Russia proposes change in the Constitution.

[Reba]

so there are no deserts, jungles or remote places in the US? fi so it renders your comments pointless....

Why should they build a new facility in the desert when they have a fairly new one in Gitmo? Everyone would start screaming about wasting millions of dollars if they built a new one.

If they do move them to the mainland US, this is where they want to transfer them because it's an existing facility:

AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - SC Brig considered for terror suspects

 

[Jiro]

so there are no deserts, jungles or remote places in the US? fi so it renders your comments pointless.

point is - it's STILL in American soil - the mainland that terrorists have been trying to get in but with great difficulty since they are on federal watch list. Why should we grant an easy access for terrorists by bringing in extremely dangerous terrorists who are bent on destroying America to American mainland? There are a high degree of risk of prison break since they are WELL-TRAINED in all scenarios such as evasion, interrogation, escape, bomb making, etc. and if that happened - the damage that terrorist will inflict upon America will be heard around the world. Gitmo Camp is as safe as Alcatraz - How are you supposed to escape on island?

Let's put this way - let's assume your government converted your nearest prison into terrorist detention center. How do you feel about government putting 100 extremely dangerous terrorists in that prison close to your home? Mind you - when I say extremely dangerous terrorists... that means they have a history of killing/bombing thousand of people and posses knowledge of making bombs, trained newcomers, etc.

I didn't say ti was only you, bush said it constantly, they were only war prisoners when he was defending your policies, the rest of the time terrorists.

here's a problem. Geneva Convention applies ONLY to SOLDIERS of their nations. However - the terrorists are NAMELESS SOLDIERS - they do not act in the capacity of their government or country nor do they represent their government or country. There is NO law requiring us to provide Geneva Convention to terrorists.

 

[Macian]

Why should they build a new facility in the desert when they have a fairly new one in Gitmo? Everyone would start screaming about wasting millions of dollars if they built a new one.

If they do move them to the mainland US, this is where they want to transfer them because it's an existing facility:

AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - SC Brig considered for terror suspects

why not have it in your own country and not one you simply just have territorial control over, you shouldnt even be there let alone have a prison there, so much for being against imperialism.
anyway no matter how you try to duck and dive, it's plaint o see why they are kept to far away from the US, it's certinaly not a financial reason.
and you forget the rest of the points and focused on one, might i ask why?

 

[Macian]

yes jiro but then it goes against your constituion, or is the country that shallow it only includes us citizens
?

come on jiro, it's a held area by force, its not a part of the US in any way other than occuaption.

ye seriously think they cant mak a secure prsion in the midle of the desert? im not stickign up for them in any way, but you are letting yourself down lowering yourself to their standards by treating them this way, i think they should be tried, and given the electric chair if they are proven to have killed by terrorists activities

 

[Jiro]

yes jiro but then it goes against your constituion, or is the country that shallow it only includes us citizens
?

come on jiro, it's a held area by force, its not a part of the US in any way other than occuaption.

I'm not sure I follow. The Constitution has nothing to do with handling terrorists. Geneva Convention does not legally apply to them. The terrorists want to attack USA. We prevented that by detaining and interrogating them because the government has evidence but obviously not available to us. That's what FISA court is for.

I'm not sure what you mean a held area by force. Cuban government gave the land to us as part of agreement. We did not take a piece of Cuba by force.

 

[Macian]

I'm not sure I follow. The Constitution has nothing to do with handling terrorists. The terrorists want to attack USA. We prevented that by detaining and interrogating them because the government has evidence but obviously not available to us. That's what FISA court is for.

I'm not sure what you mean a held area by force. Cuban government gave the land to us as part of agreement. We did not take a piece of Cuba by force.

justice i meant jiro, they are entitled to that, and not all are proven to ahve doen anythign other than shared views or opinions of the terrorists, most are guilty, but then they are entitled to be tried.

Wikipedia(not mine)

The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area.[1] The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be illegal and the Cuban-American Treaty to have been procured by the threat of force in violation of international law.[2]

 

[web730]

Geneva Convention applies ONLY to SOLDIERS of their nations. However - the terrorists are NAMELESS SOLDIERS - they do not act in the capacity of their government or country nor do they represent their government or country. There is NO law requiring us to provide Geneva Convention to terrorists.

Yes, right... that is the basic reason.

Also Bush administration doesn't want USA involved with the Geneva Convention regarding the war criminal policy too, otherwise.

 

[Macian]

anyway its getting late in the UK, im off for a kip, think we've ran this discussion out now, and going round in circles, but thank you all for your insights, i don't agree with all of them nor you on mine but its interesting to see other people's opions, for that I thank ye all.

 

[Reba]

damn i still havent got used to thsi quote thingy and forgot to paste the link reba, here's one of many, the rest you can find yourself.

Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Pictures

cut and paste i cant even work the damn url in this site lol

Your link works fine.

I have a few comments about the Gray Panther pictures.

The pictures taken inside the planes (possibly C-17s) didn't show any mistreatment. The prisoners were restrained for security and safety reasons but they were not hogged tied as the accompanying text described. The hoods were for security reasons. The Mickey Mouse ear hearing protectors were for security, and to protect their hearing (notice that the US soldiers were also wearing the ears, which is common when riding in those noisy cargo planes).

The pictures at Camp X-ray show the early days of their captivity at Gitmo. None of those pictures show mistreatment. Those facilities were used only until Camp Delta was constructed and ready for permanent use. No one is housed in the older Camp X-ray now. The final picture that looks like a guard tower isn't even part of the camps. It's the waste treatment plant (see the tanks) near the perimeter of the base. That's why it looks so desolate--no one lives there.

 

[Reba]

why not have it in your own country and not one you simply just have territorial control over, you shouldnt even be there let alone have a prison there, so much for being against imperialism.
anyway no matter how you try to duck and dive, it's plaint o see why they are kept to far away from the US, it's certinaly not a financial reason.
and you forget the rest of the points and focused on one, might i ask why?

Since you seem concerned that the reason they are kept in Gitmo was so that they could be kept "out of sight", what makes you think they would be more visible in they were kept in a Stateside facility? In Gitmo, they get visited by the Red Cross, lawyers, American Congressmen, British representatives, etc. Do you think they could get any more visitors on the mainland of the USA? Nope.

I haven't posted enough for you? Sorry, it's that's pesky interrupter called "Life."

Excuse me now while Hubby and I have some clam chowda' for supper. I get up early (4:30 a.m.) for work, and I have to study tonight after supper but I'll try to come back to AD for a while later.

 

[Beowulf]

Visitors to Gitmo? A dog-and-pony show, since no visitor is allowed to talk to inmates without armed guards present. Do I know for sure? Nope.
But where there's smoke, there's fire.
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405

 

[dreama]

lol nobody wants to call themselves as Police State. You can just go and experience it for yourself. China could be considered as Police State since it dictated its policy on people such as One-Child-Per-Family.... and enforced its heavy censorship.... and torture/imprisonment of their own Domestic Dissents.

But yes - "no freedom of speech" and/or "no gun rights" can be part of descriptions of Police State. Simply put - the Police State is where your life is dictated by government. IMO - Germany is not THAT bad but I think UK is pretty fucking bad. I find it amazing that British citizens don't have any problem with it. I cannot live in UK... I will feel like a sheep. BBAAAAA BAAAAA

What makes you think British have no problem with our government? My dad votes British independant party to try and get out of europe.

Me, I don't think Britian is a police state in the way china is a police state. But I HAVE read about peaceful animal rights protesters being in prisoned. Also on another topic they were going to make it illigal to educate people. Fortunately it didn't get in.

Since I don't agree with the government and I have not been imprisoned yet I'm not sure it's really a police state as such and I've nowhere else to really compaire it with since I've never been in USA. Some british people are ok with the government. Some don't like the fact that they are losing freedom freedoms and so many camera's about.

I do have problem with our National Health service because my mum died of a curable cancer due to long waiting lists. I once went to hospital in france at it was much better. The hospital room was like a hotel room and mum could stay with me wheras in British hospital she was only limited to visiting hours.

 

[Jiro]

justice i meant jiro, they are entitled to that, and not all are proven to ahve doen anythign other than shared views or opinions of the terrorists, most are guilty, but then they are entitled to be tried.

Wikipedia(not mine)

The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area.[1] The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be illegal and the Cuban-American Treaty to have been procured by the threat of force in violation of international law.[2]

sorry if these "criminals" were not treated conventionally as you like but this is unconventional warfare conducted by lawless, extremely dangerous, unconventional criminals. This is not your typical type of criminals where he killed a couple of people with a knife or gun. This is the man along with thousand others who conducted the act of terrorism with bombs and merciless murders against thousand of people. It's the new age, new warfare and I do agree that our justice system need to be updated to cover the terrorism because sadly the War Tribunal Court does not cover terrorists. As for now - the American policy and Gitmo Camp are within legal human rights.

Just be glad that we did not treat them like what Iran or Iraq did to terrorists.

Like I said - the evidence and information about them are NOT available to us because it's a highly sensitive matter and time-sensitive as well but that doesn't mean the government's sweeping it up under the carpet and nobody knows what. It's done and approved in a secret court and secret Senatorial hearings called FISA.

 

[dreama]

I really can't understand why you think the UK is a police state, if it's the cameras we have everywhere, the majority of the public are behind them, if they weren't, being a democratic country we'd have them removed, I know you will find some examples of people who hate them, i could also find examples of people who back them.

No, not everyone likes the camera's. Some people hate them. My dad does anyway.

Like in USA not very many people vote as we don't have anyone to vote for. I wish we had a Sarah Palin in England to vote for.

 

[Maria]

No, not everyone likes the camera's. Some people hate them. My dad does anyway.

Like in USA not very many people vote as we don't have anyone to vote for. I wish we had a Sarah Palin in England to vote for.

That would be nice!

 

[Jiro]

What makes you think British have no problem with our government? My dad votes British independant party to try and get out of europe.

Me, I don't think Britian is a police state in the way china is a police state. But I HAVE read about peaceful animal rights protesters being in prisoned. Also on another topic they were going to make it illigal to educate people. Fortunately it didn't get in.

Since I don't agree with the government and I have not been imprisoned yet I'm not sure it's really a police state as such and I've nowhere else to really compaire it with since I've never been in USA. Some british people are ok with the government. Some don't like the fact that they are losing freedom freedoms and so many camera's about.

I do have problem with our National Health service because my mum died of a curable cancer due to long waiting lists. I once went to hospital in france at it was much better. The hospital room was like a hotel room and mum could stay with me wheras in British hospital she was only limited to visiting hours.

Well the British government is doing it, aren't they? Apparently - the majority of British's fine with Big Brother watching over them. Even Macian is fine with it too. I understand you have a problem with it but the majority has allowed the Big Brother to do it.

The majority in here does NOT allow Big Brother thing... which is why the Patriot Acts is going to get killed soon.

 

[Jiro]

No, not everyone likes the camera's. Some people hate them. My dad does anyway.

Like in USA not very many people vote as we don't have anyone to vote for.

now you understand why I love America?
except Sarah Palin

I wish we had a Sarah Palin in England to vote for.

why don't you write letter to her about that? Tell her to run for seat in UK. She'll probably have better chance there than in America

 

[dreama]

and also the fact we idea we don't have freedom of speech is just ridiculous and laughable, if that was the case then we'd have our own Guantánamo Bay, here the police can't arrest someone for freedom of speech, the only way we can if they incite violence.
the police have found themself not being able to arrest some of the muslim extremists spouting their drivel to the masses as it's an abuse of their human rights, now the vast majority of the Uk want them to be arrested for spouting hatred of the wetern world(and sent back home), but the police can't act until they incite violence, I wouldn't believe all the drivel you read online.
now if they could be arrested, locked up without a trial, now then that I would call a police state, but no, our laws are run by the justice system and the police have to abide by their laws.

I've heard of some people imprisoned just for expressing themselves. I'll give you a link to that if I can find it. Usually they treat protesters that way. They limit how many peaceful protests there are. Within the animal rights movement there are those that cannot express themselves.

As for the muslims, I wonder about that. They seem somehow to be above the law. People are too afraid of being accused of being 'racist' to do anything about them. If they were white maybe it would be easier to get rid of them?

 

[Foxrac]

No, not everyone likes the camera's. Some people hate them. My dad does anyway.

Like in USA not very many people vote as we don't have anyone to vote for. I wish we had a Sarah Palin in England to vote for.

lol, you really miss it.

Sarah Palin is pro-hunter since you are pro-animal rights, that's not make sense.

 

[dreama]

the downside of that is when someone flips they take people with them, a minor domestic can end up with deaths, to us there is more pitfalls than gains.

They can do that in Britain too. You don't need a gun to kill someone. You can do that with a sharp knife.

I haven't noticed any drop in crime rate. In fact I feel a good deal LESS safe walking out at night then I did 10 years ago.

Talking about police involvement I have been stopped a few times by the police. They feel the need to escort me home as I am deafblind and my guide dog was playing up. Somehow I find it rather humiliating. Yes I've tried to tell them I can manage thankyou very much but I've learnt through experience that there is no point in arguing with the police it just wastes time. So I just let them take me home.

Since we don't live in USA we don't really know what it's like. So it's really hard to compaire.