So what should we have done then? Armed and trained them in terrorism. How to make IED's, shaped charges etc so they can use it against our solders in years to come? Oh wait.....................usmarine2 wrote:
but didnt do anything about it. talk is cheap.
Last edited by JahManRed (2008-07-16 06:24:27)
Fair enough the video doesn't exactly contain anything groundbreaking or definitively damning either way but two important factors in this debate are completely undeniable...FEOS wrote:
Same question could be asked of those who claim he's innocent, has been tortured, and has/had no intel value.Spark wrote:
I'm interested. What secret information, what memo did you guys get detailing all the evidence making this guy guilty?
Throw him in trial for fuck's sake. 6 years... and you call yourself the home of the free.
He IS going on trial...in a few months. That's who released the video: His defense lawyers.
they were being slaughtered. women and children. fuck yes you should have done something you idiot.JahManRed wrote:
So what should we have done then? Armed and trained them in terrorism. How to make IED's, shaped charges etc so they can use it against our solders in years to come? Oh wait.....................usmarine2 wrote:
but didnt do anything about it. talk is cheap.
The video is missing about seven hours also.FEOS wrote:
Same question could be asked of those who claim he's innocent, has been tortured, and has/had no intel value.Spark wrote:
I'm interested. What secret information, what memo did you guys get detailing all the evidence making this guy guilty?
Throw him in trial for fuck's sake. 6 years... and you call yourself the home of the free.
He IS going on trial...in a few months. That's who released the video: His defense lawyers.
Well I guess they could cut his head off and make an internet video out of it..CameronPoe wrote:
C'mon now DB - even Nazi Germany afforded American PoWs protection under the Geneva Convention. The Nazis for Christ's sake!DBBrinson1 wrote:
Well, if they start hucking grenades at US troops..... Frags and flying lead don't give a fuck how old you are. He tossed a nade. You usually don't get a mere 'time out' if you're caught by the enemy doing that. Besides you don't know what else he's said since then and done. Maybe he saying "Fuck you guys when I get out.. It's jihad time." One sidedBraddock wrote:
Just seen the video on Channel4 news. Congratulations America...15 years old. What's next, are you going to lock up emo's for hating the Government (being that the Government is part of the world, which they hate)?
1. It was a fucking grenade. One soldier died and another is blind.Braddock wrote:
Fair enough the video doesn't exactly contain anything groundbreaking or definitively damning either way but two important factors in this debate are completely undeniable...FEOS wrote:
Same question could be asked of those who claim he's innocent, has been tortured, and has/had no intel value.Spark wrote:
I'm interested. What secret information, what memo did you guys get detailing all the evidence making this guy guilty?
Throw him in trial for fuck's sake. 6 years... and you call yourself the home of the free.
He IS going on trial...in a few months. That's who released the video: His defense lawyers.
1. This kid was 15 when he was caught...a child.
2. It has taken 6 YEARS to get him to trial. If he turns out to be innocent that is 6 years of his life that he will never get back and that in itself is a crime.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-07-16 19:39:09)
DBBrinson1 wrote:
2. He's lucky American's show compassion to their enemy and saved his ass. He would have died. His ass is on borrowed time as far as I'm concerned...
Well then fucking bring him to trial and process him according to the letter of the law if he's so fucking guilty, jeez.DBBrinson1 wrote:
1. It was a fucking grenade. One soldier died and another is blind.Braddock wrote:
Fair enough the video doesn't exactly contain anything groundbreaking or definitively damning either way but two important factors in this debate are completely undeniable...FEOS wrote:
Same question could be asked of those who claim he's innocent, has been tortured, and has/had no intel value.
He IS going on trial...in a few months. That's who released the video: His defense lawyers.
1. This kid was 15 when he was caught...a child.
2. It has taken 6 YEARS to get him to trial. If he turns out to be innocent that is 6 years of his life that he will never get back and that in itself is a crime.
2. He's lucky American's show compassion to their enemy and saved his ass. He would have died. His ass is on borrowed time as far as I'm concerned...
I'm all for the right to a speedy trial, but he's not an American. I only buy into the kid argument to a point. A 15 year old knows the consequences of a grenade. You guys see a snippet of a video and all rush to the WT viewpoint. There is a reason he's there. I'd like to know what a 15 year old Canadian is doing thousands of miles away in a fucking war zone to begin with.Braddock wrote:
Well then fucking bring him to trial and process him according to the letter of the law if he's so fucking guilty, jeez.
Also, whether you care to admit it or not, he was also a child when he allegedly carried out that attack and is therefore partially a victim himself due to his lack of maturity and responsibility being exploited by the insurgency.
Whatever. The US could have left him for dead. They didn't. That is compassion. Look it up.Detox wrote:
:roll eyes:Bronson1 wrote:
2. He's lucky Americans show compassion to their enemy and saved his ass. He would have died. His ass is on borrowed time as far as I'm concerned...
Ask Romeo Dallaire about child soldiers and you'll see what true compassion is.
Fact. The US Soldiers prevented him from dying. How is that not being considered borrowed time? The kid was as good as dead. It is arrogance, ignorance, and utter stupidity to argue against. The fact that if the Government hasn't gone forward with the case shows that their unwillingness to sentence him to life wrongly. Rather them take a few years or the life?ReTox wrote:
I read statements like "he's on borrowed time" about a child and think arrogance, ignorance, and utter stupidity. If he killed a soldier then fine he should be charged. In fact he should have been charged about 5 years and 51 weeks ago.
Let's look at how the other side operates before you start tossing Blackwater in the mix. Do you really want to go there?ReTox wrote:
So how do you feel about Blackwater then? Khadr might have killed a single soldier (that is not meant to diminish this soldier's sacrifice) but Blackwater is known to have murdered many civilians. Seems they have been given a bit of a whitewash by the gov. because "it was combat".
Hypocracy on a grand scale.
I think it's sad that there are Americans like you that actually believe that kind of drivel.ReTox wrote:
I remember growing up and seeing an America that was proud, strong, and free. Now all I see is the kid who got bullied turning into the bully. Very sad.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-07-17 11:19:23)
And how does that answer my question?DBBrinson1 wrote:
He tossed a grenade killing an American Soldier and blinding another.
Fact of the matter this an extreme situation. The US did not have a good policy in place at the time. We are at war. Do I think he should he be tried. Absolutely. Should he be released if there is insufficient evidence to convict him? Absolutely. However, I don't think that he should be released until our guys are out of Iraq. He was classified as an enemy combatant.Braddock wrote:
And how does that answer my question?DBBrinson1 wrote:
He tossed a grenade killing an American Soldier and blinding another.
Let us not forget that in some cultures, at 15 years old, he would be considered to be a man.Braddock wrote:
Just seen the video on Channel4 news. Congratulations America...15 years old. What's next, are you going to lock up emo's for hating the Government (being that the Government is part of the world, which they hate)?
"Enemy combatant" is just a term that has been made up so that you can do what you like with who you capture. I'm sorry but the US is always at war, does that mean these people will be detained indefinitely without ever being given a trial? There are both domestic and International legal procedures in existence with which to process these people and yet the US chooses to move the goalposts and keep them in this grey area where justice is perpetually on hold.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Fact of the matter this an extreme situation. The US did not have a good policy in place at the time. We are at war. Do I think he should he be tried. Absolutely. Should he be released if there is insufficient evidence to convict him? Absolutely. However, I don't think that he should be released until our guys are out of Iraq. He was classified as an enemy combatant.Braddock wrote:
And how does that answer my question?DBBrinson1 wrote:
He tossed a grenade killing an American Soldier and blinding another.
I'll raise two points with you in relation to your post...imortal wrote:
Let us not forget that in some cultures, at 15 years old, he would be considered to be a man.Braddock wrote:
Just seen the video on Channel4 news. Congratulations America...15 years old. What's next, are you going to lock up emo's for hating the Government (being that the Government is part of the world, which they hate)?
If you are old enough to fight, you are old enough to suffer the concequeces. I do not mean accidentally shooting someone. I mean consciously and with foreknowledge, gathering together with others who are armed, and go to the US base with the intention of causing harm and mahem.
Was the kid just walking by for some reason and run into the attack in progress and decide that attacking was the cool thing to do? Did to US base go ambling by them, making fun of them and taunting them to attack it, and the people inside?
Why is it that no one directs anger at anyone willing to use 15 year-olds in the conflict in the first place?
Well, we [could] always fit them into the Geneva Convention... let's see... they are fighting, not wearing a standard uniform. That would place them as... spies. execution, then?Braddock wrote:
"Enemy combatant" is just a term that has been made up so that you can do what you like with who you capture. I'm sorry but the US is always at war, does that mean these people will be detained indefinitely without ever being given a trial? There are both domestic and International legal procedures in existence with which to process these people and yet the US chooses to move the goalposts and keep them in this grey area where justice is perpetually on hold.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Fact of the matter this an extreme situation. The US did not have a good policy in place at the time. We are at war. Do I think he should he be tried. Absolutely. Should he be released if there is insufficient evidence to convict him? Absolutely. However, I don't think that he should be released until our guys are out of Iraq. He was classified as an enemy combatant.Braddock wrote:
And how does that answer my question?
Either bring them to trial and sentence them or declare them innocent and let them go.
Last edited by imortal (2008-07-17 11:54:23)
Except the US don't declare conventional wars anymore, they declare wars on vague subjects and concepts (like "drugs" and "terror") and hence anyone who falls under the umbrella of these wars is processed as an enemy combatant irrespective of International boundaries. This basically gives the US license to snatch and detain whoever they want, wherever they want, for as long as they want - given that such wars lack the typical finite duration of a conventional war.imortal wrote:
Well, we [could] always fit them into the Geneva Convention... let's see... they are fighting, not wearing a standard uniform. That would place them as... spies. execution, then?Braddock wrote:
"Enemy combatant" is just a term that has been made up so that you can do what you like with who you capture. I'm sorry but the US is always at war, does that mean these people will be detained indefinitely without ever being given a trial? There are both domestic and International legal procedures in existence with which to process these people and yet the US chooses to move the goalposts and keep them in this grey area where justice is perpetually on hold.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Fact of the matter this an extreme situation. The US did not have a good policy in place at the time. We are at war. Do I think he should he be tried. Absolutely. Should he be released if there is insufficient evidence to convict him? Absolutely. However, I don't think that he should be released until our guys are out of Iraq. He was classified as an enemy combatant.
Either bring them to trial and sentence them or declare them innocent and let them go.
If they do not play by the rules, they are not subject to the protections. The entire PURPOSE of the conventions is reciprocity. 'if you will play by these rules, then I will too.'
Prisoners of War are not subject to trial. They are held until a cessation of the hositlities, to prevent them being recycled back into the war. The alternative is to simply not capture anyone. To not accept surrenders. After all, out of the allied soldiers that the inusrgants have captured, how many have been either returned alive, or in any meaningful way be shown to still be alive for any significant time following their capture? To be caputured by the insurgents is a death sentence. Reciprocity, anyone?
***EDIT: Of course, we could try them, but by whose set of rules? Their (old) government? US federal law? UCMJ? UCMJ gives provisions for the death penalty, and pretty sure Iraqi law does as well.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-17 12:39:20)
I actually agree with you here; the problem is one of the press and hyperbole. It sounds really great to be "declaring war..." on something. It has now lost its meaning.Braddock wrote:
Except the US don't declare conventional wars anymore, they declare wars on vague subjects and concepts (like "drugs" and "terror") and hence anyone who falls under the umbrella of these wars is processed as an enemy combatant irrespective of International boundaries. This basically gives the US license to snatch and detain whoever they want, wherever they want, for as long as they want - given that such wars lack the typical finite duration of a conventional war.
That article was slid in by the USSR to cover their 'freedom fighters.' The United States has never held to that article, and has filed protests against it.Braddock wrote:
In relation to treating them all as spies and thus executing them I'm afraid it's not that simple. The Geneva convention contains several loopholes in its definition of what exactly constitutes a 'spy', including one that states that "soldiers and civilians carrying out their mission openly" are not considered spies. So just because an insurgent is not wearing a uniform it does not make him a spy.
I will grant you one there, too. It is doubtful anything the prisoners at Gitmo know has any timely use on the battelfield. I approve of 'rigourous' methods to be used to determine if new prisoners are part of anything in planning (while being aware of the dubious nature of the information given.), provided that the prisoners appear to have been in a position to know anything; that does not mean every Joe Shmoe on the street. Once it is determined that they do not know anything time-critical, questioning should cease barring questions about background information; that questioning need not be as strenuous.Braddock wrote:
And if you are using the fact that all detainees are "prisoners of war" as the excuse for indefinite detention until hostilities end then you are violating the Geneva convention by not affording them the human rights set out for prisoners of war in the convention.
Because it applies. If reciprocity is not adherred to, then one side has a freedom of action that the other side does not. The one and only coherent argument for maintaining Geneva Convention style treatment is public relations, international opinion, and propaganda. Tactically and stragecially (with the current enemy, at least), it makes it much harder.Braddock wrote:
I notice a lot of people here use the actions of Al Qaeda and how they treat those that they capture as a defence for how the US treat detainees, as though two wrongs somehow make a right. I thought you were taking these guys on because they were terrorists? It's getting increasingly hard to tell the difference between the two sides these days.
Because six years is nothing compared to the lifetime that was taken away from the man he killed. It is hard to buy into your point of view Braddock when you have no sympothy or consideration for the family who has to live without their loved one. What about them? What about the man who died, or the man who will never be able to see his wife or child again with his eyes. I think about the fact that this was a child, but at the age of 15 if you don't understand that killing another man has irreversable effects than you are deserving of some "rehabilitation time". Six years or so ought to do.Braddock wrote:
Tell me DB why on earth should it take 6 years to bring a detainee to trial? Why?