Do you support the continued detentions at Guantanamo bay?

[Peter Jenkins]

Just one week ago, I would have supported the detentions at Guantanamo bay. I assumed, like many other people that the people there were all Taliban or, at least, combatants in the war in Afghanistan. I assumed that the people there were held as POW’s and given some – if limited – legal representation. Then, The US released a British detainee and details started reaching the British news.
The more I find out, the more I dislike the way that the US is treating these people.

Recently Colin Powell said: "We don't abuse people who are in our care. I think we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way."

The trouble is that the detainees have not been classified as POW’s, in fact Donald Rumsfeld said that these people were “unlawful combatants” and were not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention”

Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state’s armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group – which would include anyone fighting for the Taliban, which was the governing body of Afghanistan when the US invaded.
If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/09/usdom6917.htm) suggests that there are over 600 people being detained in Guantanamo, including an undisclosed number of children.

Disregard the hype and the unsubstantiated allegations of torture, just given the facts; can anyone here actually SUPPORT what the US is doing to the detainees at Guantanamo bay?

Peter

[The Don]

This is something of a ticklish subject. On one hand you have the "charge them or relase them" approach (where ideally each detainee would get access to legal representation and a fair trial). The danger of this is that you maybe wouldn't get the kind of intelligence that's being extracted out of the detainees (they'd keep schtum) and there's a risk that your intelligence sources in the field would be compromised.

The alternative is to do what they're doing at the moment, only releasing people when they're sure and in the meantine subjecting the detainees to high pressure interrogation techniques. It keeps the potentially dangerous people under wraps and provides information. Of course this information could be tainted and there is the small problem of human rights abuses.

I like the situation at the moment. I can complain about the Americans with righteous indignation and be confident that undesirables are removed from circulation. I know that's hypocritical of me. If pushed I would tend toward the first point of view

[Tony]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state’s armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group – which would include anyone fighting for the Taliban, which was the governing body of Afghanistan when the US invaded.



There's two problems with this:

1) The people fighting weren't part of an "identfiable militia group". They dressed just like the civilians in the area, and hide among them.

2) The Taliban wasn't the recognized government of Afghanistan. The only country that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan was Pakistan



But to answer your question, I'd prefer if the prisoners would have POW status and certain rights therein, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. And frankly, there is nothing we can do about it.

[Dancing David]

The detainees are at gtmo in a state of 'the fog of war'. Except that we are not following the laws that we our selves pushed for. The use of local population in warfare is a standard and sound technique, especialy in the country hosting an invasion.
I would be much more comfortable if at least the evidence was heard by a military justice and a decision made to continue the illegal dentention at gtmos.
The fact that they would be prisoners of war is very important.
I will say no more lest the thread derail in flames.

[American]

In the hieracrchy of power, lawyers come last behind guns and money. I say kill them all, and screw your silly papers and legal babble.


***** JAGs. I hate em.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by The Don
It keeps the potentially dangerous people under wraps and provides information. Isn't it a problem that it also keeps potentially innocent people under wraps?

[Luke T.]

To give the detainees the status of POWs would be to legitimize them. So nix on that. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated as such.

It's been a couple years now. I think they must have been soaked for as much information as they have. Charge them or release them, or turn them over to their mother country for legal proceedings.

edited to add: Our government should have been able to figure out who is naughty and who is nice by now.

[Brian]

Those prisoners fought to defend a regime that sheltered a man who executed a plan to crash planes into our buildings, killing thousands of innocents. I could care less what happens to them.

[crackmonkey]

While I believe that the vast majority of detainees in Gitmo are Taliban supporters (and I'm entirely satisfied with their enemy combatant status ), there certainly are some innocents that have been incarcerated as well. There needs to be a system in place to determine guilt or innnocence. Military trials would be sufficient, but there has to be SOMETHING.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
To give the detainees the status of POWs would be to legitimize them. So nix on that. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated as such. Are you also against the constant attempts to refer to our military actions as a literal "War on Terror"?

If we're truly at war, then those people are indeed prisoners of war. If they're merely civilians, they should have been charged or released years ago. We can't just create a new category because it pleases us.

[jj]

And, the ones that you find out were completely innocent, and were caught up by either disinformation or prejudice.

What do you do with them? How do you treat them? How do you compensate them for taking two years (so far) of their life, which is exactly the same as murdering them two years before they would otherwise die, in my book.

[crackmonkey]

Merely being involved in a war doesn't render one a POW if captured. The Geneva Convention is quite explicit in this regard.
Spies, guerrillas, and combatants that wear no uniform aren't considered POWs by the convention.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj

...which is exactly the same as murdering them two years before they would otherwise die, in my book.


That's an interesting way to look at it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Merely being involved in a war doesn't render one a POW if captured. The Geneva Convention is quite explicit in this regard.
Spies, guerrillas, and combatants that wear no uniform aren't considered POWs by the convention.
Not always true. Resisting an invasion on your own land is different....Civilians, or anyone, may form armed militia or take up arms in resisting an invading force. If captured the fact that they are not wearing cute uniforms makes no difference at all.

If Canada invaded America tomorrow, american civilians who engaged in armed resistance would have the protection of POW status if captured, uniforms or not....

[Clancie]

If Russians went around the world snatching people from various nations off the streets and throwing them into jail....without due process, accusing them of no crime...without legal counsel....all because they were SUSPECTED of sympathizing with Chechen rebels....the U.S. government would be saying it was an outrageous violation of international law (especially if some of the imprisoned people were Americans).

Yes, I think it's wrong, any way you look at it. Totally, completely, unequivocally, wrong.

****

And, btw, although the detainees are not charged with being Taliban supporters, what if they were?

Since when has political ideology been a crime one could be snatched from one's homeland and thrown by the US government into prison for?

[Richard G]

Illegal combatants, spies, and sabateurs (terrorists) should be shot as soon as they are captured. That is how we dealt with them in WW2.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by The Fool
Not always true. Resisting an invasion on your own land is different....Civilians, or anyone, may form armed militia or take up arms in resisting an invading force. If captured the fact that they are not wearing cute uniforms makes no difference at all.

The Geneva Convention disagrees. Article 4, Section 2 states:


2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

It is explicitly clear that looking and behaving like a regular military force are prerequisites of POW status.

As for the detainees, I'm troubled by the actions of the government, but I think they're on firm legal ground. If the U.S. government is honest about how these detainees were captured (which I am still undecided on), then summary execution would've been a perfectly legal treatment of them under existing laws and treaties.

Jeremy

[gnome]

Originally posted by Brian
Those prisoners fought to defend a regime that sheltered a man who executed a plan to crash planes into our buildings, killing thousands of innocents. I could care less what happens to them.

For me it's not so much caring what happens to them as not trusing what we'll become if we make a habit of treating people this way.

I've never liked the argument of "They don't deserve due process because they're not citizens" in that the reason we promise due process to our citizens is because we believe that's the correct way to achieve justice... not because we consider our people privileged.

To support things like human rights and due process is to take the risk that you might have someone dangerous slip through the weaknesses in the system. I for one am willing to take that risk for the sake of the freedoms the risk buys us.

[a_unique_person]

Justice must be seen to be done. I can't see a damn thing that is happening at Guantanamo.

[Blue Monk]

It's hard to form an opinion as I have no idea who's being held, what they are being held for or under what condtions.

Hey, wait a minute.....

You know when I was growing up I was told that this was what the Godless Commies did and that was why they were so evil.

My, how the world changes.

[Clancie]

Posted by Toddjh

If the U.S. government is honest about how these detainees were captured (which I am still undecided on), then summary execution would've been a perfectly legal treatment of them under existing laws and treaties.
"Summary execution would have been a perfectly legal treatment of them...." :eek: :eek:

Todd,

Seriously. You need to brush up on your understanding of international law!

And, um, what do you think of all the detainees who've been released? Should the 26 who were (finally) sent home today actually have been executed? (And, um, since no charges have ever been filed against them, what would we be executing them for, exactly?)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Clancie
Seriously. You need to brush up on your understanding of international law![/B]

Okay, point out to me where it says that shooting the enemy in an armed conflict is illegal.

And, um, what do you think of all the detainees who've been released? Should the 26 who were (finally) sent home today actually have been executed?

I never said they should; I said it would not have been illegal. In fact, my very first sentence was that I'm troubled by the behavior of the U.S. government.

(And, um, since no charges have ever been filed against them, what would we be executing them for, exactly?)

Normal protections don't always apply in military conflict. Can you charge a soldier with murder for shooting the enemy? As others have pointed out, summary executions took place during WWII, in the exact same kinds of situations the U.S. claims these people were captured in, and no one had a problem with it.

Now, the fact that we haven't declared a war changes things somewhat, but only somewhat, and not in a way that has any impact on international law or the treatment of prisoners. It doesn't change the fact that the Geneva Convention and its protections do not cover those who are not operating as part of a regular military force, official or otherwise.

Jeremy

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by toddjh


Okay, point out to me where it says that shooting the enemy in an armed conflict is illegal.



I never said they should; I said it would not have been illegal. In fact, my very first sentence was that I'm troubled by the behavior of the U.S. government.



Normal protections don't always apply in military conflict. Can you charge a soldier with murder for shooting the enemy? As others have pointed out, summary executions took place during WWII, in the exact same kinds of situations the U.S. claims these people were captured in, and no one had a problem with it.

Now, the fact that we haven't declared a war changes things somewhat, but only somewhat, and not in a way that has any impact on international law or the treatment of prisoners. It doesn't change the fact that the Geneva Convention and its protections do not cover those who are not operating as part of a regular military force, official or otherwise.

Jeremy

In fact summary execution in war does worry people.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
In fact summary execution in war does worry people.

Sure, which is why the Geneva Convention was adopted in the first place -- to protect the average, normally-decent people serving in a regular military. Why do you think they intentionally left out those who weren't? When they grant certain protections to POW's, what do you think that implies for those who don't meet the POW criteria?

Jeremy

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Richard G
Illegal combatants, spies, and sabateurs (terrorists) should be shot as soon as they are captured. That is how we dealt with them in WW2.

No we did not.

There was a case where eight German sabetours were caught after they infilitrated the USA and they were tried, then convicted, then executed. In other words, there was a due process. There were also numerous cases of captured German spies being turned so that they would feed false information to the enemy. If they were simply killed, then the Germans would just replace them with someone we may not know (P.S., check out the British 'Double Cross' operation for more details).

Further, the USA has already demonstrated its ability to deal with terrorists from abroad via the 1993 trials that involved the first attack on the World Trade Center.

[crackmonkey]

The German spies in question were also held not as POWs, but as enemy combatants as I recall hearing. The situation was very similar to the one in Cuba.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Clancie
If Russians went around the world snatching people from various nations off the streets and throwing them into jail....without due process, accusing them of no crime...without legal counsel....all because they were SUSPECTED of sympathizing with Chechen rebels....the U.S. government would be saying it was an outrageous violation of international law (especially if some of the imprisoned people were Americans).

Yes, I think it's wrong, any way you look at it. Totally, completely, unequivocally, wrong.


What does this have to do with the discussion?

Since when has political ideology been a crime one could be snatched from one's homeland and thrown by the US government into prison for?


Please tell me you aren't serious.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The German spies in question were also held not as POWs, but as enemy combatants as I recall hearing. The situation was very similar to the one in Cuba.

Just so, and there was a due process involved and that was over 60 years ago.

The USA does have procedures for dealing with such individuals, therefore it is not necessary to hold people for years without charges, trial, Red Cross visits, a chance to make their case, etc.

[Clancie]

Clancie:

If Russians went around the world snatching people from various nations off the streets and throwing them into jail....without due process, accusing them of no crime...without legal counsel....all because they were SUSPECTED of sympathizing with Chechen rebels....the U.S. government would be saying it was an outrageous violation of international law (especially if some of the imprisoned people were Americans).

Tony:

What does this have to do with the discussion?
I see it as a perfect parallel, Tony, to what we've done. We have picked up foreign nationals, in other countries, essentially kidnapped them, imprisoned them, given them no legal representation, and deprived them of due process (even incarcerated them off of US soil to be sure they wouldn't get it).

It's an exact parallel to the situation I described above. The only difference in the first one is who is doing the wrong. If it's the U.S., are we just willing to let it happen?


Clancie:

Since when has political ideology been a crime one could be snatched from one's homeland and thrown by the US government into prison for?

Tony:

Please tell me you aren't serious.
Perfectly serious. If you disagree, can you answer that question?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The German spies in question were also held not as POWs, but as enemy combatants as I recall hearing. The situation was very similar to the one in Cuba. How do we know if the prisoners in Cuba participated in any illegal activity (even from our point of view) at all?

I'm not saying they (or most of them) didn't, but there is no legal process whatsoever so far - just as with Padilla, we are supposed to accept someone can be held for years with no evidence of wrongdoing presented - even to a judge.

As much as I agree that yes, spies can be shot on the spot during a war: For all I know, there are people in Guantanamo who just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. What about the UK citizens just released - what were they guilty of? If the answer is nothing, how can we defend taking two years of their lives?

Military tribunal, civil trial, whatever, it is simply not the American way to provide no justice system whereby they can be found guilty or not. At least it used not to be.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by toddjh



It is explicitly clear that looking and behaving like a regular military force are prerequisites of POW status.


Jeremy
Fair point but what does a "regular military force" look like. The point of a military uniform is to Identify you to friendly forces so you don't get shot at by your own people. This has to be balanced against
1. the need to hide (not many armies still have bright shiny helmets with pompoms and feathers etc)
2. availablilty.... Do they even posses the clothing. If someone is invading your country not many people would say "Can't fight, I've got nothing to wear".

If regular troops are abandoning thier uniforms and deliberately dressing as civilians then I am all with you. Many special forces troops of western countries are given much freedom in what they wear and what weapons they carry. The old days of clearly visible flags/patches/emblems etc are long past.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that just because these people were not all parade ground Identical does not mean a great deal. We invaded, we set the timetable for the fighting, we can hardly disadvantage them for not getting suitably dressed.

I also question the prisoners like the Australian Mamdouh Habib who wasn't even in Afghanistan ...He was kidnapped from Pakistan. When people talk of these people being rounded up in a combat area where does Habib fit in? Could the US army also snatch people from the streets of sydney or London and transport them to Gitmo?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Clancie

I see it as a perfect parallel, Tony, to what we've done. [/B]

No it's not.

We have picked up foreign nationals, in other countries, essentially kidnapped them, imprisoned them, given them no legal representation, and deprived them of due process (even incarcerated them off of US soil to be sure they wouldn't get it).

No we haven't. We have captured enemies on the battlefield in a war.

It's an exact parallel to the situation I described above.

Not even remotely close. We are prosecuting a war, not arbitrarily kidnapping people.

Perfectly serious. If you disagree, can you answer that question?

The question is unanswerable because you have an astoundingly perverted view of what's really going on. Those people aren't being caught because of their ideology. For me to even consider that you have to provide evidence that those people are being caught for ideological reasons and not because they belong to or support a terrorist regime that played a part in the attacks of 9/11.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony
Those people aren't being caught because of their ideology. For me to even consider that you have to provide evidence that those people are being caught for ideological reasons and not because they belong to or support a terrorist regime that played a part in the attacks of 9/11. How do you/we know what they are caught for? And how can you/we provide any evidence about anything as long as we haven't heard anything about their cases in the first place?

We just released two of them. Were they innocent?

At the moment, we just have to take someone's word for the reason why they are held. That's simply not the American way of doing justice.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony

No we haven't. We have captured enemies on the battlefield in a war.

Not true. The Australian Mamdouh Habib was kidnapped in Pakistan. No matter how many times this is pointed out the tired old line "they were all captured on a battlefield" is trotted out again and again...
Do you consider Pakistan as part of the "battlefield"?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
That's simply not the American way of doing justice.

Who says this has anything to do with justice? Were german POW's captured during WWII captured in the name of justice or were they captured because they were enemies who surrendered or were caught on the battlefield?

The rest of your post is irrelevant in this context.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

Not true. The Australian Mamdouh Habib was kidnapped in Pakistan.

Evidence?

Do you consider Pakistan as part of the "battlefield"?

Yep.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


For me to even consider that you have to provide evidence that those people are being caught for ideological reasons and not because they belong to or support a terrorist regime that played a part in the attacks of 9/11.
Guilty until proven innocent.... cute.

[Clancie]

There is no legal basis to treat as "battlefield detainees" suspects who are captured outside Afghanistan and have no direct relationship with the armed conflict.

In such cases, the designation is a transparent effort to circumvent the requirement of international human rights law that these suspects be criminally charged or freed.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/guantanamo.htm

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

Guilty until proven innocent.... cute.

That's the level of simplicity I expect from you, thanks for not disappointing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Clancie


http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/guantanamo.htm

That's not a credible source. That article contains lies, for example:

..the United States continues to violate the Geneva Conventions, particularly with respect to Taliban detainees.

It's already been established, according to the Geneva Convention that the detainees do not meet the eligibility for POW status. Why does HRW have to be dishonest to prove their point?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony


Who says this has anything to do with justice? Were german POW's captured during WWII captured in the name of justice or were they captured because they were enemies who surrendered or were caught on the battlefield?

The rest of your post is irrelevant in this context. My post, and the post I answered to, were not about WW2.

I'm trying to ask questions about the prisoners in Guantanamo. I'm trying to ask if this is the American way of doing justice. Irrelevant for you, I guess, but not for me.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony

It's already been established, according to the Geneva Convention that the detainees do not meet the eligibility for POW status. Why does HRW have to be dishonest to prove their point?

Yes, it's been established by the American miltary/government. They convieniently decided that they POW's should be given a different label (enemy combatants) so their human rights could be violated.
It's an act of thuggery plain and simple.

How about letting an international tribunal decide whether these prisoners should be considered POW's. The US isn't in a position to be interpreting the Geneva Convention. One might say it is a conflict of interest.
If it's so evident that these prisoners shouldn't be called POW's then let an international court hear arguments from both sides and make a decision.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Yes, it's been established by the American miltary/government.

Wrong. The Geneva Convention is clear on what qualifies as a POW, these detainees do not.

How about letting an international tribunal decide whether these prisoners should be considered POW's.

Serious issues like this are an inappropriate venue for a stand-up comic act.

The US isn't in a position to be interpreting the Geneva Convention. One might say it is a conflict of interest.

Not really, considering it was the US that was attacked on 9/11.

If it's so evident that these prisoners shouldn't be called POW's then let an international court hear arguments from both sides and make a decision.

That's not a bad idea, but the US is in no way obligated to do such a thing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I'm trying to ask questions about the prisoners in Guantanamo. I'm trying to ask if this is the American way of doing justice.

It's irrelevant because this isn’t about justice; it's about prosecuting a war. That's the reality of the situation.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
The more I find out, the more I dislike the way that the US is treating these people.

Not meaning to dismiss the possibility, but what is it that makes you so quickly inclined to actually believe some of the more lurid, and by association all the rest, allegations that the rags print from these fanatics?

Do you really believe that the US military goes around smearing menstrual blood (supposedly) on these poor souls with their twisted ideas of evil, for example? The same UK newspaper printing these stories also printed, to their credit I suppose, some quite opposite ones about other detainees released to Afghanistan.

I wouldn't hesitate to show some catsup to a few of these guys if it would get answers, but somehow I doubt it would ever be considered an option.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony
It's irrelevant because this isn’t about justice; it's about prosecuting a war. That's the reality of the situation. The question about how we can keep people locked up incommunicado for two years, with no legal procedures involved whatsoever, is about justice. It is also about something that used to take place in countries we wouldn't like to be compared to. I notice you don't see it that way.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elind


Not meaning to dismiss the possibility, but what is it that makes you so quickly inclined to actually believe some of the more lurid, and by association all the rest, allegations that the rags print from these fanatics?

Do you really believe that the US military goes around smearing menstrual blood (supposedly) on these poor souls with their twisted ideas of evil, for example? The same UK newspaper printing these stories also printed, to their credit I suppose, some quite opposite ones about other detainees released to Afghanistan.

I wouldn't hesitate to show some catsup to a few of these guys if it would get answers, but somehow I doubt it would ever be considered an option.

As I said before, justice must be seen to be done. By keeping it all locked up and hidden, the US opens itself to these accusations.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The question about how we can keep people locked up incommunicado for two years, with no legal procedures involved whatsoever, is about justice. It is also about something that used to take place in countries we wouldn't like to be compared to. I notice you don't see it that way.

One year two years, three? It won't be indefinite, at least without military trial, as that is being prepared now. It is hard to imagine a situation more relevant to guilt, than being a combatant in a place like Afghanistan in that time. In the USA people have been convicted of aiding the enemy by going there to train with Al Qaida (and that is the same as Taliban). In Europe it seems that this is still legal, at least until they kill someone.

Let's see what the attitude is after, hopefully not, a really major strike occurs in Europe. It seems so far that the Spanish prefer to blame the USA first for bringing the attention to them.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The question about how we can keep people locked up incommunicado for two years, with no legal procedures involved whatsoever, is about justice.

Like I said, I'd prefer if these people were given some protections under Geneva Convention, but Im not going to lose sleep over it. When it starts happening to american civilians in a domestic context I'll join you in protest.

It is also about something that used to take place in countries we wouldn't like to be compared to. I notice you don't see it that way.

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that, THIS ISNT HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY, if it was I would be 100% against it (the Jose Padilla case for example). It is happening on a military base in the context of war. A fact which you conveniently ignore.

[Ladewig]

Now that some of the Gitmo detainees are being released, I am much less concerned with their status and civil rights than I am with those of Jose Padilla (dirty-bomb suspect arrested in Chicago in 2002). The federal government has refused to allow him to see anyone despite court orders that he have access to counsel. Earlier this month he finally met with a lawyer although the lawyer, herself, described it as "not an attorney-client meeting."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28390-2004Mar3.html)

I'm not saying the guy should go free or that the guy should have a civil trial, but he should at least have a military trial before he is locked up. I also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Plotting to kill dozens or hundreds of people (without actually having the resources to achieve that goal) should not result in life imprisionment.


_____________


How about letting an international tribunal decide whether these prisoners should be considered POW's. The US isn't in a position to be interpreting the Geneva Convention. One might say it is a conflict of interest.
If it's so evident that these prisoners shouldn't be called POW's then let an international court hear arguments from both sides and make a decision.

The US is decidedly against participating in any international military legal system in which Americans might be convicted of crimes. The US might do a lot of different things in Gitmo, but inviting an international military court to step in is the very, very last thing it will do.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony

Wrong. The Geneva Convention is clear on what qualifies as a POW, these detainees do not.


Considering how often this issue has been debated on both sides of the issue I would suspect that it's not so definitive to just say "the Geneva Convention is clear." If it's so clear why doesn't everyone agree that these prisoners are not POW's. I mean, it's so clear, right?
Well sorry, it isn't. At least not in my opinion. And in the opinion of many legal experts.

Serious issues like this are an inappropriate venue for a stand-up comic act.

Yes, yes. I know. Americans don't trust anything that isn't American run and led. This train of thought is getting a little tiresome.

Not really, considering it was the US that was attacked on 9/11.

Well then, let's let all countries decide the status of prisoners when they are detained. Why do I get the feeling any country can intrepet the Geneva Convention in a way that is favourable to their agenda. Suddenly all prisoners captured in battle are "enemy combatants."

That's not a bad idea, but the US is in no way obligated to do such a thing.

I know they are not. But maybe they should be. This is the point of my response. A country that captures prisoners might not be in the best position to make an objective decision about a prisoners status.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Elind
It is hard to imagine a situation more relevant to guilt, than being a combatant in a place like Afghanistan in that time. Were the two UK citizens (just released) guilty of anything? If so, please let me know what, and how they were found guilty.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony

It is happening on a military base in the context of war. A fact which you conveniently ignore.

In the context of war eh? Wouldn't that make them prisoners of WAR ?

[demon]

Elind:
"Not meaning to dismiss the possibility, but what is it that makes you so quickly inclined to actually believe some of the more lurid, and by association all the rest, allegations that the rags print from these fanatics?"

You said you have the evidence so supply it.
Evidence that these released men are "fanatics". Why would they be released if they were fanatics? And don`t dare say it`s because they release the stupider ones who cost too much to feed. LOL.

Elind:
"Do you really believe that the US military goes around smearing menstrual blood (supposedly) on these poor souls with their twisted ideas of evil, for example?"

Evidence that these men have "twisted ideas of evil"...that might rely upon you showing evidence that they are "fanatics".

Ooops, sorry to step in here...you DON`T have any evidence do you? You couldn`t be bothered or are you just prejudiced and a fabricator? Or was that only for me?

Maybe you will produce the evidence you say you have for Peter Jenkins. I see Bjorn has just asked for some too. surely you can be bothered now.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Originally posted by Tony
Considering how often this issue has been debated on both sides of the issue I would suspect that it's not so definitive to just say "the Geneva Convention is clear."


But it is, you can read it.

If it's so clear why doesn't everyone agree that these prisoners are not POW's. I mean, it's so clear, right?

Because people who come to the table with the pre-concieved belief that these people are POW are trying to construe the meaning of the Geneva Convention.

Well sorry, it isn't. At least not in my opinion. And in the opinion of many legal experts.

Opinion is irrellevant. It's plainly written in the Geneva Convention for everyone to see, that is a fact.



Geneva Convention Article 4, Section 2 states:


2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Yes, yes. I know. Americans don't trust anything that isn't American run and led. This train of thought is getting a little tiresome.

I don't trust anyone in power with an agenda.

I know they are not. But maybe they should be.

It would be entertaining to see the international community try to enforce that.

This is the point of my response. A country that captures prisoners might not be in the best position to make an objective decision about a prisoners status.

Perhaps.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


In the context of war eh? Wouldn't that make them prisoners of WAR ?

Not according to the Geneva Convention (see post above).

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony
Like I said, I'd prefer if these people were given some protections under Geneva Convention, but Im not going to lose sleep over it. When it starts happening to american civilians in a domestic context I'll join you in protest.It's happening to American citizen Jose Padilla right now, isn't it? Detained for whatever time the powers want, no lawyer, no trial, no conviction. Wanna join me in the protest?

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that, THIS ISNT HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY, if it was I would be 100% against it (the Jose Padilla case for example). It is happening on a military base in the context of war. A fact which you conveniently ignore. How convenient to bring them to Guantanamo instead of bringing them to the US, so we could be a bit more lax with the laws. Pretty much like a shipping company being registered in Honduras to avoid safety inspections, isn't it?

What happened to Americans being all for law and order, if we deliberately bring people to a place where our principles of law and order can be 'forgotten'?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn

How convenient to bring them to Guantanamo instead of bringing them to the US, so we could be a bit more lax with the laws.


Not really. The US court system isnt designed to handle situations like this.

What happened to Americans being all for law and order, if we deliberately bring people to a place where our principles of law and order can be 'forgotten'?

Those ideals where betrayed by the government a long time ago. It saddens me that the government is the most unamerican entity in this country and no one seems to care, in fact most people argue for more government power in one way or the other.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Were the two UK citizens (just released) guilty of anything? If so, please let me know what, and how they were found guilty.

Part of the problem in war is that peacetime legal systems can't cope. That is not a critique of your concerns, just a reality. Had they been US citizens they would probably have been prosecuted for aiding the enemy (as some will be), but in most of Europe it seems that there is no real recognition of "the enemy", just a matter of punishment after the fact as with common crimes.

In this case, in my mind, they were guilty of planning crimes by our standards, but of pathways to heaven in theirs. How do you expect to deal with that with civil courts?

There were no tourists in Afghanistan at that time, but the very fact that they were released (these ones) shows that they were evaluated as being, as I said elsewhere, the dumbest of the dumb. If the US military just like to get off on torture, wouldn't they have been ideal candidates to keep?

Now let's just hope that with all their newfound fame and importance, they don't end up being the first suicide (homicide) bombers in the UK.

Perhaps what we should do is simply make it a crime to belong to organizations and religions that promote murder as a path to heaven and free sex? I wouldn't feel afraid of wrongful arrest. Would you?

:)

[Bjorn]

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that, THIS ISNT HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY, if it was I would be 100% against it I have to comment on this once again:

We, here in America, are proud to have one of the most fair and just systems ever invented - where everyone has certain rights, even if accused of the most heinous crimes. It might not be working, always, but that's not the point right now.

We have an excellent oppurtunity to show the world the 'right' way of doing things, and we screw it up by not flying the 'criminals' to the US to some kind of trial, military or civil, but to Guantanamo to 'Nacht und Nebel'.

[demon]

Elind:
"In this case, in my mind, they were guilty of planning crimes by our standards..."

Ah, that`s what you consider evidence is it? What`s in your mind?
Now I get it. Why didn`t you just say so. LOL

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Elind
Had they been US citizens they would probably have been prosecuted for aiding the enemy How could they? One of them was a grandmother carrying her grandchild towards shelter when she was arrested and detained. What was she guilty of?

In this case, in my mind, they were guilty of planning crimes by our standards, but of pathways to heaven in theirs. How do you expect to deal with that with civil courts?How was the grandmother guilty of anything at all?

There were no tourists in Afghanistan at that time, but the very fact that they were released (these ones) shows that they were evaluated as being, as I said elsewhere, the dumbest of the dumb. Maybe so - and if so, we have kept two silly people in prison with no trial, no lawyer, no verdict, for two years. When they are found to be innocent(?) they are released with no excuse whatsoever. Wanny try it?

Perhaps what we should do is simply make it a crime to belong to organizations and religions that promote murder as a path to heaven and free sex?I have no information whatsoever about which organizations the two Brits were members of, nor do I know if they were promoting murder. If you have such information, please let us all know.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony
Those ideals where betrayed by the government a long time ago. I'm glad to see that you are still supporting such ideals as a right to a trial and a jury of your peers. Or, at the least, a military tribunal. Even if the government has betrayed them.

'Justice for the Guantanamo detainees', anyone? Tony?

[Dorian Gray]

Okay, point out to me where it says that shooting the enemy in an armed conflict is illegal. Are you proposing that we stick guns in the prisoners hands before shooting them, just to keep it all legal like? Because that's the only way your conditions would (barely) apply.

Not really, considering it was the US that was attacked on 9/11. That attack isn't a "get out of accountability and responsibility free" card, and should never be represented as such. And you seem to be forgetting that while the WTC was an American building, citizens from 80 countries were killed. Shouldn't those 80 countries have some say about this? Just because it was on US soil....

[Elind]

Originally posted by Bjorn
How could they? One of them was a grandmother carrying her grandchild towards shelter when she was arrested and detained. What was she guilty of?

[B]How was the grandmother guilty of anything at all?

[B]Maybe so - and if so, we have kept two silly people in prison with no trial, no lawyer, no verdict, for two years. When they are found to be innocent(?) they are released with no excuse whatsoever. Wanny try it?

[B]I have no information whatsoever about which organizations the two Brits were members of, nor do I know if they were promoting murder. If you have such information, please let us all know.

Your faith in human benevolence is touching. Unfortunately it seems that you attribute it to one side only. I called those released Brits stupid, but that is not synonymous with "silly". They were in Afghanistan to learn murder and while the facts may be circumstantial, I suspect even your courts accept such evidence. Do you think they were tourists or charity workers?

I don't know about the grandmother, but I do have the belief that the US military has better things to do than kidnap easy targets like grandmothers carrying children and go to the trouble of flying them to Cuba for the hell of it. Have you considered how many there could be there if that was the case? Have you ever heard of an arrest where the local family claimed anything but utter innocence of the arrested?

As to the organizations that two (I thought it was 5?) Brits belonged to, I thought that was fairly obvious by their own words and descriptions of what they considered torture (no needles, just exposure to women, for example). Fanatical Islam, as they call it (as opposed to most Muslims). That is synonymous with terrorism and to call it simple religion is a kindness not deserved.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Elind
I called those released Brits stupid, but that is not synonymous with "silly". They were in Afghanistan to learn murder and while the facts may be circumstantial, I suspect even your courts accept such evidence. Do you think they were tourists or charity workers?This is, unfortunately, about 'how do we know'. How do we know Scott Peterson is guilty before the trial? Should we take the sheriff's word for it? How do you know the grandmother was learning about murder?

I don't know about the grandmother, but I do have the belief that the US military has better things to do than kidnap easy targets like grandmothers carrying children and go to the trouble of flying them to Cuba for the hell of it. I hope you are right. Some tiny little trial would make it a lot easier to check. And make it somehow within the system we believe in.

As to the organizations that two (I thought it was 5?) Brits belonged to, I thought that was fairly obvious by their own words and descriptions of what they considered torture (no needles, just exposure to women, for example). Fanatical Islam, as they call it (as opposed to most Muslims). That is synonymous with terrorism and to call it simple religion is a kindness not deserved. Can I tell you something? If they were innocent, being held for two years with no trial, lawyers, legal support or whatever it is that we believe in - it doesn't make much of a difference if they were 'tortured' or not. It's just plain wrong to have kept them there.

I have a basement I don't use much. I think you sound suspicious ....

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I have to comment on this once again:

We, here in America, are proud to have one of the most fair and just systems ever invented - where everyone has certain rights, even if accused of the most heinous crimes. It might not be working, always, but that's not the point right now.

We have an excellent oppurtunity to show the world the 'right' way of doing things, and we screw it up by not flying the 'criminals' to the US to some kind of trial, military or civil, but to Guantanamo to 'Nacht und Nebel'.

Not meaning to burst your bubble, but these detainees are not US citizens and are not guaranteed the rights of a US citizen. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Here is a lot of information on military commissions and a lot about how it is being applied in Guantanamo.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/commissions.html

That being said, yes I do believe that these people should be charged with something and moved to trial or released.

Jose Padilla's case was supposed to be heard in February by the Supreme Court. Anyone have any info on how that went?

[demon]

Elind:
"As to the organizations that two (I thought it was 5?) Brits belonged to, I thought that was fairly obvious by their own words and descriptions of what they considered torture (no needles, just exposure to women, for example). Fanatical Islam, as they call it (as opposed to most Muslims). That is synonymous with terrorism and to call it simple religion is a kindness not deserved."

Muslims objecting to exposure to women is "synonymous with terrorism" now is it?
You go from the sublime to the ridiculous. Do carry on, this is so funny:)
I don`t suppose I could trouble you for some evidence of where these released "fanatical" Islamists say "just exposure to women" was torture could I? I thought not because if you read the accounts this isn`t what they say at all.
Is there no end to your lies?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Not meaning to burst your bubble, but these detainees are not US citizens and are not guaranteed the rights of a US citizen. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.Well, that has been discussed for miles already and will continue to be.

My point, however, was that we had/have this excellent opportunity to show how a system built on justice should work, and then we flew some people to Cuba to prevent that very system of justice from being applied.

We invented and built the best justice system in the world, with all the checks and balances in place, but say 'but they are not in the US' to explain how people can be held for years without any trial, nor any explanation of what they are accused of or what the evidence looks like. (And then we keep Jose Padilla incommunicado, showing it was just an excuse anyhow and being a US citizen or not didn't matter).

Nah.

[Clancie]

Posted by peptoabysmal

Not meaning to burst your bubble, but these detainees are not US citizens and are not guaranteed the rights of a US citizen.
Sorry, peptoabysmal, but this is incorrect.

Non-citizens are also entitled to due process...legal representation, etc. if they are living in the U.S.

And that's the reason that they are in Guantanamo instead of here. To -avoid- having to give them these rights.

When people are treated this way, intentionally incarcerated so they are deprived of due process...intentionally denied the protection afforded by POW status...rightly or wrongly, the default view has to be that human rights violations -are- occurring.

If the U.S. doesn't want people to "assume the worst", then they can't incarcerate people in this manner. In this situation, it is perfectly reasonable to "assume the worst".

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Elind

---------------------------------------
Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
The more I find out, the more I dislike the way that the US is treating these people.
-----------------------------------------

Not meaning to dismiss the possibility, but what is it that makes you so quickly inclined to actually believe some of the more lurid, and by association all the rest, allegations that the rags print from these fanatics?

I Dont, In fact, in my first post on this thread, I specifically said, "Disregard the hype and the unsubstantiated allegations of torture, just given the facts; can anyone here actually SUPPORT what the US is doing to the detainees at Guantanamo bay?

Do you really believe that the US military goes around smearing menstrual blood (supposedly) on these poor souls with their twisted ideas of evil, for example? The same UK newspaper printing these stories also printed, to their credit I suppose, some quite opposite ones about other detainees released to Afghanistan.
I wouldn't hesitate to show some catsup to a few of these guys if it would get answers, but somehow I doubt it would ever be considered an option.

Allegations of ill treatment of prisoners have been discussed on another thread. I was particularly interested to see how many people are comfortable with the KNOWN FACTS about the Guantanamo bay prisoners - being detained for up to 2 years (so far) with no legal status, no rights and no concrete accusations against them.

As for the POW status of the prisoners, I believe that the Geneva Convention says (to paraphrase) 'if in doubt about any combatants status as a POW, a tribunal must be convened for each Prisoner'. As far as I can find out, this has not been the case at Guantanamo bay. (of course, this may be one of the myriad of things that has been kept secret). As far as I can find out, there was simply a blanket assertion that all these people do not fit in to the status of POW's.
This would, of course, be true if - as indicated, possibly even by US Diplomatic sources - some of the detainees were simply innocent bystanders - sold for bounty - or simply wrongly identified.
Peter

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Evidence?




You want evidence that the Australian was kidnapped in Pakistan?....Hmmmm, are you prepared to do any research yourself before you participate in a discussion?...you actually have no clue who these people are, where they are from or what they were doing do you....
well, I'm not going to spend time digging up stuff that is commonly known and uncontested. Why don't you ask for evidence that guantanamo is in cuba? It may be in europe...If you want to participate in a debate it is not reasonable to expect other people to carry you to the start line...Do some reading on the subject tony...

and I just love this little beauty..

Like I said, I'd prefer if these people were given some protections under Geneva Convention, but Im not going to lose sleep over it. When it starts happening to american civilians in a domestic context I'll join you in protest.

Have you considered that after you have turned a blind eye to this sort of thing for long enough it may be too late to complain when you are the one being shoved in the cage.... I wonder if you will expect anyone to lose any sleep then?

[Bjorn]

I still find it hard to understand how a grandmother and her grandchild could be held for such a long time with no trial whatsoever. What evidence do we have? How are they guilty? :(

[Giz]

Originally posted by The Fool

Guilty until proven innocent.... cute.

I agree thats a dangerous assumption to make, perhaps you should hop onto the thread about allegations of torture at Gitmo and post how the bleeding hearts shouldn't assume that the US is guilty without any proof...

[Tony]

You want evidence that the Australian was kidnapped in Pakistan?

Yes I do. I sure as hell am not going to take the word of a muslim apologist. You don't have to give me a link, just tell me where I can read about it.


Originally posted by The Fool

Have you considered that after you have turned a blind eye to this sort of thing for long enough it may be too late to complain when you are the one being shoved in the cage.... I wonder if you will expect anyone to lose any sleep then?

My eyes are wide open. I oppose all precursors ("gun control", Patriot Act, more police powers, taxes that empower the state, laws against "hate speech" and "indecency" ect..) to this kind of tyranny in my country.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Bjorn
This is, unfortunately, about 'how do we know'. How do we know Scott Peterson is guilty before the trial? Should we take the sheriff's word for it? How do you know the grandmother was learning about murder?

[B]I hope you are right. Some tiny little trial would make it a lot easier to check. And make it somehow within the system we believe in.

[B]Can I tell you something? If they were innocent, being held for two years with no trial, lawyers, legal support or whatever it is that we believe in - it doesn't make much of a difference if they were 'tortured' or not. It's just plain wrong to have kept them there.

I have a basement I don't use much. I think you sound suspicious ....

Well I can agree that your sentiments are good, but unfortunately I think the approach is naive and does not recognize that we are at war. Treating terrorism today, like simple crime, one at a time, within a society will guarantee "us' to lose in the long term. Your faith in the innocence these people is also touching, but better suited to a church sermon on forgiveness than a method to protect our lives.

[Tmy]

I am bothered by there being like ZERO due process. Absolute power and all that.

I also find it annoying that we are at "war" when its conveneint for us but when it comes to granting rights we are nor really at "war", so its ok to change the rules.

Make up your mind. How can we be at war with people who cant qualify as prisoners of war?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Are you also against the constant attempts to refer to our military actions as a literal "War on Terror"?

If we're truly at war, then those people are indeed prisoners of war. If they're merely civilians, they should have been charged or released years ago. We can't just create a new category because it pleases us. [/B]

Sorry for the delay in my reply, Swarm, I haven't looked at this topic since I posted to it.

We also have a "War on Poverty" which doesn't mean poor people should be given POW status.

We also have a "War on Drugs" which doesn't mean drug dealers are POWs.

We also have a "War on Hunger," which doesn't mean the guy in a soup line is a POW.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn


My point, however, was that we had/have this excellent opportunity to show how a system built on justice should work, and then we flew some people to Cuba to prevent that very system of justice from being applied.



Why oh why do you keep ignoring the facts?

The US justice system was never designed to handle prisoners in the context of war. Why do you have so much trouble accepting that fact?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

Make up your mind. How can we be at war with people who cant qualify as prisoners of war?


Holy *****, if you continue to show this much ignorance after repeated attempts on this thread to explain the facts there is no hope. You are just going to have to figure it out on your own.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.

We also have a "War on Drugs" which doesn't mean drug dealers are POWs.
.


No. But those drug dealers are given legal due process. We dont just round up suspected dealers ans toss them in a hole and give them know rights.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Brian
Those prisoners fought to defend a regime that sheltered a man who executed a plan to crash planes into our buildings, killing thousands of innocents. I could care less what happens to them.

How do you know that? Proof? Evidence?

thought not.

[Tmy]

You know who else is full of it?? Senator McCain and his silly stories about being tourtured as a POW. I just cant imagine the Viet Cong abusing prisoners!:p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


How do you know that? Proof? Evidence?

thought not.


So says the fundy to the scientist.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



So says the fundy to the scientist.

Whereupon the scientist would present the fundy with proof and evidence. Yes?

Im waiting.....

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Whereupon the scientist would present the fundy with proof and evidence. Yes?


Not to the fundy's satisfaction. The fundy would counter that science has yet to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Which isn't a scientifc standard, just like reasonable doubt isn't a standard in the context of war.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


Not according to the Geneva Convention (see post above).

Again, that is merely an interpretation of the Geneva Convention, and in my opinion is wrong. Apparently in your opinion it is right. But please spare me this nonsense where you simply pass of this interpretation as fact. It is not fact Tony, it is yours and some others interpretation.

For someone who tries to pretend they are all about freedom and human rights you sure are non chalant about the bs happening at Guantanamo Bay. If find that quite disturbing, and to be honest, quite hypocritical.
To me it almost seems like your saying "Ah well, they're foreign and not worth making a fuss about." Wonderfully egocentric attitude.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Again, that is merely an interpretation of the Geneva Convention, and in my opinion is wrong.

No it's not, it is plain english. Your opinion is without reason.

Apparently in your opinion it is right.

I don't have an opinion on the matter (of the Geneva Convention), I just don't deny the facts.

It is not fact Tony, it is yours and some others interpretation.

Sorry, you are wrong. You keep contending this but have not once tried to support it. I guess just saying it makes it true?

For someone who tries to pretend they are all about freedom and human rights you sure are non chalant about the bs happening at Guantanamo Bay.

Strawman. And you're ignoring my stated opinion that I would prefer that these people have some protections in the Geneva Convention.

This is just a cryptic person attack on your behalf because you know you are wrong and can't support your position.

If find that quite disturbing, and to be honest, quite hypocritical.

That's because you built a strawman.

To me it almost seems like your saying "Ah well, they're foreign and not worth making a fuss about." Wonderfully egocentric attitude.

Pretty weak, this posts contains a reaffirmation of your unreasoned and unsupported opinion followed by a personal attack. Lay off the green bro. ;)


Kevin, if you can provide evidence that the Geneva Convention offers protection to militants from a non-government organization who dress like and hide among civilian populations for protection, I'd love to see it. :)

[KelvinG]

Sorry Tony, I've read the portion of the Geneva Convention that you posted and it does not change my opinion one bit. And since that is the sole piece of evidence you have posted, please spare me this nonsense that you've stated your case sufficiently. Again, your opinion is exactly that. It is an interpretation.

You claim I haven't provided anything to back it up, well neither have you expect quoting the Geneva Convention which is not expicit enough to just assume that POW's captured in the WAR on terror are not POW's.
I believe that whether the US likes it or not, you have to recognize Afghanistan as a country. And thus, Taliban fighters are POW's.
To be perfectly honest, this argument is getting tiresome. It's been rehashed back and forth on this board over and over with neither side giving an inch.
I highly doubt I'm going to change your mind, nor will you change mine.

I have every reason to believe that the US designates those captured in the WAR on terror as "illegal combatants" simply because it suits their cause in being able to supress their human rights. Plain and simple.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Sorry Tony, I've read the portion of the Geneva Convention that you posted and it does not change my opinion one bit.

Dogma is like that.

You claim I haven't provided anything to back it up, well neither have you expect quoting the Geneva Convention which is not expicit enough to just assume that POW's captured in the WAR on terror are not POW's.

The part of the Geneva Convention, which gives the qualifications for a person to consider a POW, is not explicit enough to determine the status of a POW? I didn't know you had such antipathy towards the Geneva Convention.

Spare me the simpleton babble about people being captured in a WAR are automatically considered POW's. The Geneva Convention disagrees with you.

I believe that whether the US likes it or not, you have to recognize Afghanistan as a country.

Your belief is irrelevant to the facts. The facts being that NO country (the UN included) (besides Pakistan) recognized the Taliban as the legit government of Afghanistan.

And thus, Taliban fighters are POW's.

According to the false construct you have build in your head.

To be perfectly honest, this argument is getting tiresome.

I agree, how many times should I remind you (someone I respect) of the facts before I consider you an idiot and a bigot?

It's been rehashed back and forth on this board over and over with neither side giving an inch.

Dogma is like that.

I highly doubt I'm going to change your mind, nor will you change mine.

On the contrary, you are extremly likely to change my mind. Just show me the part of the Geneva Convention that offers protection to militants from a non-government organizations who dress like and hide among civilian populations for protection.

I am unlikely to change your mind because you have left the path of reason.

I have every reason to believe that the US designates those captured in the WAR on terror as "illegal combatants" simply because it suits their cause in being able to supress their human rights.

You are letting your belief in the US government's motivations (I somewhat agree with you) effect your judgment on the facts, which that what is going on is legal according to the Geneva Convention.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Yes I do. I sure as hell am not going to take the word of a muslim apologist. You don't have to give me a link, just tell me where I can read about it.


Try using google. Type in Mamdouh Habib, then LEFT click on the box marked search...Now things get a bit more difficult. You have to DOUBLE CLICK on the sites in the list to open them up. Try practicing double clicking on a blank part of the screen first.
Once you are inside the sites look out for the word "Pakistan" I know its a tricky word but its a muslim country and you know how funny muslim names can be...

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool


Try using google. Type in Mamdouh Habib, then LEFT click on the box marked search...Now things get a bit more difficult. You have to DOUBLE CLICK on the sites in the list to open them up. Try practicing double clicking on a blank part of the screen first.
Once you are inside the sites look out for the word "Pakistan" I know its a tricky word but its a muslim country and you know how funny muslim names can be...


Wrong again, you don't have to double click. :p

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Guantanamo Bay is an anomaly (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/06/world/guantanamo_040706) that has at some point got to be brought to an end British PM Tony Blair; July 6, 2004