BF2S Forums "Catch And Release"

Braddock wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

Braddock- What we've been doing for the past sixty years is not new. If it wasn't us it was the USSR or China or France or England. I still believe our intentions are good.

NEWSFLASH ...the Nazis truly believed they were right too.

Knee Jerk lefty Brown Shirt reply!

san4 wrote:

Comrade Ogilvy wrote:

Braddock wrote:

We're talking about the people who WERE unjustly held, not people who subjectively believe themselves to have been treated unfairly where objectivity would suggest otherwise.

How do you know that they were "unjustly held"...besides I believe they were captured in a combat zone perhaps with weapons...it`s not like they were caught smoking dope behind the camel tent.

Being captured in a combat zone with weapons does not make a person an unlawful enemy combatant. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only unlawful enemy combatants may be held in Guantanamo without access to US courts.

So they are the good guys if they have weapons but don`t fire on you....what a way to run a war...what I`m saying is they must have had something on them as the article states.

*shrugs* While it is true that the perception of whether or not it was right to detain terror suspects in Guantanamo is subjective, I think we can all safely agree that torturing innocent people is wrong.

rawls2 wrote:

It's more likely they were always guilty but we just couldn't prove it. Now it seems we were right about them in the first place. It was political pressurethat led to their release, not there innocence or lack of.

Guilty of being opposed to your invasion?


Wow, now even being an enemy soldier is a crime.  Yay!

Braddock wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Wow, after being held unjustly for 5 or more years they wanted revenge.  Who would've thought it?

It's more likely they were always guilty but we just couldn't prove it. Now it seems we were right about them in the first place. It was political pressurethat led to their release, not there innocence or lack of.

You're right, you should just go ahead and lock everyone up as they're probably all guilty or will become guilty if we allow them to continue in society unfettered.

Weren't they all picked up on the battlefield shooting and killing our troops in the first place?

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Wow, now even being an enemy soldier is a crime.  Yay!

....ummm       yes.

You............don't actually understand the concept of war, do you?

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

....ummm       yes.

You............don't actually understand the concept of war, do you?

Ya...please enlighten me.

Fighting for an army is not now, nor has ever been, considered a crime by opposing militaries.  That's one of the points of the Geneva Convention.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Prisoner....of...war.....


Sorry, but I equate "prisoner" with "crime."

But they're not charged with anything (in most cases, excepting war crimes), they're just held until the war is over or there's a prisoner exchange. I think that whole idea went out the damn window a long time ago though.

Braddock wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Fighting for an army is not now, nor has ever been, considered a crime by opposing militaries.  That's one of the points of the Geneva Convention.

Prisoner....of...war.....


Sorry, but I equate "prisoner" with "crime."

So you'll admit that any US troops caught and detained by Taliban forces in Afghanistan or anti US forces in Iraq are 'criminals'?

I admit the countries / groups  think of them as committing crimes against their countries.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-08-01 00:22:18)

oug wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Sorry, but I equate "prisoner" with "crime."

On what grounds? I mean... since when is guilt determined by whether you're caught or not?

Since the positive dismantling or gutting of our justice system under 6 years of total Republican rule.  Alberto Gonzalez didn't even know that habeus corpus was a part of the Constitution during his confirmation hearing, and the repukes still let him fly through.

The Bush administration has introduced literally hundreds of new law fixes letting them shortcut one of the best criminal justice systems in the world.  When these aren't enough, they simply break the law.  It's pure, simple kangaroo court justice being doled out, and not even the right-wing stacked Supreme Court could stomach it when it comes through them.

In the past we had POW's and we had simple criminals (and we also had enemy intelligence agents in their own category...shhhh.)

Now we have a third classification that allows us to lock up indefenitely, torture at our leisure, and circumvent the court system with bullshit secret trials where the evidence is so secret not even the judge can see it.  How is this not a fascist thing again?

There is a hell of a lot more to this topic, and I feel that this degredation of our justice system is one of the cornerstones of our society to go out the window under Bushco, but needless to say its not so simple as "well, they must have been doing something wrong if they were locked up".

rawls2 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Wow, after being held unjustly for 5 or more years they wanted revenge.  Who would've thought it?

It's more likely they were always guilty but we just couldn't prove it. Now it seems we were right about them in the first place. It was political pressurethat led to their release, not there innocence or lack of.

Haha. "I think you're a criminal, so I'm going to keep you locked up for half a decade with no charges and no end in sight, and if you try to get back at me for ruining your life when you get out, I obviously must have been right."

Are you seriously that mind-numbingly.. well.. stupid, or are you being sarcastic? I pray for the latter.

Lame, I thought this was a Fishing Thread..