Justice in Guantanamo Bay?
 

It appears that trials of a sort (Don't know if they can be described as trials) have been proposed for the detainees of Guantanamo Bay.

Here is an article (don't take too much notice of the headline, there isn't too much of Britain blasting the US in there) describing the process. There has been interest here in Australia about the fate of David Hicks, who is featured in this article. By interest, i mean of the people, not of the government, as our Prime Minister is ignoring the whole issue.

link...

Anyway, some conditions of the proposed trials:

- Seven member tribunal, only one of which is required to have legal training.
- Rules of evidence do not apply
- No right to confer privately with his lawyers or appeal if found guilty
- Release is not guaranteed if suspect is found not guilty

There is also question over the possible use of capital punishment.

So what do you think? Could this possibly be called justice? Does anyone think this is right?

(Also, please keep in mind that this is proposed, and not a sure thing)

wtf happened to international laws? this is fucken BS is gwb doesnt have to follow any laws/treaties just by calling them "detainees". trust me, this can also be used against us. US has troop presense almost everywhere on earth.

"Release is not guaranteed if suspect is found not guilty" - then what's the purpose of the trial?? they're back in square one - being held indefinately w/o counsel.

i'll bet u almost anything, most these people have nothing to do w/ what happened on 911. we just went over there and took 'em in.

Just keep pouring out your bleeding heart Dude, these people wouldn't think twice about killing you or anyother Westerner. These people are ruthless cowards who are finallying going to get what they deserve.

*dons asbestos suit, and sprays down the thread with flame retardant chemicals.

That done...i think its grand that the pinacle of justice in America is secret military executions in a communist island. Apparently, irony is still dead.

Not trying them in the open is a big mistake...since it will only fuel suspicion of our motives and means, at home and abroad.

Yeah, but if they're proven innocent, they're still held in custody...

Maybe we should turn them (all of them- not just the ones "qualifying" for tribunal) over to the victims of terrorism? Mob justice might be more appropriate.

Who do you think you are? I bet you cant name one prisoner in Guantanamo (no google!)

The distance between America's fanatics and Al-Qaeda's fanatics is getting smaller and smaller.

al-qaeda's would like to murder everyone they hate, including you. Second i would question, if that artical is completly accurate, or if its just some inflated story.

I didn't say American victims of terrorism. I can't name any victims of terrorism, either.

International law doesn't apply to them, because the international law says it doesn't, which is why they're called illegal combatants, and which is why we can and should do what we are. The military knows its shit, let them do their jobs.

That may very well be, you could certainly make that arguement. However, these people deserve a fair trial because they are human beings, to me that is one of the central ideas behind the United States.

And the little girl walking down the street doesn't deserve to be blown up by a martyr for allah. Personally, I'd prefer my government protect Americans rather then foriegners.

it's not the military that made this distinction. it's the civilians in the executive branch (namely gwb and his cabinet) that made this choice.

military did an excellent job of fighting this war and capturing this alleged terrorists.


these people are human. and i think all


that article 11 from the UN charter. the treatment of the "illegal combatents" clearly violates this. they are considered guilty until proven innocent, and even AFTER being proven innocent, they are still considered guilty.

FYI, you do not get sent to G'bay just for nothing; you get send there because US soldiers saw you trying to plant a bomb, or ambush their convoy. They are the ENEMY in a war on terror. As such, they do not deserve a fair trial like you and me - they deserve a military tribunal, like any soldier. In fact, being illegal combatants, and murderous bastards, they deserve a headshot straight away!

Anyway... these are the type of "soldiers" that torture and execute US soldiers, and celebrate such acts by dragging the mutilated bodies through the streets (somalia). Frankly, I don't give a rat's arse about their human rights. Screw them.

(/rant)

It shits me that an Australian David Hicks is to be tried at Guantanamo Bay whilst Americans caught in the same circumstances are tried in US courts. What a surprise that the Johnny Howard/Dubya kissy kissy bullshit special relationship does bugger all for the civil rights of Australian citizens.

Well... the US captured them. US nationals have to be tried in US courts (having US constitutional rights and such), while foreigners do not. Australia might have asked for extradition, though - it might have worked.

FYI, the UK also has the same problem - one of their people was captured too. No complaints or extradition requests.

I suspect the Australian and UK government are secretly quite happy to have the US prosecute these guys - otherwise, they'd have to do it themselves, and get the associated flak from human rights campaigners and extremists alike.

First, there are no Somalis in Gitmo.

Second, you are starting to sound just like "them". The reason the US is greatest nation on Earth is that we hold ourself to a higher standard. If these people are guilty, they should be found guilty by a court of law and executed. if not they should be sent home.

What is so wrong with applying the same legal standard to them? What are we afraid we might find?

Doesn't matter, because it was an *example*. It is commenly understood that Al-Qaida was a major instigator of those Somali riots. Furthermore, in Afghanistan, Al-Qaida/Taliban guys executed quite a few prisoners of war, including at least one US soldier, who fell from a helicopter. Some of the G'bay prisoners have openly threatened to kill their US guards, and any US person they can get their hands on.

If you want to fight "them", you have to fight *like* them. And the US is NOT the greatest nation on earth, the Netherlands is. :)

I don't think there's anything we'll find when we send them to jail - it's just that we don't *have* to send them to jail, because of their legal status. In fact, back in the olde days (2nd World War), spies and saboteurs would probably have been executed right away. These terrorists are a different case altogether, because we cannot execute them (they'd be "martyrs"), we cannot set them free (they'll kill us), and we cannot put them in an ordinary prison (too dangerous). G'bay is the best solution.

The fact of the matter is that I'm getting a bit fed up with all this touchy-feely stuff we Westerners are supposed to do, while a bunch of ignorant extremists from the middle-of-nowhere try to kill us all. If they want to fight us, I suggest we give them the fight they want. And I can guarantee that such a war will be rather nasty - contrary to what these guys seem to think, Westerners are not weak and scared - we have a LOT of experience in fighting, way more than they can ever dream of...

what is the purpose of surrendering then, if you are basically going to be executed or held in captivity indefinately?

Who said these guys surrendered at all? They could have been captured without a formal surrender. Hell, judging from the recent captured Al-Qaida members, they do not at all like to surrender, and often only give up (or are forced to give up) after a long gun-fight.

you dont know that for certain. we dont even know if they are all guilty for certain either.

that's why you need a trial.

Justice would be martyring every one of them, not letting them loose thanks to our buggy justice system.

OJ Simpson is more innocent than those held in Guantanamo Bay.

and how can you be certain of that?

Wrong - There are major complaints from MP's - over 170 of them have signed at a complaint saying that it is wrong not to give them a fair and open trial. Also there are two Brits being detained.

Blair hasn't said anything about this as he is so far up Bush's arse that we can no longer even see his feet !

http://www.mmstudios.net/images/propset/e.chair-3.jpg

http://www.guillotine.net/bilder2/galges1x.jpg

http://www.brianwillson.com/images/kp3.jpg

If found guilty, line em up.

Amen brother!

No. Soldiers who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan helped train Somalis to use RPGs to shoot down helicopters. They did not incite rioting in Somalia.

Neil Roberts died fighting for the principles the country was founded on and the oath he took to uphold the constitution. Now we are being told the US can waive those rights simply by declaring a person an illegal combatant? Where is the legal precedent for declaring them such? Rather than charging these people with war crimes, as should be done, we have created a legal shell game in which we just warehouse them until an administration with enough balls to actually solve the problem comes along.

As far as prisoners making threats to kill people, I point you to your nearest maximum security prison...

No, we don't. We hold to the Geneva convention and the Law of Land Warfare. We fight fair, honest, and with the utmost regard to the safety of innocents. We still kick ass every time.

PS - Number of times the Netherlands has liberated the US = 0. ;)

Seeing as how most of their names aren't even known, ow would hey be martyrs? Just try them and either let them go or punish them based on the severity of their crime. By changing the standard we only do two things:

1. Reinforce what radical muslims already think about the US (that we are out to get them), and

2. Let them win by forcing the US to curtail its liberties, thus becoming just a bit more like them.

Well, if we are going to lower ourselve to their level, why bother even fighting? We can just join them now and hack each other apart with machetes all day. Remember why it is that we are refered to as the "civilized world" in the first place...

My take on things: The US arrests people, and puts them in a prison camp. The camp holds about 600 people. If the US were to pick up random people, there would have been many more in G'bay. Obviously, they're picking up a select few only.

Judging from the background of this whole war on terror, I suspect most, of not all of those in that camp are guilty of some pretty horrid crimes. You don't get send there for just insulting someone, or even threatening to kill someone; you get send there for actively waging a terror campaign against the anyone on the planet that doesn't share your narrowminded worldview. This is a crime punishable by death in both my book, and quite a lot of law books.

The US could have shot each and every one of these people, and nobody would have cared one bit; they'd have been nameless corpses somewhere in a far-away country. However, because of the background, these suspects are rounded up for interrogation, and to keep them out of harm's way. If the US were to try them, they might be acquitted and released, even if they later prove to be guilty (OJ is a good example of how things can go wrong). If the US were to kill them, they'd lose potential information, and quite a lot of PR. Therefore, the guys are kept in prison until the war is over, or at least until it has died down a bit. Then, they might be put on trial.

Given that we are at war with a brutal enemy, cowardly enough to hide amongst the innocent, we have to bend, or even break the rules a little to be able to fight them. I am willing to accept that. Other people here seem to believe we can win a war by playing fair, and upholding each and every law in the book just because we're the good guys. Well, I think there are no good guys in this war, only guys trying to stay alive and reach their objective. Our objective is to survive this onslaught and preserve our way of life; the terrorist's objective is to scare us into submission and eventually to take over the world, driving us back into the dark ages.

I'd like all humans to be friendly and happy, but the reality is different. If I have to choose, I'd choose to stick up for yours truly and friends, rather than for some nameless person in a country on the other side of the world. Tough luck.

Dragonlich,

My concern is that the people who were involved in overt acts of combat were shot in the head already. Then the soldiers went into the nearest house and took someone's cousin on "suspicion". Now they are interogating people to find out where more terrorists are located or operating.

Of course, neither of us know since we aren't there, lawyers aren't there, and family members aren't there.

You have the luxury of stating "we have to bend, or even break the rules a little to be able to fight them. I am willing to accept that." because, last time I checked, Netherlands wasn't heavily militarily involved in this.

It's my country's head that is going on the chopping block when something goes awry, my country that is taking the international heat, my country that is going to be the target of further acts of aggression due to misperceptions of injustices done to these detainees.

With all due respect to your opinions, my country's soldiers are holding these detainees, my country's soldiers are dying at the rate of one per day (with a significant number of British soldiers, as well), and my country that is taking the lead in this campaign. So, your willingness to take "risks" with my country's reputation, use (or abuse) of its legal technicalities, and etc. doesn't put much of your interests up at stake.

Think about that.

what i dont get is, why arent they giving the rights of war criminals or pow's.

if they do get a fair trial, does the administration have a chance of losing?

Smooth, just for the record: My country *is* putting people in danger. We are currently actively involved in the war on terror. Our navy is patrolling in the Persian Gulf (edit: duh!) in search of WMDs and terrorists, our soldiers are patrolling the streets of Kabul alongside the Germans, and our soldiers are going into Iraq soon, to support the US there. Oh, and with Rotterdam being one of the most important ports in Europe, we could be a prime terrorist target. So, er... you're wrong. ;)

Debaser: think about that? I did. Last time I checked, our way of life didn't involve bending over while a bunch of savages fucks us up the arse. The people over here are not a bunch of pacifists, nor does our culture involve ignoring problems until they blow up in our faces...

Just to refresh your memory: you *lost* in Vietnam because the enemy wouldn't fight fair. Terrorists are even worse, because at least the Vietnamese were confined to a certain geographical location. Modern terrorists can be anywhere, and there aren't many legal ways of stopping them. In fact, in *my* country, it is pretty hard to put someone in jail for plotting to blow something up - we'll need to introduce anti-terror laws to be able to do that... Until then, we cannot even use information from the secret service (CIA/FBI combo) as evidence!

My comments referred to Guantanamo Bay and your position that you are willing to bend the rules there even though the consequences of that will fall on our heads--not yours.

So your litany of military interation elsewhere doesn't change or refute what I wrote.

Who is bending over? If you hadn't noticed, the US just took over two countrys. We are perfectly able, with our preponderence of force, to defend our interests and still uphold our ideals. It just takes a little more work, but America did not get where it is by being lazy.

No, we lost in Vietnam because the military was not allowed to fight the war. Clemenceau was wrong on that account. Once a nation decides to go to war, it is imperative that it is left to the military to decide the best course of action. The same holds true in this case. Let the military deal with these prisoners, either as prisoners of war or war criminals. Holding them indefinately is akin to hostage taking, and is counter-productive in the long run.

Hell, you started about losing soldiers... My government is supporting the US in the war on terror, just like we supported you in the war in Iraq, and are supporting you in the aftermath. We have a large Muslim sub-population, some of whom are actively involved in extremist groups. We stand to lose as much as you.

And FYI, I don't think any extremist will think your imprisoning extremists in G'bay as excessive, or reason to attack you further. They already hate you and want you all dead; injustice in G'bay does not change that at all. It's just an excuse for more US-bashing (and worse).

This implies that you believe Americans to be better than the rest of the world by virtue of them being American. Seriously, do you believe that Americans are genetically superior? Why do you think Americans are more deserving of basic human rights than anyone else?

Perhaps you dont believe in the right to a fair trial? There used to be a place for that kind of thinking, it was SOVIET RUSSIA.

I concur, IF they are found guilty - so lets give them trials and find out!

If someone is enthusiastic about murdering me and/or my family they are being treated to well if they aren't being caused pain or death. Unless of course my family and/or I have done something tremendously horrid.

No it doesn't, it implies he believes our government should place far more concern in the wellbeing of its own citizens than in the well being of others, particularly those who would seek to destroy it. I think that is right...

That is why I am opposed to AA. We shouldn't be lowering the bar for them, just because they are minorities doesn't mean they are defective and they aren't being culturally held back, there is no need for assistance or dramatically increased sensitivity to any race related issues dealing with minorities.

er....there are lots of people who hate the american way of life and would do things if they had the chance.

they have the right to think whatever they want. but, we can only take action against them if they take action against us.

we just cant go all over the world pickin up peeps who hate us and want to kill us.

Hence the phrase, "Peace through power".

No, you've missed the point. I don't think we're genetically superior to the rest of the world. I think that our government is there to do good for America, and that the people who live in America deserve at least to not be blown up by some foriegner.

As for their basic human rights, they're having their trial, by way of a military tribunal. Are you saying that's not fair? I believe you may be happier in Soviet Russia yourself if you enjoy defaming our noble military servicemen like this.

plz dont draw comparisons to another other nations (USSR, iraq whatever).

we're just not the same. we're at a much higher level than those countries.

and i dont think we should stoop down any lower.

Military Justice is to Civilian Justice as Military Music is to Civilian Music.

I like Military music.

1) Yes, you can - you're certainly powerful enough to do it.
2) Yes, you should - with today's terrorists and the possibility of WMDs, you shouldn't wait for anyone to take action against you, because that action might kill millions.
3) Define "action" for anti-US guys - does this involve preaching hatred of the Western world? does it involve training kids to blow up Americans? does it involve preparing for terror attacks? Or does it just involve those actual attacks, and only after the fact? I.e. where do you draw the line?

so, we're just gonna swoop into any sovereign nation where the people are anti-US ?

Yes im saying the military tribunal is not fair. You would have to be pretty ignorant of what the military tribunal is to feel otherwise.

If you take logic to the extreme, then yes, you should. That'd certainly be an effective (if very bloody) way of maintaining world dominance. It worked for the Roman Empire, so why not for the US Empire? :)

But personally, I'd prefer a more constructive way of solving problems than brute force. However, if there are countries where the *leaders* refuse to stop anti-American (and anti-Western) people from plotting terrorist acts, or are actually promoting such acts, then someone should do something about it. Sovereign nation or not, when your citizens are preparing to attack another country, or supporting people that attack, you are fully responsible for those actions. Either you stop them, or the country being targeted has to stop them, to prevent a potential massacre.

Remember, there's a difference between being "Anti-US" and supporting terrorist acts against the US. The former is perfectly okay, while the latter will get you in trouble, as it should.

WTF?


Dumbush said 9/11 was an "ACT OF WAR"

Note: "Act of WAR"

Therefore they are POW's

hmm...if US can use this principle, why cant other people??

if the whole world followed this principle, there would be no tomorrow.

The UK has certainly been very involved in the war on terrorism, and has spilled its soldiers blood to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Some of the prisoners in Guantanamo are from the UK.
Is the British government fully responsible for the actions of these people?

POW's are defined in the geneva convention. If you had read it, and understood what a POW is, you would know that it does not apply to these people.

Besides, since when do you lefties believe anything Bush says, I find it ironic his word is now the living word =).

Why? If people in country A are preparing to attack people in country B, it's up to the governments of either country A or country B to stop this. That is perfectly normal, and perfectly acceptable. I see no reason to assume that this principle will somehow translate into some global cataclysm...

I think I know what you're trying to say here, though: what if (for example) China were to say that people in Taiwan are plotting to attack China - they'd have an "excuse" to attack. Well, they don't. There wouldn't be any proof whatsoever for such a claim, and the Chinese would be kicked back in line. The US, on the other hand, faces attacks from global terrorists on a daily basis, which is well documented, and proven by the attacks in the past decades.

your example is pretty bad.

what if south korea acts on this?
what if india acts on this?
what if the countries in africa (where there is already a lot of wars) act on this?

I heard their proposal, so I'm not ignorant. Yet here I am, feeling otherwise. I always feel that what is ignorant, is calling dissent ignorant.

OK, but where are the proofs that Iraq planned an attack on the USA? With which weapons?

BTW: theoretically the Iraq would have had the right to attack the USA befoe the US Attack because it was clear that the USA was planning an attack, right?


exaples? where are the attacks "on a daily basis"? I remember two major attacks against the WTC, one was sucessful. Other attacks?

What do you think constitutes a fair trial?

1. This war was bad?
2. (btw) Your point?

his point is that, iraq could have just as easily used the "pre-emptive strike" theory and started a war on the United states.

and in doing so, they would have had much more clear evidence of a possible attack since US troops were massing up near their borders.

By the way, recently 37 people were released from Guantanamo Bay and sent back to Afghanistan and Pakistan so people there are obviously not being lined up and shot without any consideration.

Yes, what if? What if South Korea were to attack the North for constantly provoking them? What if India decides to attack Pakistan *AGAIN*? What if the countries in Africa decide to attack each other *AGAIN*?

My principle doesn't change anything at all - countries are already attacking each other, so what's your point? You think that in reality (without my principle) they'll suddenly stop doing that, and all line up at the UN to talk? This hasn't happened over the past 50 years, so that is simply not the case.

One: Iraq has been supporting terrorists, Iraq has been spreading anti-US propaganda, Iraq has failed to listen to the reasonable demand to provide proof of their disarmament. A direct attack on the US might not have been possible, but they could certainly hurt the US economically and politically. Hence, the US had the "right" to stop them.

Two: Yes Iraq would have had that right. I would not have been surprised if Iraq had lobbed some missiles (or WMDs) at the US troops as they were preparing to attack. However, Iraq obviously decided *not* to do that, in order to achieve some goal - they were hoping the war wouldn't start or something. So your point is?

Oh, you forgot about those attacks on US ambassies and diplomatic missions in Africa and Pakistan? Or the countless attempts to blow up westerners (Remember that shoe-bomb guy?), or the many attacks on US troops and citizens in Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and other countries? Or the attack on the USS Cole? Perhaps you remember the attack on those nasty Australians in Bali; you know, allies of the US?

And just because you don't hear about attacks doesn't mean they weren't planned - occasionally the FBI and CIA get it right, and arrest terrorists before they can strike. You know, like that moron that tried to blow up a bridge in New York...

in palestina, thats true.

that does not justify an attack on the iraq

the USA has failed so far to proof that there were WMDs at all. So right now it looks like the iraqi statement "we have no WMDs" was true..

BTW: the usa are searching for thei justification *after* the attack, in the above China example that would mean, that china could invade taiwan and *then* start to search for a reason.

yeah, why didn't they used WMDs....perhaps they didn't had WMDs.... :)

just curious, i would have loved to see the US reaction on that attack....



allies....hmm but only as long as they say what bush likes to hear.....

OK, but can you link all those attacks to one nation? can you say a nation is responsible for that? If a nation comes to mind it would have bee afghanistan, but the US already liberated them (LOL).
I think a lot of attack right now are some sort of single attacks that are not linked to a certain nation. The al-kaida has broken up into samller, independent groups, hard to link them to a nation.
And I think "on a daily basis" is a <i>bit</i> exaggerated

Oh yeah, i forgot him. What was that for a guy? al-kaidia (of course, every terrorist is al.kaida in these days...)?

ok, let's just think of what would happen if.

1) s.korea invades n korea - pretty gruesome, china might kick in, US might help s.korea, north might use nukes...next world war?

2) india vs pak - another nuclear scenario

north korea would beat the snot out of south korea, but it wouldnt use nukes on south korea. not only because it has enough guns to flatten s. korea without nukes, but also because north koreans and south koreans see each other as family, and you dont really nuke your family no matter how angry you are with them.

However its wrong to conclude that just because certain countries havent been able to work out their differences through diplomacy in the past means that diplomacy is a complete waste of time. Leaders change, people change their minds, progress can be made without reaching for weapons all the time.

and the US is just going to sit around and watch that?

Ah, but the point was that the US didn't *have* to prove that Iraq had them. UN resolutions demanded that Iraq provided proof that they had destroyed those weapons, which they failed to do. Saying that they destroyed them wasn't enough - they needed to provide evidence. Given that the Iraqi government (like most succesful dictatorships) had a large amount of people working to report on virtually every detail of daily life, it seems unreasonable to assume that Iraq had just gotten rid of it's WMDs without any proof whatsoever, especially since they *knew* that they had to provide that evidence later on.

The fact that they didn't use WMDs is no proof of their non-existance. If I were to have a gun in my house, and fail to use it during a burglary, does that mean the gun doesn't exist?

As for the US reaction: it would have been swift, bloody and brutal. Any such move by Iraq would have been political (and real) suicide.

I don't have to link those attacks to one nation. I never said one nation was responsible. I said Al-Qaida (and it's friends) are the instigators of these attacks. Al-Qaida is actively supported by some people, and actively ignored by some countries. This has to stop. If a government chooses to ignore international terrorists operating from it's soil, it's in fact supporting these guys. In that sense, Bush was right: either you fight the terrorists (you're with us), or you support them (you're against us). There is no middle ground. You cannot just look away and claim to be independent, because that's an open invitation to terror groups to set up camp in your country... And these days, that leaves you open to an attack (military, politcal or economical) by the Western world, the targets of those terror groups.

but they should be able to find them now, don't you think?

unreasonable? we are talking about Saddam here, the crazy madman, remember? ;)

hmm, not really. this war was planned long before, today i read an article, according to Lt. Gen. Michael Moseley the US had dropped over 600 bombs before the war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul19.html). So Saddam never had a chance to stop this war.

Well, if Saddam had indeed destroyed them, or had moved them to another country, or had hidden them in the middle of the friggin' desert... then no, they shouldn't be able to find them. Ever.

True, but even madmen feel the need to control everything around them. Suppose Saddam had *not* documented the destruction of his WMDs, even though he had destroyed them... what the hell would be the purpose of such a move? He knew he would have to provide evidence, or else... it doesn't add up.

And actually it doesn't really matter what reasons he had, or if he had reasons at all - he was forced to provide evidence, and didn't do it. the UN had no reason to belief his claims, not after the many lies he had told them already. Without evidence, the UN had no option but to either continue inspection indefinately, or end the inspections and attack. Any other option would have meant that Saddam would get away with breaking UN resolutions. The security council would never have accepted that.

Hell, there were many attacks on Iraq over the past decade, all of which helped prepare for this war. It would have been foolish for the US *not* to prepare the way. This does not mean Saddam couldn't stop the war. Had he provided the forementioned evidence, he would have been safe and sound. The US would never have been able to attack.

Rumsfeld made it very clear that if Iraq used WMDs against our troops that we would be justified to use any means necessary (including nuclear weapons) to put them down. This would most likely involve heavy civilian casualties, which is something that Saddam would be seen as responsible for.

As Dragonlich says, the burden of proof was not on us, but on Iraq to prove that they indeed destroyed their WMDs and didn't just ship them off to another country or bury them in the sand. The war on Iraq should have been ended 12 years ago.

oooo saddam was scared off by rummy's remarks.

and i thought that he didnt care about his people.

Saddam would not be seen as responsible, the United States would be.

Regardless of who would be seen as responsible, Saddam would have been toast. He wanted to survive, thus he decided not to use WMDs. Well, that's one theory anyway... :)

The problem is that nobody but Saddam knows what he was thinking, or if he was thinking at all. We can only judge his actions against our experience and sense of reason. To me, his actions were pretty suspicious, and I don't even have access to all the intelligence data that the US president has.

Something I'm still wondering, other than "people died" and "bush sucks", I hjaven't gotten an answer about why this war was a bad thing?

He wouldn't go to war over being modest, most probably explanation is that he moved out of the country that which he could and hid the rest.

If the number of US military we had placed over there was quintupled then in around a month I'd start furrowing my eyebrow.

A lot of the Anti-US arguments revolve around Saddam being victimized in a way. If he is universally renowned as a evil dictator of vileness, predispositions be damned everyone will hate Saddam and like the US more.

I percieve this as irrelevant because I don't think this war was a bad thing.

I concur.

You cannot piercieve it as irrelevant because if you do you are very much saying "i dont care about it.. this time."

Look one day the U.S. will be in a slump, it might not happen in our lifetime, but hell it might and for sure it will happen one day far in the future.

And would that be justification for a more powerful nation to attack?

The reason our country doesn't pre-emptive strike on N.Korea, China, etc. is because we know getting invovled there would really really screw things up and have far worst effects. And yes also because our casualties would a lot higher and would not be so pleasing to the public.

But thats besides the point right now. Thing is though, the entire deal with whether its right or wrong should be CONSISTENT. You do not make up rules on one issue then change it to another. You stay as it should be.

Anyways I expect the U.S. to still be seen as the land of the free with justice and all that stuff. I think it very un-US like to act the way it has. I for one think its too much of the gov't playing on the 9/11 fears. People please goddamn get over it. I know those are harsh words but you do realize all of you are just playing into the gov't and using those fears to justify what it has interests in? Sure, they may truly believe it is the right thing to do, but people please at least THINK for yourselves and not keep the past from changing what youwant to do in the future.

Because if you have already changed, then the terrorists have won.

Honestly I think we are going after the wrong country. I am pretty anti-war but I think there is one country out there we need to pay a visit too. I don't see it happening durring this administartion though.


http://msnbc.com/news/941425.asp

I agree with this. Unfortunately, it was pretty much impossible to go after Saudi-Arabia with Iraq still in the picture. We needed their support to contain Saddam, and we were using their bases to do it... with Iraq out of the picture (in a few years, when it's more stable), the US might turn on SA, if they still support terror by then. They're slowly changing, so let's hope it won't be necessary.

Well its not so easy on SA being they do export a lot of our oil and what not. Its not going to be easy without suffering a lot for our economy and SA won't fall w/o the other Arab nations all coming to help - then we'd be in some crap for it.

no way we're even gonna remotely try to attack saudi arabia. cuz they're our "ally". remember, either you're with us or against us.

what 11/18 911 hijackers came from there and i dont even remember hearing gwb tellin saudi's to reign in the terrorists, not alone a threat against 'em.

Well, that is my point.
We can declare a county to "Harbor Terrorists" as long as there is no gain to be had by befriending them.
This county can be pretty screwed up most of the time. Rarely do we do what is right just because it is right.

That pisses me off.

Well thats the thing that always irked me - theres this double standard floating around. You're either with us or against us - but you're gonig to be with us if you're against us simply because you have something we want (or because it makes us better)

Actually, the Saudis have been getting a *lot* of flak from the US government. So much in fact, that they recently decided to finally attack "Al-Qaida" terrorists (just a tag) instead of blaming terror attacks on foreigners; usually Westerners, who did it to control the illegal alcohol market... Just because it's not all over the front pages doesn't mean that the Saudis aren't getting overt threats. I'd say there were enough unofficial threats in the past years, such as a semi-official government report (later denounced as "too extreme") that suggested the US nuke Mecca.

As I said, they're slowly changing their ways, because the government there can see where this is going. They won't stay a "friend" for long if they keep ignoring the problem. Remember: Saddam used to be everyone's friend too, until he went too far.

he was still their friend. half of the middle eastern nations refused to help out in the gulf war II.

yes, they're changing their ways, but it's just too damn slow. they're too damn conservative. look @ the rights that women have there, NONE.

we need a catalyist in there, in some form (which i dont know)

Just the basics please: Presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, and a fair trial.

What is their status?

illegal combatents = presumed guilty until proven innocent.

even if proven innocent, some are not released.

Okay, they were presumed innocent until they started to shoot at US soldiers, which proved otherwise. The fair trial is about to happen, by military tribunals.

...but that's probably not what you mean, is it? :)

Shooting at soldiers doesn't make you guilty - thats not a damn crime. So the lonely peasant defending his homeland shoots towards a soldier they're suddenly war criminal? Nah. Hell some of them only fought because they hate foreign invaders - so that reasoning at being innocent vs. guilty is wrong.

I'd say they were taken because they were suspected of links to Al-Qaeda - now obviously there are going to be mistakes but most probably got weeded out. I'd say its unlikely those who are held don't have some ties. But again, mistakes happen out there and should be avoided.

As for the others... well thats for the tribunal to decide. Hell a lot may just go free but I'd say its those who are well known already to be part of the organization are the real ones who are in trouble.

Shooting at a US sodlier certainly raises questions though. Plus, it's a good way to get killed.

Doesn't that mean they aren't subject to various 'stuff', icluding "presumed innocent until proven guilty"? I dont know much on this topic.

I'll never get in on these in time to really have a discussion, but imho, we (america) need to start applying our own values of justice to our internation policy. We have become the policemen that we swore we would not. But, we do not act judiciously, we act on our extreme xenophobic tendancies. The idea that, "they would kill us without a thought, so lets get em," implies that we are to have control over other countries as if they were not soverign. The world doesn't end at our borders, and we need to remember that in our values of justice, it is "innocent until proven guilty."

even the un charter says that all suspects should be treated "innocent until proven guilty"

Im sorry but anyone who thinks the Military tribunal is a fair trial is a bloody idiot. Even if they are found innocent by the tribunal, there is no guarantee they will be released.

I'll agree with Wakosane in that some things the U.S. really -does- need to take a look at and see where it really is headed to. The reason so many controversies arrived lately is because of the direction of the U.S. - the "liberals" actually probably act really conservative and didn't want to see the country so drastically change direction *shrug*

'Okay, they were presumed innocent until they started to shoot at US soldiers, which proved otherwise. The fair trial is about to happen, by military tribunals. '

Im gobsmacked by this logic.

Care to explain why? Can you prove they were innocent? Can you explain why they weren't illegal combatants? And can you explain why a non-US citizen on non-US soil would get a trial based on normal US law?

No, obviously i cant prove they are innocent- thats why we have to be stringent in getting a fair and proper hearing for all of these people. If they are guilty, then lets prove in front of the world and get UN involved. This Guantanamo Bay malarchy is freaking abhorent to anyone who believes in proper justice. Shooting at an invading force of soldiers while being in your own country does not make a criminal. These guys may in fact be guilty of stuff though, but the course of justice is being manhandled by the US.

Actually... If you're not wearing a proper military uniform (as in: recognizable as a combatant instead of a civilian), then you are in fact a criminal. Only soldiers are supposed to do the shooting, and only soldiers get protection from the Geneva convention. If it were any different, how could soldiers distinguish between soldiers and civilians at all?

and how would you be certain of what they were wearing?

Its absoloutly absurd, the rules of war (referring to the clothing thing) You'd think that putting the proportionally largest amount of military might against a weaker apponent in the whole history of known civilisation, would breach some kind of law too.

Yeah, because.. uh.. people shouldn't be able to win a war, right?

Like it or not, the US is the top dog. Harbor people who attack us, and you will get the shit kicked out of you. If you think that this makes the US "meanies", then I suggest you look into teaching preschool.

I am not certain of what these particular individuals were wearing. I do, however, know that a lot of 3th world countries have a severe lack of proper military uniforms, especially rebel/terror groups.

How would you be certain they were wearing uniforms? Have you seen any TV clip about the Afghani war where any local was wearing a proper military uniform at all?