5 ms·

>What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side. This shows a

by phaus 13y ago

>What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side. This shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation. The Taliban and Al Qaida were always criminals. Its not like they are simply members of the Afghan and Iraqi armies that were present before the United States entered, they are a small minority of religious extremists that that are attempting to impose their idiotic beliefs on other nations. With that in mind, those who are in Guantanamo that are suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaida should not be held indefinitely without charges or trial. If we have evidence, we should prosecute them. If not, we should release them after a reasonable amount of time. I'm a former Soldier and I know how much it would suck to know in your heart that a person you detained, was in fact a terrorist, yet they walk due to a lack of evidence. However, if we don't observe the rule of law, there won't be an America to defend anymore. I'm inclined to believe that quite a few of the people in Guantanamo are guilty. But we also know for a fact that certain groups, such as bounty hunters, were shipping lots of innocent folks off to prison simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We need to start looking for these innocents and set them free in a timely manner. We already have enough blood on our hands.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
There is no established rule of law regarding so-called criminal enemy combatants (as the Am Qaida detainees are classified - Taliban detainees are not thus considered). Insofar as I am aware, the US could execute them en masse perfectly legally. The Taliban detainees have always been provided full legal POW rights. This means that they must he released after hostilities have ended. I may well he misinformed. If so please correct me.
- phaus 13y ago
  I agree the U.S. could definitely "get away" with killing them all, I'm speaking more about the intent behind the rule of law. In my humble opinion, "after hostilities have ended" is too weak of a standard. I'm still a young man, yet I would be surprised if hostilities ended before I die of natural causes. Perhaps we can argue that we didn't know better before this conflict, but now that we do we should make some changes. I was not aware that the Taliban were given POW rights. That was an extremely poor decision but I guess I stand corrected on that issue. I don't really have a solution, I'm just weary of watching the slowest train-wreck in the history of the world. We should be better than this.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    > We should be better than this. Well, the US did vote for the guy who said he would close Guantanamo. So it would seem most are better than this, but not the ones who matter.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  You are most certainly misinformed, and most of your comments here appear to be ignorant of the excessively creative dodging of the law the US has engaged in since 2011. The Taliban prisoners have not always been afforded full legal POW rights. What do you think the category of unlawful combatant is all about? You quote a bit of that in another comment, but appear not to comprehend what you're quoting. Taliban prisoners were begrudgingly [allegedly, according to official statement] afforded POW privileges, not legal rights of POW status. There is a vast difference between the two. The privileges include meals, communication, and some other humane things. But the entire purpose of the unlawful combatant designation was to deny the legal status of POW altogether. This was done with disingenuous arguments denying the Taliban recognition as the government of Afghanistan, as well as denying satisfaction of other requirements under the Geneva Conventions that would require POW status. The Bush administration was adamant about denying Taliban captives POW status. There is no requirement that unlawful combatants be released after hostilities are ended, nor has there ever been an offered picture of what it would mean for hostilities to end. Were these prisoners declared as POWs, they could never have their detainment and crimes reviewed, presided over, or decided by tribunals. That violates international law.
- n3m6 13y ago
  No, you can't execute them en masse legally. That would be against several international treaties. But more than that, do you not have any sense of humanity?
Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago
Would it be fair for yourself to suffer the same fate?
- phaus 13y ago
  I don't know where you got the idea that I was supporting it.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

by phaus 13y ago

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

There is no established rule of law regarding so-called criminal enemy combatants (as the Am Qaida detainees are classified - Taliban detainees are not thus considered). Insofar as I am aware, the US could execute them en masse perfectly legally. The Taliban detainees have always been provided full legal POW rights. This means that they must he released after hostilities have ended. I may well he misinformed. If so please correct me.

phaus 13y ago
I agree the U.S. could definitely "get away" with killing them all, I'm speaking more about the intent behind the rule of law. In my humble opinion, "after hostilities have ended" is too weak of a standard. I'm still a young man, yet I would be surprised if hostilities ended before I die of natural causes. Perhaps we can argue that we didn't know better before this conflict, but now that we do we should make some changes. I was not aware that the Taliban were given POW rights. That was an extremely poor decision but I guess I stand corrected on that issue. I don't really have a solution, I'm just weary of watching the slowest train-wreck in the history of the world. We should be better than this.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  > We should be better than this. Well, the US did vote for the guy who said he would close Guantanamo. So it would seem most are better than this, but not the ones who matter.
bobwaycott 13y ago
You are most certainly misinformed, and most of your comments here appear to be ignorant of the excessively creative dodging of the law the US has engaged in since 2011. The Taliban prisoners have not always been afforded full legal POW rights. What do you think the category of unlawful combatant is all about? You quote a bit of that in another comment, but appear not to comprehend what you're quoting. Taliban prisoners were begrudgingly [allegedly, according to official statement] afforded POW privileges, not legal rights of POW status. There is a vast difference between the two. The privileges include meals, communication, and some other humane things. But the entire purpose of the unlawful combatant designation was to deny the legal status of POW altogether. This was done with disingenuous arguments denying the Taliban recognition as the government of Afghanistan, as well as denying satisfaction of other requirements under the Geneva Conventions that would require POW status. The Bush administration was adamant about denying Taliban captives POW status. There is no requirement that unlawful combatants be released after hostilities are ended, nor has there ever been an offered picture of what it would mean for hostilities to end. Were these prisoners declared as POWs, they could never have their detainment and crimes reviewed, presided over, or decided by tribunals. That violates international law.
n3m6 13y ago
No, you can't execute them en masse legally. That would be against several international treaties. But more than that, do you not have any sense of humanity?

Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago

Would it be fair for yourself to suffer the same fate?

phaus 13y ago
I don't know where you got the idea that I was supporting it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]