1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Gitmo

Discussion in 'Political Humor' started by USMC the Almighty, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    THE LARK PROGRAM

    A Lady liberal wrote a lot of letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgent (terrorist) being held in Guantanamo Bay.

    She received back the following reply:

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington , D.C. 20016

    Dear Concerned Citizen,

    Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Quada detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens likeyourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.

    In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be caredfor pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers!

    We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter. Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.

    Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nailclippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at our next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

    Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually), since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to showviolent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire.

    I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time. Just remember that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" -- wasn't that how you put it?

    Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember, we'll be watching.

    Good luck!
     
  2. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    Regardless of the poor humour in this letter and the fact its in the political humour section, holding people without trial is against everything your country was built upon. As an obviously patriotic american you really should be against it.
     
  3. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, they're not American citizens so they are not granted the same rights as those who were born under the Constitution. Second, and I'll give you this, sorting out the trials and charges for thousands of people caught on the battlefield is a bureaucratic mess, especially considering last summer's case that said military tribunals are not allowed to try these enemy combatants. Have you ever dealt with the American legal system? It takes time.

    BTW - where are you from?
     
  4. Fonz

    Fonz New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Militant Atheist
    You contradict the Declaration of US Independence then.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Obviously, everyone already has these rights. Nobody grants them to anyone as you say, which furthermore contradicts the Declaration. Since the purpose of Government is to protect the inherent rights that the people already have.

    So yes, you are denying them their inherent right to liberty by not offering them a fair trial. Our fathers made no distinction between Americans and non Americans.

    They incorporated all men. (except black men of course).
     
  5. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You make a very strong argument, Fonz, but I think you are arguing over the wrong principle. They are going to get a fair trial once everything is sorted out. These were insurgents shooting at the troops and the troops simply rounded them up. They're not detectives trained in crime scene analysis and evidence gathering, thus why it is so difficult to convict these terrorists. What you should be arguing over is the right to a speedy trial.

    First of all, the definition of liberty is "freedom from an oppressive government" and that is what we have given the Iraqis. Secondly, the Constitution does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens when they say "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" under which are the rights to habeas corpus, speedy trial, etc. The Declaration was simply that, a Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land".

    They didn't consider black people humans. They considered them property protected under the 5th Amendment.
     
  6. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    The problem is they aren't all insurgents shooting at troops - many are people caught up in sweeps or on hearsay. Five years is way to long to be held without rights, legal or humanitarian protections of any sort. I don't see how they can possibly get a fair trial - not based on the current set up of the military tribunals.
     
  7. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, first of all, they're being tried in American civilian courts and as everyone knows, most people involved with law (lawyers/judges) tend to be liberal so they're going to get a very fair trial.

    I do agree that 5 years is too long, but I tend to have more sympathy since I know how difficult it is on the battlefield to discern between the insurgents and the non-combatants.

    Lastly, they are being given very generous humanitarian protections -- the Red Cross has permanent on site advisors there who watch every move. A friend of mine (Navy SWO) was stationed at Gitmo before they converted it into a military detention center and he said that the food the inmates there get today is better than when he was there in the 90s.
     
  8. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    So because they are not American you have the right to treat them however you want as long as the US comes out on top. It's called human rights, and by saying they arn't protected under the constituiton is basically adovcating the slave trade again.

    You are happy to kick up a fuss when captured US citizens don't get given all their rights but then you don't mind not giving people their rights.

    I'm from the UK by the way.
     
  9. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I never have supported torture and never will. As I said above, I think that something needs to be done quickly, but I can sympathize here with the American military. Just read my posts above.

    Now you're just getting crazy.

    Is a speedy trial a fundamental human right? I mean, I guess.
     
  10. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe the U.S. is caught in a lose/lose position of trying to determine the status of those at Gitmo. Are they POWs or are the simple criminals? They clearly don't fit into either of these catagories. They are somthing completely different that the Geneva Convention did not envision. They are not really POWs under the Geneva Convention definition of the word, and even it they were, POWs don't get trials. They are something more than simple criminals. You go beyond that when you attack the military forces of another nation. There is definately a need to remove these people from the battlefield, and calling them POWs would fit there if they were actually part of another nation, but they are not. So what are they? I dont know, but my first suggestion would be a complete revision of the Geneva Convention.
     
  11. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You made a lot of great points, Dave.
     
  12. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    What makes it tricky is that they are attacking the military forces of an invading nation.

    Are they enemy combatants? Legitimate resistance? POW's?
     
  13. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    It isn't what's going on on the battlefield that's the problem; our soldiers round them up and, to the best of my knowledge, leave it for people who aren't "on the battlefield" (ie, not getting shot at) to figure out later - which makes sense. It's the people who come after that who are dicking the whole thing up.

    I think we need an intelligence organization dedicated specifically to investigating the details surrounding detained terrorists. Yes, it would cost more money. Still, it'd alleviate a few of the problems: terrorists are detained, these guys come and investigate it, it comes to trial, and then...boom. All done. Any thoughts?
     
  14. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like I said in my post, you can't be really classified as a POW under the Geneva Convention unless you are part of a military force of a recognized nation. Terrorism doesn't have a nation, and therefore they don't recieve the same rights granted under international law granted to actual military servicemen. Enemy combatants pretty much the same thing. There really isn't a definition for "legitimate resistance" or any laws for how they should be treated if captured. That's why I say the Geneva Convention needs to be revised to fit the modern situation.
     
  15. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    You said that whatever happens to people in Guantanamo is basically OK because they are not protected under the constitution. Maybe its a slightly rash statement, but you can see where I'm coming from. Slaves had no rights in Americas eyes, these people have no rights.
     
Loading...

Share This Page