Guantanamo is quite controversial.

Anyway, I think I have a solution, that could save faces and solve a lot of problems.

Give all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay a choice.

They can choose between staying in Guantanamo Bay prison camp for "the duration", or accepting a free one-way flight to Damascus.

Do that.

Then invade Syria.

or send them to the united states and try them there, another option

Once again an amazing post from TM around which I can't quite get my brain....

tommy is certainly controversial in his threads and hasn't let up since his return but essentially hasn't broken the rules YET

...or just close the place and send them to their homes....I'm sure they are all brain dead by now.

Ah, hang on, here is a better proposal, why not put them on trial and see if they are guilty?

<snip>Ah, hang on, here is a better proposal, why not put them on trial and see if they are guilty?

Thats a novel idea

<snip>Ah, hang on, here is a better proposal, why not put them on trial and see if they are guilty?

Thats a novel idea

You mean like, give them access to legal representation, and a fair trail where they could present evidence and cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses and evidence ?

But surely, if the US did that, it might turn out that some of those prisoners are actually innocent !

How then could the US justify having kept them prisoners for 4+ years (in some cases), while subjecting them to various forms of torture ?

Not to mention that any prisoners found innocent would then most likely sue the US government for incredibly huge sums of money.

Of course, this would also deal a devastating blow to GWB and the Republican party that started this whole mess. They'd get slaughtered in the next election. The press (and the Dem's) would be screaming for blood, demanding impeachments and charges against many very high officials in the military and the administration.

I think the current administration has got itself into a very nasty predicament, and can't find a face-saving way out of it. That's why they are continuing with the current policy. Probably wishing that one of those killer hurricanes would sweep that whole mess into the sea.

I saw an article recently in which some US court ordered the government to hand over a list with the names of all the detainee's at G'tmo. Apparently they have until 3 March to release the names (or else !). From what I gathered, the State Dept. has only released the names of 10 detainees so far. Those being the only 10 they have officially charged so far.

Their claim is that they are protecting the privacy of the detainees (funny how that respect for privacy doesn't extend to alleged criminals in the US, for example that guy they just extradited from the UK for murdering his wife and child)

Uh let the military try them and if guilty - summary execution!!!

Uh let the military try them and if guilty - summary execution!!!

That would certainly clean up the current fiasco. 510 guilty verdicts in secret trails, followed by 510 bullets to the back of the head(s). Problem solved.

As per usual with the current administration, the public won't know anything about it until days, or even weeks afterwards. Not until someone eventually leaks it to the press. Maybe they'll get that ranch owner in Texas to break the story to the local Republican newspaper.

You know, to avoid any potentially embarrassing questions like the ones the left-wing, liberal, wing-nut, commie media might ask.

How's that old saying go:

Better to keep silent and be thought a fool,

than speak and remove all doubt.

Words to live by !

<snip>Ah, hang on, here is a better proposal, why not put them on trial and see if they are guilty?

Thats a novel idea

You mean like, give them access to legal representation, and a fair trail where they could present evidence and cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses and evidence ?

hm... ha...hA...HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH In the US???? Oh Please... That's a great way to start the day in a good mood though... I haven't laughed so hard in ages.....

<snip>Ah, hang on, here is a better proposal, why not put them on trial and see if they are guilty?

Thats a novel idea

You mean like, give them access to legal representation, and a fair trail where they could present evidence and cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses and evidence ?

hm... ha...hA...HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH In the US???? Oh Please... That's a great way to start the day in a good mood though... I haven't laughed so hard in ages.....

Thanks Kayo.... I needed that!!!!

Uh let the military try them and if guilty - summary execution!!!

Fake a terrorist suicide attack. The attack will be meant to send the faithful prisoners to Allah. Of course the would also be so many spins that could be used after such in attack for political jockeying later.

yeah... you got it there actually... Why not stick 'em all on a plane with the bush admin flying the thing, and send 'em straight into the sears tower or something...????

yeah... you got it there actually... Why not stick 'em all on a plane with the bush admin flying the thing, and send 'em straight into the sears tower or something...????

No more Skyscrapers - let's have a mosque instead!!!

Uh let the military try them and if guilty - summary execution!!!

Ah...a sane voice from the wilderness at last.

Cheers, brit.

For those 'ignorant of the world around themselves' they are called Military Tribunals.

Like in Nuremberg?

Ring a bell do it?

Uh let the military try them and if guilty - summary execution!!!

Ah...a sane voice from the wilderness at last.

Cheers, brit.

For those 'ignorant of the world around themselves' they are called Military Tribunals.

Like in Nuremberg?

Ring a bell do it?

Hmm, yes, Nuremberg. Remind me (I wasn't around way back then). Did they take all the "defendants" at Nuremberg to a remote location, away from prying eyes, deny them legal representation, and hold them for 4+ years without charges or trails ?

I remember looking up Nuremberg during the Bernardo trail in Canada. (Bernardo and his wife (Karla) drugged, raped and murdered 2 schoolgirls. They also drugged and raped Karla's younger sister, who later died as a result).

I looked up Nuremberg as a reference to how long the Bernardo trail had been taking. Germany officially surrendered on 6 May 1945.

24 Nazis at the main Nuremberg were tried between 20 Nov '45 to 10 Oct '46. Those sentenced to hang were executed on the 16th of Oct '46.

Just about 1 1/2 years from Germany's surrender to the hanging of the guilty b@stards. (Other trials of various lesser politicians and industry leaders went on until 1949)

"A short drop and a sudden stop" Pirates of the Carribean (referring to hanging pirates)

<snip>Ah, hang on, here is a better proposal, why not put them on trial and see if they are guilty?

Thats a novel idea

You mean like, give them access to legal representation, and a fair trail where they could present evidence and cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses and evidence ?

hm... ha...hA...HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH In the US???? Oh Please... That's a great way to start the day in a good mood though... I haven't laughed so hard in ages.....

Thanks Kayo.... I needed that!!!!

Gun's gone now....

LaoPo

How many years was Rudolph Hess held in solitary confimement for trying to make peace.

How many years was Rudolph Hess held in solitary confimement for trying to make peace.

I just read an article today about Hess. It noted his "still secret" mission where he flew into Northern Scotland, and it mentioned his "suicide" in Spandau prison in 1987.

I was posted to Germany back then, and I remember his "suicide" caused quite a stir. After all, he'd been in that prison since '45. 42 years later he suddenly decides to end his life ?

The "stir" I mentioned had to do with the fact the Cold War was still on, and the only reason the Russians had to be in West Berlin was guarding the prison (The allies, Russia, the UK, the USA and France took turns guarding the prison). Hess was the only inmate remaining there.

With Hess dead, the Allies could kick the Russians out of West Berlin. I don't recall exactly, but it was either the Brits or the Yanks that were guarding him at the time.

Funny how details about the real reason he flew to the UK still have not come out, just a lot of speculation and rumours. Like the rumour that he may have wanted to reveal the details of that mission, but suddenly killed himself.

Uh let the military try them and if guilty - summary execution!!!

Ah...a sane voice from the wilderness at last.

Cheers, brit.

For those 'ignorant of the world around themselves' they are called Military Tribunals.

Like in Nuremberg?

Ring a bell do it?

Hmm, yes, Nuremberg. Remind me (I wasn't around way back then). Did they take all the "defendants" at Nuremberg to a remote location, away from prying eyes, deny them legal representation, and hold them for 4+ years without charges or trails ?

Nazi Germany was a defeated nation.

The War against Terrorism is just getting started.

Give all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay a choice.

I would prefer another choice. Walk them all out to the beach. Point them in the direction of home and say "You are free to go. If we see anything other than your back from this point on, you will be shot and killed." (Yes obviously I'm being sarcastic and not serious.)

The fact is those who are there, are there because they chose to wage war against America and American allies. That war is in progress, as in not yet concluded. Under international law and laws of war, the US can hold them indefinitely.

There are two ways to initiate change, Evolution or Revolution. Neither comes without risk. They chose revolution. Now let them live with their choice.

People often forget or pay no mind the large number of prisoners who have already been released, something like 20-25% of the peak population of a few years ago.

If anyone thinks that American or allied prisoners are being treated better in Iraq or Afghanistan, then they are obviously delusional and clueless. I doubt that any American or allied prisoner has ever been returned, whether alive or dead.

The fact is those who are there, are there because they chose to wage war against America and American allies. That war is in progress, as in not yet concluded. Under international law and laws of war, the US can hold them indefinitely.

Which International Laws and Laws of War are you referring to ?

(Thanks again for that link to the Geneva convention Spee. See below)

It's probably a moot point, but you do realize that the US never officially declared War on Terrorism ? Congress passed a bill allowing the US to use force to combat terrorism, but that was not a formal Declaration of War (which would have conferred a different set of powers on the President).

(I imagine a formal Declaration of War on Terrorism would have been pretty hard to define, unless you decided to declare war on 80% of the rest of the world)

You do realize as well, that any "War on Terrorism" will never end ? As long as there is anybody out there that doesn't bow down in submission to the US, there will always be a threat of terrorism. You, your children, your grand-children, probably their grand-children will never see any formal declaration that the "War on Terror" is over.

As far as international law, and the laws of war are concerned, here are some Articles from the Geneva Convention (there are 143 Articles relating to Prisoners of War alone, plus the annexes).

Article 99

No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.

No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

I guess that the US can argue that torturing POW's to get information from them is legal, as long as they don't try to extract a confession from them at the same time.

Article 102

A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, and if, furthermore, the provisions of the present Chapter have been observed.

I highly doubt that members of the US military accused of commiting crimes (like those from Abu Ghraib) were tried under the same procedures as the POWs in G'tmo have been subject to (you know, the whole 4+ years without trial, no legal representation, use of torture, ect).

Article 103

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months.

Any period spent by a prisoner of war in confinement awaiting trial shall be deducted from any sentence of imprisonment passed upon him and taken into account in fixing any penalty.

So, according to this provision, a POW can be held for a maximum of 3 months while awaiting trial. Not 4 years, not "indefinitely", not even in the interests of National Security.

You are probably going to argue that things are being conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit, and that no matter when (if) the trials ever occur, that will constitute "as soon as possible".

If anyone thinks that American or allied prisoners are being treated better in Iraq or Afghanistan, then they are obviously delusional and clueless. I doubt that any American or allied prisoner has ever been returned, whether alive or dead.

I agree. If the "enemy" ever took an allied POW, they would be treated far worse, and a video of their execution would appear on Al Jazerra shortly afterwards.

But, from your stance on the matter, it seems you are suggesting that the US is justified in doing (more or less) the same things as the terrorists are doing.

What makes the US better than the terrorists, if the US does the same things as them ? Where is the moral superiority that the US prides itself on having ?

So, according to this provision, a POW can be held for a maximum of 3 months while awaiting trial. Not 4 years, not "indefinitely", not even in the interests of National Security.

You're missing the point.

Everything you said applies in the event that the US charges the prisoners with some sort of war crime. If and when the US does this, then everything you quoted kicks in.

However, the US can detain them as prisoners for as long as they want to.

In WW2, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, only a small percentage of POWs were charged with war crimes and tried. The vast majority were simply prisoners who remained that way until well after cessation of hostilities.

These chumps in Gitmo aren't going anywhere. The US is not doing anything wrong by keeping them there indefinitely.

Deal with it!

Unfortunately - the detainees at Gitmo are considered enemy combatants and are not considered Prisoners of War, so the above does not apply, nor does the Geneva Convention for that matter.

POW's are soldiers in uniform captured during battle, some of the Gitmo detainees were just kidnapped from countries miles away from the war zone on suspision of being involved, under that logic 1/2 the CIA and most of the Bush Admin could be kidnapped and incarcerated indefinately

POW's are soldiers in uniform captured during battle, some of the Gitmo detainees were just kidnapped from countries miles away from the war zone on suspision of being involved, under that logic 1/2 the CIA and most of the Bush Admin could be kidnapped and incarcerated indefinately

You are correct!!

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible.

...

In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months.

Which part didn't you understand, Spee?

(This is regarding them as PoWs, which you seem to persist on regardless of what the US gov classifies them as, or any info posted here)

I am starting to think your foot-'n-mouth desease is uncurable, buddie!

POW's are soldiers in uniform captured during battle, some of the Gitmo detainees were just kidnapped from countries miles away from the war zone on suspision of being involved, under that logic 1/2 the CIA and most of the Bush Admin could be kidnapped and incarcerated indefinately

You are correct!!

Thanks, actually I'm begining to think that most of the Bush Admin could be kidnapped and incarcerated indefinately is starting to sound like a good idea

POW's are soldiers in uniform captured during battle, some of the Gitmo detainees were just kidnapped from countries miles away from the war zone on suspision of being involved, under that logic 1/2 the CIA and most of the Bush Admin could be kidnapped and incarcerated indefinately

You are correct!!

Thanks, actually I'm begining to think that most of the Bush Admin could be kidnapped and incarcerated indefinately is starting to sound like a good idea

You have to have the means and not lot of countries have that ability, so its a non-starter in reality.

but we can live in hope