France Convicts 5 Gitmo Inmates

Not all men released from Gitmo are innocent.

Neither are all held guilty.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neither are all held guilty.
[/quote]

How do you know?

How do you know they’re not?

Since they’ve never been given a trial will we ever know?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neither are all held guilty.
[/quote]

We don’t know that.

Algeria released a bunch in an amnesty program and a couple of them killed over 60 people.

Releasing these guys is dangerous business and too many people want to pretend otherwise.

I think they should have killed them during capture.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neither are all held guilty.

We don’t know that.

Algeria released a bunch in an amnesty program and a couple of them killed over 60 people.[/quote]

It’s not exactly what I’d call a bunch. We’re talking about thousands here. Your logic is that since a “couple of them killed over 60 people”, the whole lot should have stayed in jail?

You have one twisted mind.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neither are all held guilty.

We don’t know that.

Algeria released a bunch in an amnesty program and a couple of them killed over 60 people.

It’s not exactly what I’d call a bunch. We’re talking about thousands here. Your logic is that since a “couple of them killed over 60 people”, the whole lot should have stayed in jail?

You have one twisted mind.[/quote]

They should have taken more care and actually reviewed the cases before they granted blanket amnesty.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They should have taken more care and actually reviewed the cases before they granted blanket amnesty.[/quote]

Yes, they should have. But they didn’t. Blame Bouteflika and his referendum. But do not bring it up when trying to argue against statements like “Neither are all held guilty.”

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They should have taken more care and actually reviewed the cases before they granted blanket amnesty.

Yes, they should have. But they didn’t. Blame Bouteflika and his referendum. But do not bring it up when trying to argue against statements like “Neither are all held guilty.”[/quote]

Why? It is quite appropriate to the topic.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why? It is quite appropriate to the topic. [/quote]

Awww…you’re not stupid to think that every last one of the Gitmo detainees - or the recently released Algerians - are guilty, are you?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why? It is quite appropriate to the topic.

Awww…you’re not stupid to think that every last one of the Gitmo detainees - or the recently released Algerians - are guilty, are you?[/quote]

Nope. One of the released Gitmo guys was found not guilty. I have no idea about the Algerians. I am merely pointing out the problems with releasing them as many advocate.

And…?

So them not being in Gitmo doesn’t matter. Wonderful that they’re guilty. Doesn’t change the fact that we needed to send em’ back…

If they’re being tried and charged elsewhere…

I’m confused…

Can enemy combatants be held till hostilities cease? Trial or not. War crimes or not. Even under international law, I was under the impression that either side of a conflict can hold enemy prisoners until hostilites cease.

I don’t know many people advocating for the unconditional release of the Gitmo prisoners.

Most people who don’t agree with Gitmo would simply like to see the prisoners there get charged and be given a trial. If they’re found guilty after a trial, then you can hold them for as long as their crime requires.

The main problem is that “enemy combatant” is an extremely flexible concept that could (will? has?) be applied to just about anyone the authorities find inconvenient to have around. Bill H.R. 1955 is, according to some critics of it, a first step towards holding US citizens in places like Gitmo with no more legal recourse than the current prisoners.

Someone could also find himself there simply because of faulty intelligence, mistaken identity or whatever, and have no recourse to get the situation corrected.

When a government - any government, not just the US one - puts in place a no-trial prison, and holds people there, citizens should be concerned, regardless of who is initially kept there. It is a safe bet that as long as it has the tacit accord of the public, the government will only seek to widen the criteria that decide who can be held.

[quote]pookie wrote:

When a government - any government, not just the US one - puts in place a no-trial prison, and holds people there, citizens should be concerned, regardless of who is initially kept there. It is a safe bet that as long as it has the tacit accord of the public, the government will only seek to widen the criteria that decide who can be held.

[/quote]

Let’s say two side are fighting. Can they not take prisoners and detain them without trial, until hostilities cease? Again, I thought the purpose was to provide another option to removing the enemy’s men from the fight, besides simply executing them right then and there.

Forget about Al Qaeda and it’s affiliates for a minute. Say Canada goes to war against the US. Wouldn’t it take prisoners? Why would they have to put them on trial to detain them? Is it a crime just because one is a combatant? If not, and enemy combatants surrendered to Canada, would they just release them right there on the spot? Or would they hold them until hostilities cease?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Let’s say two side are fighting. Can they not take prisoners and detain them without trial, until hostilities cease? Again, I thought the purpose was to provide another option to removing the enemy’s men from the fight, besides simply executing them right then and there.[/quote]

The problem here is that “The War on Terror” is not against any particular country or cohesive organization. When is the war on terror over? When do the hostilities cease?

Wars between nations are much better codified than the current wave of PR wars (war on drugs, war on terror, etc) we’ve been having for the past 20 or so years.

I have nothing against prisoners of war; the problem appears when a “war” has no foreseeable ending. You can’t sign a peace treaty with “The Terrorists Inc.” because there’s no such thing. Any individual or group that decides to use violence against civilians to get its message across becomes a terrorist.

But let’s say you’re correct and that the detainees at Gitmo are all proper prisoner of war. What conditions will indicate that it’s time to exchange them or release them?

Hold the phone! Wait a fucking second…

These guys were “detained”(see: imprisoned) for over 3 years only to finally be charged with “association with a terrorist group” which holds a one year sentence???

So, they did 3 years at Gitmo, to later be charged with a one year sentence???

These men have already served their time and then some.

Explain to me why these men have to serve out this 1 year sentence when they already were locked up for 3+ years.

This “war” is so fucking retarded that somehow, seemingly impossible, it still manages to become even dumber.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Hold the phone! Wait a fucking second…

These guys were “detained”(see: imprisoned) for over 3 years only to finally be charged with “association with a terrorist group” which holds a one year sentence???

So, they did 3 years at Gitmo, to later be charged with a one year sentence???

These men have already served their time and then some.

Explain to me why these men have to serve out this 1 year sentence when they already were locked up for 3+ years.

This “war” is so fucking retarded that somehow, seemingly impossible, it still manages to become even dumber.[/quote]

I know. They should have been killed outright. Now when they are released from jail they will probably set off car bombs.

I have no sympathy for these terrorist bastards. They should all die.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I know. They should have been killed outright. Now when they are released from jail they will probably set off car bombs.

I have no sympathy for these terrorist bastards. They should all die.[/quote]

Yes, you are insane. Yes, you share the exact same mentality as Islamic terrorists.

You and every other war mongering dirt bag should be thrown on an island with all the radical Muslims so the rest of us SANE individuals can live somewhat peacefully.

I only say this because my disdain for your kind, and by kind I mean homicidal retards, knows no limit.

9/11-3,000 dead
First 3 weeks of Operation Shock and Awe- 6,000 dead

You’re the good guy though, right? Keep running with that, I’m sure in your demented mind it makes sense.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I know. They should have been killed outright. Now when they are released from jail they will probably set off car bombs.

I have no sympathy for these terrorist bastards. They should all die.

Yes, you are insane. Yes, you share the exact same mentality as Islamic terrorists.

You and every other war mongering dirt bag should be thrown on an island with all the radical Muslims so the rest of us SANE individuals can live somewhat peacefully.

I only say this because my disdain for your kind, and by kind I mean homicidal retards, knows no limit.

9/11-3,000 dead
First 3 weeks of Operation Shock and Awe- 6,000 dead

You’re the good guy though, right? Keep running with that, I’m sure in your demented mind it makes sense.[/quote]

If you knowingly associate with murderous bastards you deserve punishment. Pretty fucking simple.

Ignoring them is insanity. You live in your sheltered little world because others understand this and do your dirty work for you. You insult those that defend you.