Trump confused (again!) in today's new tweet about Obama and Guantanamo

[Ion]

@JonS

Aside from the fact that they apply, they also became part of the UCMJ. At that point it ceases to become ever optional, and it is utterly irrelevant what the opposition does.

Some parts of Protocols I and II were added anyway because we agreed with them. The parts that the U.S. objected to were not added.

But the point is that this shows that not every war applies.

[tachin1]

@Ion

That’s why the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo is legal.

Since I am not a US citizen I dont have to abide by that law. I can freely think it is bad law.

[JonS]

@Ion

this shows that not every war applies.

NO IT DOES NOT

this is yet more ignorant wank

The war on terror - like all wars on abstract nouns - isn’t a war in the legal sense. Therefore, talking about the GCs at all is a feeble-minded red herring - a retarded red herring, if you will.

The UCMJ applies at all times, regardless of the legal status of the conflict.

[WarrenTerra]

@Ion

You’re making a common mistake that somehow needs to be explained over and over: “War on Terror” is only a name. We are not at war against “terror.” We are not at war against all terrorists. We are at war against al-Qaeda and their allies. What we call the war is irrelevant. The Supreme Court doesn’t care at all that Bush used the term in his speeches.

Actually, what we’re at war with is:

those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any “associated forces”

It’s worth noting that this has stretched very far indeed, to include organizations perhaps sympathetic to Al Qaeda but removed from them by several degrees of separation. As it has thus far been interpreted, so long as there’s someone in the world with terrorist ambitions and a soft spot for the memory of Osama Bin Laden, the war continues. I think we can stipulate that for the foreseeable future there will be someone loose in the world with access to knives, murderous inclinations, and at least some tenuous link to a radicalized version of Sunni Islam. Even if it’s some developmentally disabled entrapped sad sack like Peyton Pruitt.

And there’s even a lovely Catch-22 here: because “Al Qaeda and associated forces” is something that continues to exist as long as there’s a single accused sympathizer loose in the world, it’s impossible to declare victory and release someone held in Guantanamo as being a militant in any way associated with any such “associated force”; after all, if they’re loose in the world then we don’t have victory.

It all comes back to George W Bush’s original sin: he put hundreds of people in Gitmo against whom we didn’t have the evidence to charge them with crimes, but whom he didn’t want to release. A decade later, there still isn’t a way either to release them or to hand them any sort of predictable sentence; we just have to hold them until they die or until there’s absolutely no unrest that can in any way be labeled as sympathetic to Al Qaeda. In other words, forever.

[WarrenTerra]

@Ion

Ever heard of the Uyghurs?
…
Guantanamo’s critics would cite the Uyghurs as examples of “innocent” victims who’d merely been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

PatRx2:

Sure. I’m awfully curious where you heard of them, though. I’ve never heard of any evidence that the Uighurs detained in Afghanistan were involved in Terrorism, or even were in any way Political. They just happened to be caught in Afghanistan at a time when any foreigner was viewed as suspicious, and worth turning over to the Americans for a possible bounty.

Yes, there is a history of terrorism by Uighur nationalists within China. There is also, unsurprisingly, a lot Chinese state brutality against Uighurs it accuses of terrorist or nationalist affiliations, with or without any evidence (or any credible evidence). The reason the Uighurs in Guantanamo couldn’t be released to Chinese custody is because it was certain they would be abused or killed in China, without due process of law, and there was no reason to believe they’d done anything to merit such treatment.

[tachin1]

@Ion

I don’t define it that narrowly. The CIA lawyers looked at previous cases (including allied governments) had decided where the line could be drawn.

Do you actually have your own opinion? I mean, sure, the supreme court agreed to this, the CIA lawyers agreed its not torture…

That is a given, perhaps you are having trouble reaching people because you are not actually arguing your point, you are just telling us what the powers that be have done. You do not have to agree, you can think for your self. And if you do agree, nobody else has to, so you would fare better by actually attempting to convince us that gitmo is useful and somehow good law.
Not all laws are good laws.

[LurkingGrue]

@Shuck

Remember, Trump is the diversion.

He is Zaphod Beeblebrox but without the style.

[Arduenn]

Stop reading, interpreting and reporting on his god damn tweets and stick to the real problems. What about the Russian ties?

[renke]

@Ion

We are at war against al-Qaeda and their allies.

except when not.

[jajawunderbar]

“[The modern masses] do not believe in anything visible, in the reality of their own experience; they do not trust their eyes and ears but only their imaginations, […]” & “What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part.” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism.

[Wanderfound]

@WarrenTerra

we just have to hold them until they die

we just have to choose to hold them until they die

[Nightflyer]

@LurkingGrue

@Shuck

Remember, Trump is the diversion.

He is Zaphod Beeblebrox but without the style.

Hey! That’s insulting Zaphod. 'Cuz Zaphod’s smarter than Trump.

[Enkita]

@LurkingGrue

He is Zaphod Beeblebrox but without the style.

I’m not sure that enough people know what, in H²G², you are referring to. Perhaps you should furnish the citation. (Your post…I don’t want to steal your credit for a very apposite remark.)

[Enkita]

@PatRx2

That was just the rape of a country to make money for a few well-connected companies.

And on the principle of “You don’t want to obey US orders? Remember what happened to Iraq.”

[PatRx2]

@renke

@Ion

We are at war against al-Qaeda and their allies.

except when not.

And there is one thing that is very certain: Iraq under Hussein and the Ba’ath Party never was an ally of al Queda. It took the USA coming in and dismembering the Iraqi government to create a power vacuum for the Wahhabis to grow into.

[renke]

@Enkita

And on the principle of “You don’t want to obey US orders? Remember what happened to Iraq.”

or this fine, to use an economical example instead of a military one.

[PatRx2]

@Enkita

@PatRx2

That was just the rape of a country to make money for a few well-connected companies.

And on the principle of “You don’t want to obey US orders? Remember what happened to Iraq.”

Considering that Iraq had complied with the conditions imposed on it after the first Gulf War, you could probably call the enforcement of that “principle” an act of terrorism.

[Enkita]

@PatRx2

Considering that Iraq had complied with the conditions imposed on it after the first Gulf War,

Doesn’t matter. Saddam was set up to be the one to fall, pour décourager les autres.

[HMSGoose]

#notally’all…

[wrecksdart]

Thanks for the clarification. @Dragonfly, we’re both calculating ham, it seems.