FBTBForums.net Forum Index FBTBForums.net

...has been nuked!

 
 ChatChat    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Guantanamo Bay Closeure Plans
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FBTBForums.net Forum Index -> The Bantha Coffee Shop
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Clonecommando007
New Clone on the Block


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Location: Drowning in a pool of blood.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:59 pm    Post subject: Guantanamo Bay Closeure Plans Reply with quote

Quote:
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered plans to be drafted for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, the Pentagon says.


You can read the full BBC Article Here.

Quote:
US President-elect Barack Obama says closing the camp "in a responsible way" is one of his top priorities.

Quote:
earlier this week, Mr Obama said he aimed to shut the facility within two years.




Where now where we send all of the convicted terrorists? This is shocking indeed.
_________________

Visit the Clone Army Builders Guild -
www.TheCABG.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
ZombieSolo
... eats you all. [zMOD]


Joined: 05 Feb 2005

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the most responsible way to close it is to turn it into a theme park. But that's me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zombie Austin
OSHI-! [zMOD]


Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Location: H E Double Hockey Sticks

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me be the first to say, finally. I'm glad B-Rock is already getting us back on track.
_________________
THIS IS NOT A DRILL. I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT A DRILL. EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
H3D1



Joined: 30 Sep 2007
Location: near Boston, MA Nerd Factor: Very High Annoyed: Yes

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good! Finally it goes! And anyway, its not like many rights were observed there!
I like the theme park idea!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Zombie Bizzle
Destroyed!


Joined: 12 Dec 2008

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DonSolo wrote:
I think the most responsible way to close it is to turn it into a theme park. But that's me.


A torture theme theme park? That might not get very many people coming to it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ImpairedZombie
Undead!


Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Arizona

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My views on this stem from Dick Morris:

Quote:
The United States has released 425 terrorists from Guantanamo, at least 50 of whom have returned to the battlefield to fight our troops.


It's a scary thought.
_________________
XBLive = BlitzKreger
><>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CloneZomberor
ZOMGpire!


Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Location: Tim Hortons - Rrrroll up the Rrrrim to Win

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But how many innocent bystanders are still there?
_________________


(ΞΞΞΞΞ)><@><||(=======================================
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ThePlasticJedi
Maple Leaf Defender


Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Location: Vault 106

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ThinkingImpaired wrote:
My views on this stem from Dick Morris:

Quote:
The United States has released 425 terrorists from Guantanamo, at least 50 of whom have returned to the battlefield to fight our troops.


It's a scary thought.


My thoughts are more with the 375 others that you would rather have imprisoned and tortured to keep those 50 from fighting. Rights are rights.
_________________
)2eady? "A Royale with cheese"

Chew them out and spit them up. It's the way of the Nooblet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ImpairedZombie
Undead!


Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Arizona

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ThePlasticJedi wrote:
ThinkingImpaired wrote:
My views on this stem from Dick Morris:

Quote:
The United States has released 425 terrorists from Guantanamo, at least 50 of whom have returned to the battlefield to fight our troops.


It's a scary thought.


My thoughts are more with the 375 others that you would rather have imprisoned and tortured to keep those 50 from fighting. Rights are rights.


I never said there were any that never fought the U.S. in the first place. Just that we've found atleast 50 from killing/capturing them a second time.


I haven't done research so that fact is really the only thing I can lean on.
_________________
XBLive = BlitzKreger
><>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
KungZombie
ZOMGpire!


Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Location: Tucson, Arizona

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You might wanna, you know, do at least a little research before you hold up anything you get from Dick Morris as a fact. Razz
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ThePlasticJedi
Maple Leaf Defender


Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Location: Vault 106

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regardless what the facts may or may not be, you are still generalizing. And generalizing is not equal rights.
_________________
)2eady? "A Royale with cheese"

Chew them out and spit them up. It's the way of the Nooblet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TurkGuy19
Anime Figure Flickr Floodr


Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Location: Planet Arus

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ThePlasticJedi wrote:
Regardless what the facts may or may not be, you are still generalizing. And generalizing is not equal rights.


Paul, you are Canadian, you don't get equal rights. Now, get back in the kitchen and grab me a beer, and fry up some Canadian bacon.


I SAID NOW!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
ThePlasticJedi
Maple Leaf Defender


Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Location: Vault 106

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's it! I'm gonna go post all about you in the nationality discrimination thread now Razz
_________________
)2eady? "A Royale with cheese"

Chew them out and spit them up. It's the way of the Nooblet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tyrant



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not that I think Gitmo was the best way to handle that, but what are the real alternatives and what are the plans for the people still held there? The civilian jails and courts are out of the question. So is the plan to still house them at a military base and still try them in some type of military court?

From my understanding (not claiming to be anything close to an expert on international law) they aren't covered by the Geneva convention as they aren't uniformed enemy combatants. I doubt they have any legally afforded rights beyond what we chose to give them. It is similar to when spies are captured. By all rights the one capturing them can do as they please with them including everything from torture to indefinate imprisonment. I'm not saying that is what we should do, but (again barring some misunderstanding I have about this situation which is possible) there's nothing legal saying we can't. I don't think we should do those things but I have been wondering for a while why people keep saying they have assorted right that I'm pretty sure they don't. The military justice system is mostly removed from the civilian justice system and they aren't covered by the Geneva convention (not to mention that they don't follow it at all) so what is their legal argument? Just curious.

Also, to be clear, I am talking about people captured on the battlefields actively fighting against the US. I'm not talking about creative rendition which is highly questionable (as in, I don't think it has a legal leg to stand on) from a legal standpoint. Nor am I talking about known terrorists being captured and turned over to us. I think those two matters are for the civilian courts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KungZombie
ZOMGpire!


Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Location: Tucson, Arizona

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

People asserting that the detainees have rights are speaking in terms of certain unalienable human rights, not whatever the law books happen to dictate at the time. Detaining people indefinitely, without ever charging them with a crime, while torturing and yadda yadda yadda may be legally permissible, but a lot of folks don't think it's morally permissible.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RebelZombie
Undead!


Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: The beige part of town.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The United States has released 425 terrorists from Guantanamo, at least 50 of whom have returned to the battlefield to fight our troops.


Well, duh! If I were imprisoned for years and then released without being charged, I'd probably do the same. Those guys aren't fighting against "our" troops as terrorists, they're fighting against an invading army. Don't get me wrong, I think every religious zealot is an idiot but it's easy to see how people are threatened by foreign invaders.
_________________
|)0U{|-|3 |)0U{|-|3===================================
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ThePlasticJedi
Maple Leaf Defender


Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Location: Vault 106

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KungFused wrote:
People asserting that the detainees have rights are speaking in terms of certain unalienable human rights, not whatever the law books happen to dictate at the time. Detaining people indefinitely, without ever charging them with a crime, while torturing and yadda yadda yadda may be legally permissible, but a lot of folks don't think it's morally permissible.


Yep, couldn't have said it better myself.
_________________
)2eady? "A Royale with cheese"

Chew them out and spit them up. It's the way of the Nooblet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tyrant



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KungFused wrote:
People asserting that the detainees have rights are speaking in terms of certain unalienable human rights, not whatever the law books happen to dictate at the time. Detaining people indefinitely, without ever charging them with a crime, while torturing and yadda yadda yadda may be legally permissible, but a lot of folks don't think it's morally permissible.


The way I see most people talk about the subject, I had assumed they actually were meaning legal rights of some kind because the courts seem to get brought up in the same general line of thought. I get the human rights argument.

So, what do they propose as the alternative? Obviously civilian court doesn't cover these things as our laws don't cover foreign nationals commiting crimes on foreign soul (or, to be more clear, if they do it's absurd). That leaves either international court (where they have no legal standing and possibly haven't done anything to rise to the level of warcrimes) and military court which is where this seems to wind up eventually. I imagine a military trial would be pretty quick given that they were arrested in the act of fighting us. Pretty open and shut. Then we're right back to where to detain them and what to do with them while we detain them. I am guessing the sentence for fighting against us is near indefinite. So, what is the real alternative? What do we do with actual POWs while a war is still in progress? I assume that barring an exchange we keep them until the war is over. Aside from the fact this war will likely never be over, what is the difference here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KungZombie
ZOMGpire!


Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Location: Tucson, Arizona

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the fundamental mistake in your assessment of the current situation is this: you believe that the people who are being detained at Guantanamo were arrested for an unambiguous act of hostility against the United States. Unfortunately, that's not true -- which is why people want detainees to have a right to public trial. If these people were in fact threatening the national security of the country, then they should definitely be locked up -- but right now, they're being held 'cause the government says so, and can potentially continue to be held 'cause the government says so until either they or the government die of old age. All the human rights folks want is for the government to say "Okay, this guy was being a threat to our national security by supplying Al Qaeda with explosives," and then show convincing evidence of such, so we can go "Oh, okay then. Lock him up."
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obxcrew



Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Location: Norfolk, VA, USA

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is great news. I've never been comfortable with the torture that's occuring there, no matter how despicable the suspected and convicted terrorists that are being held there may be. Never sink to their level.

obxcrew
_________________
"Sometimes, truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tyrant



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KungFused wrote:
I think the fundamental mistake in your assessment of the current situation is this: you believe that the people who are being detained at Guantanamo were arrested for an unambiguous act of hostility against the United States. Unfortunately, that's not true -- which is why people want detainees to have a right to public trial. If these people were in fact threatening the national security of the country, then they should definitely be locked up -- but right now, they're being held 'cause the government says so, and can potentially continue to be held 'cause the government says so until either they or the government die of old age. All the human rights folks want is for the government to say "Okay, this guy was being a threat to our national security by supplying Al Qaeda with explosives," and then show convincing evidence of such, so we can go "Oh, okay then. Lock him up."


I believe you need to reread what I wrote. I very specifically said the people taken prisoner while engaged in hostile actions against us (as in, on the battlefield). I further stated that I believe the others you are talking about do have the right to some form of real trial and that the current methods are most likely illegal. Please read what I said. I am referring to POWs. Which brings me back to my question of how is this any different from other POW situations? Aside from the difference that they technially aren't covered by the Geneva Convention and the fact that the "war" is very ambiguous and could theoretically last forever? Maybe if they bothered to keep prisoners alive they would have something to exchange.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZombieAthos
Destroyed!


Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Location: Nevada

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And here, I was thinking political topics were verboten...

Steve
_________________
Travel with Johnny Thunder!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Z
Undead!


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Location: I AM THE HORDEZ

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's being watched, don't worry.
_________________

Flickr <> Big C's Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Tyrant



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to be sure that my comments aren't causing escalation or anything like that. I am not trying to stir anything up. I agree with the general sentiment that the situation at Gitmo (and the policies associated with it)needs to change. I am just saying that the two obvious possible changes, put them into the civilian system and let them go, are simply not going to happen no matter who is in office. So, while cheering this on, you should be wondering what will happen instead. That's what I am saying and why I am questioning these things. I think rushing to make changes with no apparent plan (I'm sure there is a plan, but I have no clue what it could be that wouldn't still ruffle lots of feathers) is a bad idea, especially given that lack of planning is a major cause of this problem. From my perspective, we are heading towards "be careful what you wish for" territory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ThePlasticJedi
Maple Leaf Defender


Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Location: Vault 106

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tyrant wrote:
KungFused wrote:
I think the fundamental mistake in your assessment of the current situation is this: you believe that the people who are being detained at Guantanamo were arrested for an unambiguous act of hostility against the United States. Unfortunately, that's not true -- which is why people want detainees to have a right to public trial. If these people were in fact threatening the national security of the country, then they should definitely be locked up -- but right now, they're being held 'cause the government says so, and can potentially continue to be held 'cause the government says so until either they or the government die of old age. All the human rights folks want is for the government to say "Okay, this guy was being a threat to our national security by supplying Al Qaeda with explosives," and then show convincing evidence of such, so we can go "Oh, okay then. Lock him up."


I believe you need to reread what I wrote. I very specifically said the people taken prisoner while engaged in hostile actions against us (as in, on the battlefield). I further stated that I believe the others you are talking about do have the right to some form of real trial and that the current methods are most likely illegal. Please read what I said. I am referring to POWs. Which brings me back to my question of how is this any different from other POW situations? Aside from the difference that they technially aren't covered by the Geneva Convention and the fact that the "war" is very ambiguous and could theoretically last forever? Maybe if they bothered to keep prisoners alive they would have something to exchange.


You can prove any point by isolating circumstances far enough, we were clearly discussing the whole picture Razz

As for what will happen to those who are committing blatant violence... Why risk catching them alive? Razz
_________________
)2eady? "A Royale with cheese"

Chew them out and spit them up. It's the way of the Nooblet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tyrant



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ThePlasticJedi wrote:
You can prove any point by isolating circumstances far enough, we were clearly discussing the whole picture Razz

Well, as I said I don't believe the other means that these people are being taken prisoner and sent there are entirely legal and should have something about them.
ThePlasticJedi wrote:
As for what will happen to those who are committing blatant violence... Why risk catching them alive? Razz

Believe it or not, I was going to put that the simple solution to the problem is not taking prisoners in both of previous posts. However, I don't endorse that idea and I know I am not alone in that line of thinking. I believe if people are captured then simply murdering them at that point isn't right. Although, it might be humane given that they are likely to be "vigorously interrogated" no matter who captures them. I think it's a very gray area that has no easy answer. Not taking prisoners (and I'm pretty sure everyone knows what that really means) would result in as much or more outrage around the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jedd the Zombie
Undead!


Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Guantanamo Bay signified the heartlessness and paranoia of the Bush era. It's really not wise to send someone to a torture camp based on assumptions, and it's not like torture camps should still exist anyway. Interesting films to watch regarding the subject include the documentary Road to Gunatanamo and Rendition.
_________________
Ironic, huh.

><>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DestructiveZombie
Undead!


Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Location: City of Evil, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedd the Jedi wrote:
Interesting films to watch regarding the subject include the documentary Road to Gunatanamo and Rendition.

Don't forget Harold and Kumar Go To Gunatanamo Bay Wink
_________________

DeviantART|Brickshelf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Masta Lego



Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Death Star's trash compactor...

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As my first post from my long, long hiatus, I'll just say this:

I call shenanigans. If Gitmo closes, they'll open up somewhere else, somewhere in Africa, where NO laws exist.
_________________
Trade, Anyone?
.:><>Masta Blasta is here!<><:.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jedd the Zombie
Undead!


Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DestructiveDelirium wrote:
Jedd the Jedi wrote:
Interesting films to watch regarding the subject include the documentary Road to Gunatanamo and Rendition.

Don't forget Harold and Kumar Go To Gunatanamo Bay Wink


I was trying to avoid mentioning that one.
_________________
Ironic, huh.

><>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FBTBForums.net Forum Index -> The Bantha Coffee Shop All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group