Gitmo

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
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!
 
Werbung:
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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?

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).
 
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.

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.

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.

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 incorporated all men. (except black men of course).

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

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.
 
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.

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.
 
First of all, they're not American citizens so they are not granted the same rights as those who were born under the Constitution.

BTW - where are you from?

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.
 
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.

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.

It's called human rights, and by saying they arn't protected under the constituiton is basically adovcating the slave trade again.

Now you're just getting crazy.

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.

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

What makes it tricky is that they are attacking the military forces of an invading nation.

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

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?
 
What makes it tricky is that they are attacking the military forces of an invading nation.

Are they enemy combatants? Legitimate resistance? POW's?

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.
 
Werbung:
Now you're just getting crazy.

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.
 
Back
Top