Sounds like someone is surfing a lot of conspiracy theory websites.

Well it has been reported in the US on credible news channels but that aside............

It actually helps the US Military at Gitmo because it takes the light off of them...Since they did not capture these themselves it would at least help explain later having to release hundreds who were wrongfully imprisoned..

But as you wish lets say it is a conspiracy & the US Military rounded up all those wrongly on their own

lets say it is a conspiracy & the US Military rounded up all those wrongly on their own

Proof that they are innocent please?

lets say it is a conspiracy & the US Military rounded up all those wrongly on their own

Proof that they are innocent please?

Ask the USA Military Industrial Complex.....They released them all...Hundreds of them.

Then later claimed a few went to known terrorism organizations but only identified a handful to CNN when asked...

But you know that...I would hope

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-24/politics/gitmo.detainees_1_detainees-center-at-guantanamo-bay-prisoners?_s=PM:POLITICS

Letting them go is not proof that they did not participate in terrorist activities before being arrested. In fact, some returned to it after being released, but hopefully other guilty parties have learned their lesson.

Letting them go is not proof that they did not participate in terrorist activities before being arrested. In fact, some returned to it after being released, but hopefully other guilty partieshave learned their lesson.

hahahahahh Yeah right hundreds of terrorist released ......

Thousand of guilty criminals are released in the U.S. every year. That is not exactly news.

hahah stretching is good keeps you limber

You must be very limber.

I wonder why Gitmo is still open. Didn't Obama pledge to close it down not later than January 2010?

Oh well, he can always blame it on the dreaded Military/Industrial complex.

I am awaiting koheesti's (and anyone else's) response to Flying's very pertinant question about whether or not it is only the USA that should kill suspects out of hand.

The 3 US "hikers" caught by Iran should have been shot as spies? No trial?

(On a side note...they should have been shot for idiocy. Who in their right minds goes "hiking" in a war wracked country, let alone on the border of another country that is somewhat hostile to their own nation?)

Is it your position that the 3 U.S. hikers posed a potential threat to Iran?

It is my position that Iran had as much cause to believe they were potential spies as the US had of "believing" that all Gitmo detainees were potential terrorists.

But that is beside the point....the point is that koheesti holds the position that all terror suspects should be shot on sight because detaining them is a PR nightmare, and killing just one real terrorist out of many innocent victims, may save US lives.

Killing one 'real terrorist' may very will save U.S. lives given that terrorists are determined to wipe out U.S., as well as other countries, citizenry. Or do you believe that 'real' terrorists are not killers but perhaps just merely misunderstood?

I agree that killing one real terrorist may save many lives...no matter what citizenship or religion. Shoot him, torture him to garner information...heck, torture him for the sheer satisfaction, if that's what floats your boat.

I have no problem with that.

As a lawyer, do you hold with the presumption of innocence?

lets say it is a conspiracy & the US Military rounded up all those wrongly on their own

Proof that they are innocent please?

More importantly, proof that they were guilty, please.

I wonder why Gitmo is still open. Didn't Obama pledge to close it down not later than January 2010?

Oh well, he can always blame it on the dreaded Military/Industrial complex.

Because the people you support place obstacles in his way.

So, somehow, the illegal prison that the village idiot Texan supported and brought about infamy for the US for is now Obama's fault?

You must be very limber.

Yes I am .....Always was. I am not driven by a religious zealotism although I have studied many religions.

It is good to be flexible....Yet I do not need to stretch the truth or deny the facts I find on what I feel are credible sites.

Everyone has an opinion or point of view....You too

Yes it is good to be limber or flexible

If not it may cause a dilemma.

I wonder why Gitmo is still open. Didn't Obama pledge to close it down not later than January 2010?

Oh well, he can always blame it on the dreaded Military/Industrial complex.

Puppets only have the power the strings give them, Nothing more.

Same as the previous puppets

I wonder why Gitmo is still open. Didn't Obama pledge to close it down not later than January 2010?

Oh well, he can always blame it on the dreaded Military/Industrial complex.

Because the people you support place obstacles in his way.

So, somehow, the illegal prison that the village idiot Texan supported and brought about infamy for the US for is now Obama's fault?

As usual, you know little about which you speak.

White House asks Justice Department to look for other places to hold 9/11 terror trial

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_for_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html#ixzz14r3VOLCb

Especially consider the use of debate.

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001060.html

But that is beside the point....the point is that koheesti holds the position that all terror suspects should be shot on sight because...

If they are caught on the battlefield fighting, sure.

...detaining them is a PR nightmare, and killing just one real terrorist out of many innocent victims, may save US lives.

May save US lives? How many Americans have died from terror incidents outside war zones since Sept 11, 2001?

Oct 12, 2002, Bali bombing - 202 dead including 88 Aussies, 38 Indonesians, 24 Brits, 7 Americans, 6 Germans, 3 Kiwis

March 11, 2004, Madird bombings - 191 dead including 142 Spaniards, 16 Romanians and zero Americans.

July 7, 2005, London bombings - 56 dead, few if any Americans

Nov 26, 2008, Mumbai - 175 dead, 138 Indians, 4 Americans, 3 Germans.

lets say it is a conspiracy & the US Military rounded up all those wrongly on their own

Proof that they are innocent please?

More importantly, proof that they were guilty, please.

I for one believe the US should follow the Geneva Conventions. That way, any enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform could legally be shot on the spot as a spy. That'sone helluva lot of legally shot people pushing up poppies. When we took prisoners, they would stay in a POW camp until the War of Terror ended. In other words, they'd die of old age. More expensive than a bullet, but better than letting them free.

any enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform could legally be shot on the spot as a spy.

Define enemy combatant or I should say in your example what do you assume an enemy combatant to be?

Is it just anyone without a uniform who is suspected?....

Not all armies can afford uniforms....Most enemies in VietNam did not have one.

Or do they have to be carrying a weapon?

Could it be things like wrong nationality for the zone they are found in? What is the battlefield?

Because when the US goes in a whole country or two becomes a battlefield.....

Again I am curious....is your/this idea uniform across the board?

Meaning you would expect/allow the enemy the same rights to kill as a spy any plain clothed foreigners in what they consider the battlefield.

An army that can afford weapons and ammunition, but can not afford cotton cloth to make a uniform? Balderdash!

An army that can afford weapons and ammunition, but can not afford cotton cloth to make a uniform? Balderdash!

how come that army kicked the àss of the Soviet Union?

That way, any enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform could legally be shot on the spot as a spy.

what is the definition of a uniform and who decides what is a uniform and what not? did the Germans during World war II act according to the Geneva convention and do you approve that they shot the russian, french and yugoslav resistance fighters?

battlefield = my àss!

An army that can afford weapons and ammunition, but can not afford cotton cloth to make a uniform? Balderdash!

how come that army kicked the àss of the Soviet Union?

Thanks for agreeing with my point. It is happening more and more. There may be hope for you yet.

did the Germans during World war II act according to the Geneva convention

Of course not. The Nazis were hateful savages. However, they did have the right to shoot combatants who were not in uniform according to the Geneva Convention.

War is hel_l.

An army that can afford weapons and ammunition, but can not afford cotton cloth to make a uniform? Balderdash!

Perhaps they do not strive to be fashion icons?

if memory serves me correctly many of the gitmo prisioners were caught in one haul, they were in some court yard armed and shooting at our forces when they were overtaken, rounded up and put in prision. Granted some were probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time but if they were not smart enough to stay clear of a fire fight then they can only hold themselves accountable. As for water boarding imho if the prisioners were given a choice of firing squad or water board, i think the majority would take the water. The worst part about Gitmo is it raises the standard of living for most of the captured rag heads. when we talk of village idiots i wonder what village idiot belives that keeping nuke powered subs from docking in their port will do anything to stop nukes.

when we talk of village idiots i wonder what village idiot belives that keeping nuke powered subs from docking in their port will do anything to stop nukes.

You certainly have an important point.

any enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform could legally be shot on the spot as a spy.

Define enemy combatant or I should say in your example what do you assume an enemy combatant to be?

Is it just anyone without a uniform who is suspected?....

Not all armies can afford uniforms....Most enemies in VietNam did not have one.

Or do they have to be carrying a weapon?

Could it be things like wrong nationality for the zone they are found in? What is the battlefield?

Because when the US goes in a whole country or two becomes a battlefield.....

Again I am curious....is your/this idea uniform across the board?

Meaning you would expect/allow the enemy the same rights to kill as a spy any plain clothed foreigners in what they consider the battlefield.

You have these questions because you took my only part of my quote. I said the US should follow the Geneva Conventions so read the GC and you'll find your answer. If it isn't conclusive to you, then the problem is with the GC definition, not mine.

did the Germans during World war II act according to the Geneva convention and do you approve that they shot the russian, french and yugoslav resistance fighters?

battlefield = my àss!

What a curious question. I don't know about you but, I don't use Nazi Germany as a benchmark of how a military should behave.