees are not being accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.
Do you want to shoot those people too? - erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4*GASP*
What would Anne Coulter say? - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Because a lot of congressmen heard the line "...To help us fight terrorism here at home and prevent events like 9/11" and shat their pants at the idea of what the polls would show, should they vote against something like that.
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"We are at war."
Terror is an emotion. An intangible concept. Trying to fight a war against an intangible concept is just stupid. Ask the "war on drugs" people how that is going? That or go buy a trash bag full of weed in any town in America. - plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dude, Greyhaven... I have never seen anyone with so many comments modded down so far in a single story...
"The fact that it was over the Internet already makes it bias." -- So what? I don't see how going over the net makes it bias? Would doing it on paper make it bias because only people with hands were asked?
1: Observe the part where it says, "subsequently provided Internet access"... Then go check the definition of "subsequently" and "provided"
2: It is obvious that even if it were only people who had "subsequently" "provided" THEMSELVES with Internet access, it would not be too skewed. Because obviously pro-human-rights-violations people use the net... or you wouldn't be here... - frostcrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ jtsnyc47 "The role of Congress in formally declaring war was reduced to issuing "authorizations of force" shortly after the end of World War II, which would explain why there hasn't been a war declared since."
They did not replace "Declare War" with " Authorized Force". They are very different and that is the reason one was authorized and the other was not declared.
Congress authorized the use of force but stopped short of declaring war. Congress seems to think there is a difference yet you claim there is not.
Why does it matter that that there is a difference between "Authorizing use of force against Iraq" and "Declaring War on Iraq" ? Because, as you insist on ignoring it allows those in power to :
(1) Pick and choose what rules / laws they want to ignore / follow.
(2) If public opinion changes they can choose whatever side is popular.
(3) If any legal problems do arise the "we was at war" vs " we wasn't at war" is so confused and messed up it would be impossible to accuse anyone of anything because there are so many assumptions being made that no one knows were the BS stops and the facts begin.
Facts:
(1) Congress has the power to Declare War
(2) Congress has not Declared War
(3) "Use of force against Iraq" does not equal " Declare war on Iraq"
Congress and everyone else in Washington knows the difference between "Authorized use of Force" and "WAR" and they intentionally but rely on the fact that most people "YOU for example" either do not know the difference or do not care. - Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@gothsquirrel
There are people like ecross27 and others that, while claiming to be patriots and Americans, are the absolute opposite. They are scared and believe that taking away everybodies rights is OK as long as it makes them feel better. "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!". Indeed.
Maybe such people should be extradited for not being true Americans. I do know it takes balls at times to be an American, but losing your courage and tearing down our Constitution is the worst thing an American can do. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Greyhaven
Oh, I don't know. How about the part where you support the idea of locking people away in internment camps for indefinite amounts of time with no formal charges being brought against them, much less any proof of wrongdoing?
Or the part where you advocate not even allowing people basic human rights?
Or did I misunderstand all the utter crap you've been spewing throughout this entire thread? - ZenTaff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@joerastaman
"But low-and-behold, terrorist do not qualify under ANY of these pre-requisites."
Hold on there a moment. You are assuming that all of the detainees are terrorists. They are not. They are suspects.
55% of the detainees are determined not to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies - that's according to US Defence Dept data.
But you would have all of these people shot merely on suspicion? That is the behaviour of fascists. - ZenTaff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Wrong, wrong wrong! That's just complete rubbish.
The overwhelming majority of Guantanamo detainees have no connection to al-Qaeda. That is a fact. And I'd like you to produce some evidence that "a large number have returned to the battlefield to KILL again." So far, I've seen no evidence of this whatsoever.
Take a look at these statistics which came from the US Defense Dept which illustrate by point:
Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.) Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; one detainee lived in a house associated with the Taliban.
Some of the "associated" men are said to have attended jihadist training camps before September 11, an accusation admitted by some and denied by others. The U.S. government says that some of the suspected jihadists trained in Afghanistan, even though other records show that they had not yet entered the country at the time of the training camps.
Sources:
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj2.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What's that?
I think it's the sound of someone getting OWNED - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51. I don't do drugs.
2. I didn't resort to childish insults, so please refrain from them yourself.
My points were these:
1. There's no huge amount of terrorist attacks on US soil that we need to be protected from.
2. The war on terror, and fighting thereof, is pointless. To fight an idea will only create more zealots. Fight our enemies, not a concept. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If this poll is accurate, it is good to see that people are smarter than I thought. Of course we don't like terrorists. Nobody does. Nobody likes child molesters either, but would you be in favor of instantly shooting anyone accused of child molesting in the face with no trial? I certainly hope not. Put them on trial. Let the law deal with them. We have been punishing criminals legally under the laws of this country for hundreds of years. I see no reason that this all needs to go to ***** just because you're suddenly afraid of terrorism.
- frostcrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@anyone who says "We have declared War"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Vezzini syndrome runs rapid on the internets:
Vezzini: Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?
Wesley: Yes
Vezzini: Morons ! - violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Movie.
http://www.roadtoguantanamomovie.com/ - frostcrow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ jtsnyc47 " We are at war"
Says who ? Who exactly did congress declare war on ? Your entire argument falls apart if we are not at war. Last time I checked only Congress can declare a state of war and I can not find anything anywhere that says they have done that. We are not at war. Everyone just assumes we are at war because the press and the prez and everyone else keeps using the word WAR.
All of the politicians are using this to their advantage. Since everyone seems to just accept we are at war they can take advantage of any rules that apply in war as long as those rules benefit their cause. However since we are not really at war, they can ignore any rules that do not benefit them.
Only Congress can declare war. Unless someone can show were they did that, we are not at war we are just buying into "War against terror" slogan hook, line and sinker. - leanoray, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4For the more rabid posters who are cursing and raving about terrorist rights, perhaps it is time to read Common Article 3 of the Geneva Accords which deals exclusively with the rights of combatants in non-international conflicts. Reading it is like letting sand slip through your fingers.
The poll suggests to me that people are not satisfied with Bush's initial decision on military tribunals and neither was the Supreme Court. In fact, the courts specifically stated that there would be no problem with military tribunals if properly constituted and if Congress were given more say in their construction.
The issue then becomes for Congress whether these terrorists receive a courts martial trial or whether we turn them over to our civilian court system which is already ridiculously overloaded.
Please remember that the Supreme Court also stated that the DC courts has no jurisdiction in the matters of Guantanamo. So the SCOTUS is giving Bush and Congress an opportunity to straighten this mess out.
For those yellers, finger waivers, and politically committed folks out there this is not a clear cut victory: For the left it is not a complete indictment of Bush's presidency or the end of the war on terror; and for the right it is not a limited decision only to Hamdi.
Our country will follow Common Article 3 and we will use it at the UN to punish the savages that beheaded our troops and innocent civilians. Reciprocity is a good weapon if used judiciously.
Law is like sausage: No one should see it being made. - Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Traddles
You seem to be mixing up 2 things here and don't make a lot of sense in doing so.
For one people don't believe in imposing our religion, type of government and laws on other people.
For another people believe if we do so then we can't back off and start doing things we clearly define as wrong, i.e. torture, imprisonment for 5+ years without ever having due process, murder, rape, etc.
As for American prisons being "fresh like daisies" - how about you voluntary go to prison for a full 3 years and then come back to tell us about your "fresh as daisies". Also let us know who it was that made you his prison bitch.
Nobody mentions the Germans because we did the right thing back then. Why would we lose a word about what the Germans, or any other group of people did in history in regards to the GC. Maybe you can enlighten me on the relevance there. I can only suspect that you are trying to say something along the lines of "Look we used to do the right thing 50 some years ago, so now we should be let of the hook for the latest atrocities." ??? - Nathan07, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@flag564 & Greyhaven7
What exactly is the problem with extending the American justice system to terrorist suspects? Why should they be denied the right to Justice? Do you think something is wrong with our justice system that it wouldn't put away those that should be? If you cannot fathom how it is wrong to deny someone justice because they are not a citizen then I will never be able to make you understand. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Probably something ignorant and hateful like she usually does.
- Nathan07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Greyhaven7
What exactly is the difference between detained and imprisoned? Why should it be ok to "detain" someone indefinitely without trial? Can't you empathize with others at all?
Oh and would you care to post any evidence (like an article or something?) for your position like so many of your opponents have kindly done? - CountBrass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Has it occured to you that having being wrongfully imprisoned in Gitmo for years they might have every reason to hate you?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
