6 ms·

I'm against prisoners in non-wartime being held without allegations or trials... I mean, Khalid was held pre-9/11... That said, I do not care about the art, or

I'm against prisoners in non-wartime being held without allegations or trials... I mean, Khalid was held pre-9/11... That said, I do not care about the art, or even speech, of prisoners--of which who are properly convicted, beyond speech with their attorneys and allowed contacts (whom must be able to communicate on behalf of them). The bothersome part of this is Guantanamo's non-wartime use in-and-of itself.

crooked-v 4y ago
> who are properly convicted They haven't been. Legally speaking, the remaining detainees at Guantanamo are basically victims of indefinite government kidnapping, as the US government has specifically refused to actually put them on trial because there isn't enough admissible evidence to do so.
- DigiDigiorno 4y ago
  Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am saying that this is bothersome because he wasn't convicted. It's my first sentence. I just don't care about the art angle.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  This. If they were convicted, they’d be in a US prison, not a place that the US just indefinitely “rents” so it can be off US soil. Remember: military bases are US soil and subject to the Constitution. Except for when they’re not.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  You don't put lawful combatants "on trial". In fact, it is illegal to do so under the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants, by contrast, are not entitled to a trial, and can even be executed on the spot if it seems advisable. Being a lawful combatant requires, among other things, that the combatant wear a uniform or other insignia recognizable at a distance. No uniform -> no POW rights has been the rule for a very, very long time.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    It's not like these people were found in a battlefield. Most of them were kidnapped from their homes in air raids. It's pretty hard to argue that they didn't have a legal right to trial.
    - defrost 4y ago
      A good number were proffered up for cash to the US on a bounty system and were little more than tourists from other parts of the world with few local friends or contacts and ideal patsies for whatever stories local warlords spun about them.
      - Turing_Machine 4y ago
        "Tourists" don't generally travel to active war zones.
        arcticbull 4y ago
        Sure they do. Folks who have families who live in war zones, for example, will almost certainly fit the definition. Also, I see you've never heard of Miles Routledge, in fact I think he's in Afghanistan right now on a shooting trip with the Taliban - and his next destination is the South Sudan. [1] I myself have been to more than a handful of spicy jurisdictions. It's fine to say you wouldn't but let's not go projecting. [1] https://nypost.com/2021/08/18/uk-student-miles-routledge-flies-to-afghanistan-gets-rescued-by-british-army/ https://nypost.com/2021/08/18/uk-student-miles-routledge-fli...
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        > Also, I see you've never heard of Miles Routledge, in fact I think he's in Afghanistan right now on a shooting trip with the Taliban If "Miles Routledge" is on a "shooting trip with the Taliban", he deserves anything he gets. And if you make a habit of visiting "spicy jurisdictions", you deserve anything you get. I say this not out of animus for you or Routledge, but if you knowingly and intentionally engage in risky behavior, you don't get to whine when something goes wrong. Edit: I smoke cigarettes, which I know to be risky behavior. If I get lung cancer, I won't be whining about it. Similarly, if Routledge's Taliban buddies decide they don't like him any more, and take a notion to saw off his head on video (a rather more likely risk than him accidentally being sent to Gitmo, IMO), that's on him.
justin66 4y ago
“Like almost all the men sent there, he has never been charged with a crime.”
- DigiDigiorno 4y ago
  Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am saying that this is bothersome because he wasn't convicted or charged. It's my first sentence. I just don't care about the art angle.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

crooked-v 4y ago

> who are properly convicted They haven't been. Legally speaking, the remaining detainees at Guantanamo are basically victims of indefinite government kidnapping, as the US government has specifically refused to actually put them on trial because there isn't enough admissible evidence to do so.

DigiDigiorno 4y ago
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am saying that this is bothersome because he wasn't convicted. It's my first sentence. I just don't care about the art angle.
colejohnson66 4y ago
This. If they were convicted, they’d be in a US prison, not a place that the US just indefinitely “rents” so it can be off US soil. Remember: military bases are US soil and subject to the Constitution. Except for when they’re not.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
You don't put lawful combatants "on trial". In fact, it is illegal to do so under the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants, by contrast, are not entitled to a trial, and can even be executed on the spot if it seems advisable. Being a lawful combatant requires, among other things, that the combatant wear a uniform or other insignia recognizable at a distance. No uniform -> no POW rights has been the rule for a very, very long time.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  It's not like these people were found in a battlefield. Most of them were kidnapped from their homes in air raids. It's pretty hard to argue that they didn't have a legal right to trial.
  - defrost 4y ago
    A good number were proffered up for cash to the US on a bounty system and were little more than tourists from other parts of the world with few local friends or contacts and ideal patsies for whatever stories local warlords spun about them.
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      "Tourists" don't generally travel to active war zones.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        Sure they do. Folks who have families who live in war zones, for example, will almost certainly fit the definition. Also, I see you've never heard of Miles Routledge, in fact I think he's in Afghanistan right now on a shooting trip with the Taliban - and his next destination is the South Sudan. [1] I myself have been to more than a handful of spicy jurisdictions. It's fine to say you wouldn't but let's not go projecting. [1] https://nypost.com/2021/08/18/uk-student-miles-routledge-flies-to-afghanistan-gets-rescued-by-british-army/ https://nypost.com/2021/08/18/uk-student-miles-routledge-fli...
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        > Also, I see you've never heard of Miles Routledge, in fact I think he's in Afghanistan right now on a shooting trip with the Taliban If "Miles Routledge" is on a "shooting trip with the Taliban", he deserves anything he gets. And if you make a habit of visiting "spicy jurisdictions", you deserve anything you get. I say this not out of animus for you or Routledge, but if you knowingly and intentionally engage in risky behavior, you don't get to whine when something goes wrong. Edit: I smoke cigarettes, which I know to be risky behavior. If I get lung cancer, I won't be whining about it. Similarly, if Routledge's Taliban buddies decide they don't like him any more, and take a notion to saw off his head on video (a rather more likely risk than him accidentally being sent to Gitmo, IMO), that's on him.

justin66 4y ago

“Like almost all the men sent there, he has never been charged with a crime.”

DigiDigiorno 4y ago
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am saying that this is bothersome because he wasn't convicted or charged. It's my first sentence. I just don't care about the art angle.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]