Guantanomo Bay Ruling

Statikk HDM · #1 06-29-2006, 08:49 PM

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Guantanomo Bay and military tribunals there are unconstitutional and violate international laws and the Geneva convention. Just thought a more serious thread to balance out all the VH1/Boxers or Briefs?/Doctor Who shenanigans going on.

SeaRex · #2 06-29-2006, 09:27 PM

Yay! Justice!

No. That's good. Supreme court needs to get off it's lazy duff and judge other things as unconstitutional. Not naming anything of course. You all know.

Jacob · #3 06-29-2006, 10:03 PM

I've never really got the who Guan thing, and i'm too lazy to wiki it, so can somebody just explain who all the people are, please?

'cos, if they're terrorists and the like and there's evidence that they are, then i'm not that fussed. But if they're innocents...well, i'm still not that fussed, but i can understand why people are.

So, what's the story of Guana-mory?

***Nate*** · #4 06-29-2006, 11:50 PM

Example: David Hicks is an australian guy who converted to Islam, moved to Afghanistan and joined their army. So when the US invaded, he was fighting for the Taliban so they are accusing him of being a terrorist. But really he was just a soldier in the legitimate army of the country as it was then.

Havoc · #5 06-30-2006, 12:16 AM

Even if someone is a terrorist, which almost none of the people in there were (most of them were just captured soldiers), that doesn't give any guard in that prison the right to abuse them the way they did. It's good something is done about it. Someone needs to slap America and bring them back to the real world where they can't just do anything they like and say sorry and think they can get away with it.

Patrick Vykkers · #6 07-02-2006, 05:55 PM

I'm glad that they did. It was an illegal detention camp ruled by kangaroo courts and was created purely so they could torture people legally. Of course, the propaganda outfits like Fox New$ will go on and on about it being just, often using tu quoque arguments, e.g. they play rough, so should we. No, you shouldn't. That makes you just as bad as the Islamofascist terrorists. Amazing that tu quoque is both used by the far left to justify the crimes of OBL or other Muslims, and by the far right to justify the crimes of the ruling Administration. I do think calling it a gulag is going too far, however.

Bullet Magnet · #7 07-03-2006, 02:57 AM

I'm amazed it took them this long to notice, what have they been doing all this time? I think those cartoons of them putting their fingers in their ears and singing when the issue is brought to them are disturbingly accurate. I don't know why Cuba puts up with it either, f***ing great detention camp on their island.

***Nate*** · #8 07-03-2006, 07:00 AM

Well there has been a Naval Base there since the 1898. Not that the Cubans are too happy about that either.

Your homework for today: watch A Few Good Men to see a film partially set at Gitmo.

Jacob · #9 07-03-2006, 11:34 AM

"No, you shouldn't. That makes you just as bad as the Islamofascist terrorists."

Ahh, if only more people were like you when Germany were gassing le Jews and the like.

"What? Bomb major cities?! Shoot THEIR Soldiers!! ...but then we'd be just like them!! No! No i say!"

...maybe the pure would've won the war.

*Le sigh*

Patrick Vykkers · #10 07-03-2006, 04:58 PM

That's not exactly the best comparision. The Germans were deliberately killing civilians. Attacking their soldiers is legitimate as a part of war.

Jacob · #11 07-06-2006, 11:23 AM

"The Germans were deliberately killing civilians"

Like the Insurgents.

"Attacking their soldiers is legitimate as a part of war."

As is getting information about said Insurgents via interrogation.

However, from what i understand GB don't do interrogation, and instead just keep their captives in a severe form of limberous torture, which isn't the best way to deal with bombing shenanigan planners.

Of course, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes, so...meh.

Patrick Vykkers · #12 07-07-2006, 11:31 PM

Heard of tu quoque? Just because our enemies are bastards, doesn't mean we should be. Are we really gonna get support when our actions are pissing off around 70% of the earth?

Jacob · #13 07-08-2006, 02:51 AM

"Are we really gonna get support when our actions are pissing off around 70% of the earth?"

I'm sure they'd be more pissed off if bombings could've been prevented but not enough was done to prevent them.

Statikk HDM · #14 07-08-2006, 04:21 PM

Shit Jacob, you're ignorant as a pig and twice as ugly. Iraq wasn't gonna bomb anybody.

used:) · #15 07-08-2006, 05:09 PM

Hardly anyone on the 'Axis of Evil' is going to bomb anyone. For one, they don't have the resources to back up a war, and secondly, they know every UN nation is going to retaliate to any attack on any UN nation. That's why a lot of them harbor terrorists, because terrorists don't value human life. People like Kim Jong Il don't have the balls to do it themselves.

Statikk HDM · #16 07-08-2006, 06:21 PM

Couldn't we try to be a little more diplomatic with North Korea and give their impoverished starving people aid? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If "big stick" and "really big stick with sharp things jutting out of it" diplomacy isn't working shouldn't we give something else a shot? And I do mean "we". Where are Russia, Great Britain, or China on this? A destabilized North Korea hurts them just as much as the U.S., when are they going to effing contribute?

***Nate*** · #17 07-08-2006, 09:09 PM

North Korea already gets plenty of aid. Only it gets siphoned off to the military instead of poor people, which is the point that the Australian Foreign Minister when he called the NK ambassador in for a grilling.

South Korea has said that they're going to cut aid to NK. NK's response is to say that they would consider cutting aid an act of war. Translation: "I have a tiny willy. Anything you do to reveal this fact will be responded to with even greater macho posturing".

Statikk HDM · #18 07-09-2006, 12:34 AM

It gets food an fertilizer aid but no infrastructure help in the form of fuel, farm machinery, business investing, etc. Its GDP is 40 billion dollars. The war in iraq for instance equals 10s of millions of North Koreans working non stop without payment for over a decade. Its the whole "give a fish and a man eats for a day, teach him to fish and he will always eat" thing going on.

Patrick Vykkers · #19 07-09-2006, 02:46 AM

Actually, it's almost certain Iran is gonna use their WMDS. They are developing them (and there is clear evidence on this, unlike Iraq) plus the prez there is a nutjob who's publicly stated he wants Israel wiped off the map. He's probably too crazy to see the consequences. I mean, this guy scares even the Mullahs with his wacky obsession with the coming of the Hidden Imam (An Imam suppossed to kill all the Jooos). Believe me, if you want good evidence that Iran is psycho, Google search MEMRI. They have some videos from there, and some of the stuff reads like a Nuremberg rally. Except less "Heil"ing and more "Death to America/Israel"ing.

Jacob · #20 07-09-2006, 07:22 AM

"Shit Jacob, you're ignorant as a pig and twice as ugly. Iraq wasn't gonna bomb anybody"

T'was in reference to suicide bombers of the Taleban...or whoever...persuasion, not actually Iraq. Same goes for the raids we've been having here in England, i'm sure people would rather have a few p*ssed off people, over a lot of dead people.

And i don't mind North Korea having bombs. Kim Jong-il is sweet - let him bomb whoever the f*ck he wants.

...and his birth was foretold by a Swallow. Yay Kim!

***Nate*** · #21 07-09-2006, 08:34 AM

Statikk, I thought they also got financial aid but you sound like you know what you're talking about so I'm not prepared to conflict with you. But do remember the oil for food scandal in Iraq where Saddam got plenty of cash under the table.

In any case, the point still stands that if they weren't spending billions on the military that they don't really need, the people wouldn't be starving.

Statikk HDM · #22 07-09-2006, 12:14 PM

Couldn't you say the same about the U.S.?
Its a pretty simple economic concept given the name Guns or Butter. Meaning you can have a really good military or a really good social life, but if you want one you're going to have to sacrifice some things from the other. The U.S. has about 50 million without healthcare and thousands die of starvation every day. I think the big reason behind that is because the U.S. spends nearly half a trillion dollars a year on a standing military. In all honesty we'd still have the largest and most expensive military by far even if we cut that down by about half. I'd rather have food and healthcare and Social Security for 300 million people in the next 20 years than 18 new, needless, and hyperexpensive ways to incinerate and explode human flesh. But thats a stupid pinko idea. I say next year the U.S. should instead of helping the poor throughout the world it should declare half a trillion for the military and another 100 billion in black ops. I mean, its not like rampant military spending and invasions have increased terrorism by 300 percent in the last 3 years, is it?