Children held at Guantanamo Bay

[a_unique_person]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12881024&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=CHILDREN%20HELD%20AT%20CAMP%20X%2DRAY



CHILDREN HELD AT CAMP X-RAY


Apr 23 2003


Children under the age of 16 are being held prisoner at America's brutal Camp X-Ray jail in Guantanamo Bay, the US military admitted today.

A spokesman for the camp in Cuba was forced to confirm the detention of children after a report by Australia's ABC television

[Tony]

If they're old enough to fight in a war, they are old enough to be held in a prison camp.

It was not known if one of the three teens being interrogated includes Toronto-born Omar Khadr, 16, who is being held in Guantanamo after being captured by U.S. Special Forces on July 27 near Khost, where he was taking part in small arms and explosives training at an al-Qaida compound. Before being taken prisoner, the teen allegedly threw a grenade that killed a U.S. medic.

From here. (http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WarOnTerrorism/2003/04/23/71622-cp.html)

AUP, here (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200304/03/eng20030403_114520.shtml) is a link I am sure you will very much enjoy.

[Skeptical Greg]

Uhh, we did that one already...

It died rather quickly.. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18111)


I'll move my reply here..


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clancy
The whole detainee policy is a disgrace anyway. No charges? No right to counsel? In 21st century America, its shocking.

This Bush/Ashcroft policy will undoubtedly go down in the history books right alongside Manzanar and the Communist witch hunts as an example of the impact of political hysteria on civil liberties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say we take their cover-alls away, wrap a towel around them and drop them back in the desert.
I would even give them a litre of Evian and a case of MRE's.

What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for sparing us the 'Geneva Conference ' idiocy..

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
If they're old enough to fight in a war, they are old enough to be held in a prison camp.

The exploitation of children by adults to fight in wars is a disgrace in many countries around the world. That does not mean they should then be treated as anything other than children.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The exploitation of children by adults to fight in wars is a disgrace in many countries around the world. That does not mean they should then be treated as anything other than children.

I doubt these "children" were exploited.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


I doubt these "children" were exploited.

So they were born evil?

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So they were born evil?

Is this how you think? Either children are born evil or they are exploited. Pretty simplistic.

[Clancie]

All the people incarcerated at Guantanamo--child and adult alike--are innocent until proven guilty.

Thank you, Diogenes, for moving my post here together with yours.

But I want to say it again, this policy is a disgrace that will even surpass Manzanar and the Communist witch hunts of the 50's as an example of political hysteria driving public policy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Is this how you think? Either children are born evil or they are exploited. Pretty simplistic.

Children are given a different status under law because they are not yet at an age where they can make adult decisions. You don't see too many children driving cars or entering University.

You know, just to show how fair Amnesty Internation is, I was going to post a link to an article where they criticize Al Queda for training children to be killers, but darnit, there doesn't seem to be one......

No wonder there are no media articles about it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT
You know, just to show how fair Amnesty Internation is, I was going to post a link to an article where they criticize Al Queda for training children to be killers, but darnit, there doesn't seem to be one......

No wonder there are no media articles about it.

I have seen plenty of articles about children being trained to be killers. The advantage is that they are totally loyal, fearless and cheap. They are, however, still children.

Here, I found one for you.

http://www.amnesty.ca/stoptorture/actchildsoldiers.htm

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I have seen plenty of articles about children being trained to be killers. The advantage is that they are totally loyal, fearless and cheap. They are, however, still children.

Here, I found one for you.

http://www.amnesty.ca/stoptorture/actchildsoldiers.htm

He was talking about a link to Al Queda training children.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Baker


He was talking about a link to Al Queda training children.

Hitler threw children into uniform at the end of ww2...they were obviously commited Nazis and deserved to spend the rest of thier lives in prison.....actually they were as young as 12.

Americans who cheer children being held at guantanimo are behaving shamefully.

History will show this when the heat of the moment has subsided.

How many people would now proudly say I cheered when children indoctrinated into the hitler youth were imprisoned indefinitely without trial?

While we are at it. Can we possibly have our 2 citizens back that america abducted and is holding without trial at guantanimo? In our country you are entitled to due process of law.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool



While we are at it. Can we possibly have our 2 citizens back that america abducted and is holding without trial at guantanimo? In our country you are entitled to due process of law.

Not during times of war. Germany POW's were kept in prison camps (without due process) in the US until the war ended.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Not during times of war. Germany POW's were kept in prison camps (without due process) in the US until the war ended. [/B]

Times of war? When, by whom and against whom has the war you are referring to been declared?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Times of war? When, by whom and against whom has the war you are referring to been declared?

Terrorists declared war on america on 9/11. Thats what you europeans dont understand, most americans considers ourselves as being at war with terrorists.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Terrorists declared war on america on 9/11.


So no war has been formally declared by the US?

That makes your arguments null and void, you realize this, do you?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman



So no war has been formally declared by the US?




It doesnt matter.(although I wish it would, to bad that precedant had already been set) We didnt declare war on N. vietnam, but there we were, at war with N vietnam.

[LillyThePink]

Make your mind up. Either it is a proper war, in which case, the people being held at Gitmo are POWs and subject to the Geneva convention rules on treatment. OR its not a war, and they are being held illegally as detainees.

Either way, the US policy is faulty. I echo Fool's question - can we have our citizens back so that they can have due process too?

:rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Make your mind up.


huh? when did I not say this wasnt a proper war?

Either it is a proper war, in which case, the people being held at Gitmo are POWs and subject to the Geneva convention rules on treatment. OR its not a war, and they are being held illegally as detainees.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The enemy combatants at Gitmo where given that designation because they weren't part of a formal army or the taliban "army". They were al queda agents.

Either way, the US policy is faulty.

NOT

I echo Fool's question - can we have our citizens back so that they can have due process too?

Ill have to check with my contacts in the pentagon, Ill get back to you in a week. What is your address and home phone number?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
It doesnt matter.(although I wish it would, to bad that precedant had already been set) We didnt declare war on N. vietnam, but there we were, at war with N vietnam.

Of course it matters. One illegal war cannot be justified with another one.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Of course it matters.

Accually, it doesnt matter, and I explained why.

One illegal war cannot be justified with another one.

what are you talking about?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
You have no idea what you are talking about. The enemy combatants at Gitmo where given that designation because they weren't part of a formal army or the taliban "army". They were al queda agents.

The term "unlawful combatant" in non-existent in international law. If the detainees are terrorists why aren't they beeing tried as such by a court?
What evidence is there that ALL detainees are members of Al-Quaeda? If they are why have some of them been set free?

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The exploitation of children by adults to fight in wars is a disgrace in many countries around the world. That does not mean they should then be treated as anything other than children.

So a 16 year old gets talked into killing by some adult and you believe their age alone exempts them from punishment?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


The term "unlawful combatant" in non-existent in international law.

It looks like "international law" needs to be changed.

If the detainees are terrorists why aren't they beeing tried as such by a court?

The tribunals are on the way.


What evidence is there that ALL detainees are members of Al-Quaeda?

Not all of them are. I never said they were

f they are why have some of them been set free?

Because the military found out, via interviews, that certain detainees were not members of al queada. They were sent home in better shape then when they arrived.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
what are you talking about?

Attacking a country without permission by the UN or in direct self-defense is illegal under international law. Waging war without a declaration of war is what under US law?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Attacking a country without permission by the UN or in direct self-defense is illegal under international law.

And when did this happen?


Waging war without a declaration of war is what under US law?

The War Powers Act of 1973 (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html) changed that.


http://www.monad.com/sdg/Journal/warpowers.html

The War Powers Act is found as 50 USC S.1541-1548, passed in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon. It's supposed to be the mechanism by which the President may use US Armed Forces. It purports to spell out the situations under which he may deploy the Forces with and without a Congressional declaration of war.

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Tony


It looks like "international law" needs to be changed.

If the detainees are terrorists why aren't they beeing tried as such by a court?

The tribunals are on the way.


What evidence is there that ALL detainees are members of Al-Quaeda?

Not all of them are. I never said they were

f they are why have some of them been set free?

Because the military found out, via interviews, that certain detainees were not members of al queada. They were sent home in better shape then when they arrived.

And that is why I have given up arguing on the net. :D

You do realise that the first statement you made, you know, the one about changing international law smacks of the arrogance which the US is perceived to have, and is hated for.

Again I ask - if it is a "Proper" war, then they are POW. IF they are POW, why are they not being treated as such? They have now been held illegally for over a year, without charges being brought (because there is no evidence). This is a direct violation of their human rights and an errosion of civil liberties.

I would also like your evidence for the claim "They were sent home in better shape then (sic) when they arrived".....

And if they are NOT POW, which the Us government keeps saying they are not... then they are being held illegally.

PS:- Saying NOT to a statement does not make your argument very convincing. :)

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
It looks like "international law" needs to be changed.

Then change the rules first and then play by new ones. So far, the US haven't tried to change the rules.


The tribunals are on the way.

How do you know?



Not all of them are. I never said they were

You said they are Al-Quaeda agents. Evidence?


Because the military found out, via interviews, that certain detainees were not members of al queada. They were sent home in better shape then when they arrived.

But you claimed they were Al-Quaeda agents nevertheless. If they weren't how was their detention justified?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
And when did this happen?


The US attacked Iraq without UN backing and not in self-defense.
How has the Vietnam war been justified?


The War Powers Act of 1973 changed that.


I thought that the US constitution only enabled congress to declare war. Wouldn't any other regulation thus be unconstitutional?

[Tony]

Originally posted by LillyThePink


You do realise that the first statement you made, you know, the one about changing international law smacks of the arrogance which the US is perceived to have, and is hated for.



Ignorance breeds hatred.


Again I ask - if it is a "Proper" war, then they are POW. IF they are POW, why are they not being treated as such?

You have no idea what you are talking about. The enemy combatants at Gitmo where given that designation because they weren't part of a formal army or the taliban "army". They were al queda agents.


I would also like your evidence for the claim "They were sent home in better shape then (sic) when they arrived".....

Do your own research, I dont have to compensate for your ignorance or the fact you didnt read the same report.

And if they are NOT POW, which the Us government keeps saying they are not... then they are being held illegally.

They arent being held illegally.

PS:- Saying NOT to a statement does not make your argument very convincing. :)

And saying "Either way, the US policy is faulty." Doesnt make your argument very convincing either.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman



How do you know?




I dont know. It was an educated guess.



You said they are Al-Quaeda agents. Evidence?

Ok, my fault, it looks like I need to clarify. They were caught on or near the battlefield and at the time were thought to be agents. When they were determined not to be agents of al queada they were sent home.


If they weren't how was their detention justified?

It’s justifiable because they were caught in a chaotic war zone. Mistakes happen.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman



The US attacked Iraq without UN backing and not in self-defense.


1441 stipulated that Iraq would suffer serious consequences if Iraq failed to come in to immediate compliance with the previous resolutions. Sound like UN backing to me

How has the Vietnam war been justified?

Gulf of Tonkin resolution.


I thought that the US constitution only enabled congress to declare war. Wouldn't any other regulation thus be unconstitutional?

Yes, but when has that stopped the government? Gun laws, welfare, medicare, and drug prohibition are all unconstitutional.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
I dont know. It was an educated guess.


Then you'd better do some research before you make claims.


Ok, my fault, it looks like I need to clarify. They were caught on or near the battlefield and at the time were thought to be agents. When they were determined not to be agents of al queada they were sent home.


Why did it take so long to clarify their status? Who has the authority to declare people to be "unlawful combattants"?



It’s justifiable because they were caught in a chaotic war zone. Mistakes happen.


That doesn't justify anything. On the contrary. That's why they should have been tried by a court and should have gotten legal assistance. To AVOID those mistakes.

[LillyThePink]

Do your own research?? Look, Tony, you made a claim. If it was heat of the moment and you can't provide the evidence, then that's fine, you could just say you made it up. Generally, when you make a claim here, you need to back it up. Or be prepared not to be taken too seriously :)

So you are saying that although this is a proper war, the people being held are not POW? Is that about right?

If they are not POW, then they are "enemy combatants" -does this make them criminals? Why have no charges been brought? Why have they not been Mirandised and given access to legal counsel? Have they even really been arrested? If they are NOT POW and not criminals, why are they being held at all?

Basically, when you arrest a suspect, you have a limited time to either charge them, or let them go. After that, you're holding them illegally. You have already admitted that they are not POW, because that would put the US in contravention of the Geneva convention regarding the treatment of POW. But since they are not POW, they are being illegally held.

To sum up then - if this is a "proper war" then persons captured are POW. If they are, then Geneva convention applies.
If this is not a proper war, they are not POW, only terrorists. Terrorists are criminals, they need to be arrested and charged.

If neither of these two applies, then the US is as bad as other states which deny civil liberties and is holding the prisoners at Gitmo illegally. Those people who got released need to sue the US government for false imprisonment, at the very least.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Sound like UN backing to me

But isn't. There is no UN resolution that grants the US the right to attack Iraq as would have been neccessary. The claim that resolution 1441 gave the US that right is nothing more than a claim. Nowere does it state that any country would be authorized to enforce the resolution by force.



Yes, but when has that stopped the government? Gun laws, welfare, medicare, and drug prohibition are all unconstitutional.

So you agree that your government is illegally waging wars??
How can you support such a government?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman

Why did it take so long to clarify their status?





It takes time to come to interview people and come to the truth.


Who has the authority to declare people to be "unlawful combattants"?

I would guess the commanders on the battlefield have that authority.



That doesn't justify anything. On the contrary. That's why they should have been tried by a court and should have gotten legal assistance. To AVOID those mistakes.

That’s impossible. They aren’t going to take the time to set up a court in the middle of the afghan desert in a war zone, thats utterly stupid. The logical thing to do, for the safety of the detainees and the soldiers, was to get the suspected al-queada out of there and to a place where they could be interrogated for information and their status could be determined.

The taliban fighters were left in afghanistan.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


But isn't. There is no UN resolution that grants the US the right to attack Iraq as would have been neccessary. The claim that resolution 1441 gave the US that right is nothing more than a claim. Nowere does it state that any country would be authorized to enforce the resolution by force.



Yes it does, 1441 said Iraq would suffer serious consequences if it failed to comply. Iraq failed to comply and serious consequences followed.



So you agree that your government is illegally waging wars??

I said it was unconstitutional. But if it is waging war illegally than welfare, medicare, gun laws and drug prohibition are also illegal. I dont think too many people would agree with that, including yourself.

How can you support such a government?

Law is only relevant if someone has the will and ability to enforce it. In this case international law.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
It takes time to come to interview people and come to the truth.

Over a year?


I would guess the commanders on the battlefield have that authority.

Another "educated guess"?



That’s impossible. They aren’t going to take the time to set up a court in the middle of the afghan desert in a war zone, thats utterly stupid.

But they could have set up a court in Guantanamo Bay. Hasn't happened yet, though.



to do, for the safety of the detainees and the soldiers, was to get the suspected al-queada out of there and to a place where they could be interrogated for information and their status could be determined.

Still, why no courts, no charge, no legal counsel?

[Tony]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Do your own research?? Look, Tony, you made a claim. If it was heat of the moment and you can't provide the evidence, then that's fine, you could just say you made it up.

I dont know where the article is, If I looked for it, I doubt I would find it. I read about it a while ago in Newsweek or a simular magazine.

If they are not POW, then they are "enemy combatants" -does this make them criminals?

No, it makes them enemy combatants. Enemy combatants are people that are not part of a formal military force. Basically a private army, which al-queada is. I think we should work to modernize the Geneva Convention to include enemy combatants.


Why is their such a hizzy fit over the detainees at gitmo bay anyway?

They are being treated humainly, they are getting korans and religious compatable meals. Its not like they are in a ****-hole being fed only bread and water.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Yes it does, 1441 said Iraq would suffer serious consequences if it failed to comply. Iraq failed to comply and serious consequences followed.

Where does the resolution state how those consequences would look like and where did the resolution authorize the US to deliver those consequences?



I said it was unconstitutional. But if it is waging war illegally than welfare, medicare, gun laws and drug prohibition are also illegal. I dont think too many people would agree with that, including yourself.


Let's stay to the topic and that is war. If it is unconstitutional, it is illegal, right? Thus you agree that your country is waging war illegally.


Law is only relevant if someone has the will and ability to enforce it. In this case international law.

I forgot: your moral code bases on the fear of punishment, not on universal values.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Why is their such a hizzy fit over the detainees at gitmo bay anyway?

Because they way they are detained is in krass contrast to international law and human rights.


They are being treated humainly, they are getting korans and religious compatable meals. Its not like they are in a ****-hole being fed only bread and water.

Beeing treated humanly doesn't justify them beeing held illegally.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Over a year?



We've already addressed the reasons they are still being held.

Another "educated guess"?



No, it was a logical assumption. Feel free to prove me wrong, im not bound to this idea.



But they could have set up a court in Guantanamo Bay. Hasn't happened yet, though.

They were planning military tribunals, but a bunch of bedwetters got their panties in a tizzie and they suspended the tribunals. Thats why I guessed they were on the way, the political heat has died down a little. Hell, for all we know they could be conducting the tribunals in secret.


Still, why no courts, no charge, no legal counsel?

See above.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony
They were planning military tribunals, but a bunch of bedwetters got their panties in a tizzie and they suspended the tribunals. Some days it just seems that most of the world's problems can be directly attributed to people who wet their beds. ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Where does the resolution state how those consequences would look like and where did the resolution authorize the US to deliver those consequences?



It doesnt say, and it doesnt matter. The french made sure the wording of the resolution was ambiguous. Would you agree war is a serious consequence?

Let's stay to the topic and that is war. If it is unconstitutional, it is illegal, right? Thus you agree that your country is waging war illegally.

It's a grey area. Like I said, the precedent has been set, we have dug ourselves into this hole.

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain
Some days it just seems that most of the world's problems can be directly attributed to people who wet their beds. ;)

:p Rubber sheets should be manditory.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
They were planning military tribunals, but a bunch of bedwetters got their panties in a tizzie and they suspended the tribunals.

Who are you talking about exactly?

[The Fool]

Why does this get me foaming at the mouth?

start rant....

Well, 2 Australians are being held by the Army of a foreign country without due process of thier own laws or the laws of Australia. One of them was abducted from Pakistan, he wasn't even in Afghanistan! The other mixed up kid was In the Army of the taliban not Osama's mob. He had previously been fighting for the Bosnian muslims, he was "goodie" then....He was fighting the Serbs, as were the USA. After that he went to Afghanistan and Joined the Army of the Taliban. He had not even heard of the twin towers attack (his claim) Now he may be lying, he may be Osama's right hand man....But, who should decide? Some anonymous person in the US army?

Can the US army arrest someone anywhere they like and send them to cuba and hold them without trial? Is that one of the powers you allow your army? Armies normally only do that sort of thing in military Juntas, not the land of the free and the home of the brave. A Great Nation like the USA can do better.

How would Americans react if the Australian army abducted a couple of US Citizens and held them on an island off Australia indefinitely? You would scream blue murder and demand they be given due process and a presumption of Inocence....Is that too much to ask?

I would ask that all Americans who believe In the rule of law and the presumption of innocence to demand that the US government sort this out NOW, Justice delayed is Justice denied...that is another shining principle of both our legal systems.

I don't care if you try them under your legal system or give them to us, along with any evidence, to be tried under ours... Just do something now....not tomorrow, now!

Give our Citizens back please, we are an ally.

end rant........

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Who are you talking about exactly?

The bedwetters?

In this instance im talking about the so-called "civil-rights" groups.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


The bedwetters?

In this instance im talking about the so-called "civil-rights" groups.

Who are the "they" that allegedly planned to hold military tribunals and who are the "bedwetters" you are talking about who allegedly complained so loud that no legal action at all was initiated against the detainees?

Any facts to back up your claims?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Who are the "they" that allegedly planned to hold military tribunals and who are the "bedwetters" you are talking about who allegedly complained so loud that no legal action at all was initiated against the detainees?

Any facts to back up your claims?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html you'll find some good info here.

http://www.dailyillini.com/mar02/mar29/news/stories/news_story03.shtml defending tribunals

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/n111401b.html a dissenting view

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1701789.stm something else you might find informative

I think these cartoons might address the things we discussed in a humours way. Enjoy :)

http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/guantanamo/Guantanamo/sack.jpg

http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/guantanamo/Guantanamo/reddick.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/guantanamo/Guantanamo/clement.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/guantanamo/Guantanamo/conrad.gif

[LillyThePink]

Lovely cartoons. :)


Surely they are designed for you to evade the point though, eh? To distract people who keep asking you pesky questions and requiring.... proof. Very convenient that you can't find the study which compares the health of a captive before and after their illegal interrment at Gitmo.....I'll just take your word for it, shall I? Will you be as trusting about this lovely pink unicorn I have been dealing with? ;)

A bit like the War on Terror.... the Anthrax thing diverted everyone nicely from the human rights issues of the persons being held in Gitmo (lets compare them to say.... the airman who was held by the Chinese after crashing)... the invasion of Iraq and the alleged WMD distracted everyone nicely from the fact that they STILL hadn't found Bin Laden...and I daresay when they announce that Syria/North Korea/anyone else pissing off GWB is next in the firing line, it'll distract the great American voter from the fact that they didn't find Sadaam either...

ho hum.

[armageddonman]

Tony, you claimed that no military tribunals were held because of complaints by human rights groups etc. I couldn't find a direct reference to this, could you show me one?

What's more, if the detainees are "unlawful combatants" aka civilians, how can they be tried before a military court? Where's the legal basis for this?

And the cartoons are really distasteful. They imply that it's OK to be held without charge/lawyer/etc. as long as the conditions are not too bad. I really wonder how much human rights are treasured by certain groups in the US, especially by the government.

[Tony]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Surely they are designed for you to evade the point though, eh? To distract people who keep asking you pesky questions and requiring.... proof.




Its not good to go through life assuming the worst out of people. I saw the cartoons, thought some people might enjoy them, and decided to share.

Very convenient that you can't find the study which compares the health of a captive before and after their illegal interrment at Gitmo.....I'll just take your word for it, shall I? Will you be as trusting about this lovely pink unicorn I have been dealing with?

Strawman. Asserting that the detainees are in better health when they left gitmo than when they arrived is not as farfetched as a pink unicorn. And I guess in your twisted view, if something is not on the internet it doesnt exist. :rolleyes:

A bit like the War on Terror.... the Anthrax thing diverted everyone nicely from the human rights issues of the persons being held in Gitmo (lets compare them to say.... the airman who was held by the Chinese after crashing)... the invasion of Iraq and the alleged WMD distracted everyone nicely from the fact that they STILL hadn't found Bin Laden...and I daresay when they announce that Syria/North Korea/anyone else pissing off GWB is next in the firing line, it'll distract the great American voter from the fact that they didn't find Sadaam either...

Whoa!! With this mix of creativity and paranoia, you would make a great writer for "The X-Files".

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Tony, you claimed that no military tribunals were held because of complaints by human rights groups etc. I couldn't find a direct reference to this, could you show me one?



I made that claim based on the fact that I havent seen ANY press about military tribunals since the controversy. If you go back and read you will also see where I said that for all we know they could be doing them in secret.

What's more, if the detainees are "unlawful combatants" aka civilians, how can they be tried before a military court? Where's the legal basis for this?

Did you read the BBC article? The conspirators behind the Lincoln assassination were civilians that went before military tribunals. But that doesnt matter, the enemy combatant are not civilians.

And the cartoons are really distasteful. They imply that it's OK to be held without charge/lawyer/etc. as long as the conditions are not too bad. I really wonder how much human rights are treasured by certain groups in the US, especially by the government.

The aren't being denied human rights. They are recieving food, cloths, showers, humane treatment and access to religion.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
The aren't being denied human rights. They are recieving food, cloths, showers, humane treatment and access to religion.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Take a look. Basic human rights are beeing withheld from the detainees.

"Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Take a look. Basic human rights are beeing withheld from the detainees.

"Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

This means nothing. The UN has zero credibility when it comes to human rights.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
This means nothing. The UN has zero credibility when it comes to human rights.

What makes you think so? Who does? The US have signed the declaration of human rights, thus they are obligated to adhere to them. If the declaration of human rights is irrelevant, how do you define human rights and what are they?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


This means nothing. The UN has zero credibility when it comes to human rights.

Oh, I didn't notice. When did the UN completely loose credibility.
And who's in charge of proclaiming human rights now, you?

Seriously, you're loosing it in this thread, Tony.
The treatment of the prisoners in Cuba is a disgrace to the US, and you can't argue away a disgrace. You can only deny it or denounce it.

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


What makes you think so? Who does?

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17956&highlight=human+rights This thread is good.


The US have signed the declaration of human rights, thus they are obligated to adhere to them.

In theory you are right.

If the declaration of human rights is irrelevant, how do you define human rights and what are they?

I define human rights as the rights of a person to receive humane treatment. That includes the abolishment of torture, mutilation, subjection to hazardous or dangerous conditions and experimentation. The guarantees that I think should be included in human rights are a clean living environment, balanced meals, and access to religion and exercise.

[Tony]

OK, how would you guys want them treated?

Remembering that the german pow's did not have access to lawyers or trials, and holding civilian trials for pow's is completly unprecedented and unrealistic.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
In theory you are right.

And in practice? It's OK to break obligations as long as there is noone who will punish you for that? Do you have ANY moral standard?



I define human rights...

What makes you think that your definition overrules the UN's?

A quote from you from the thread you linked to:

"The UN is a joke."

You really don't get what the UN is, do you?
The UN is not an organization that has nothing to do with the US. The US are part of the UN.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Remembering that the german pow's did not have access to lawyers or trials

That's because they were POW's. As you said, the detainees are not POWs.


and holding civilian trials for pow's is completly unprecedented and unrealistic.

So either declare the detainees to be POWs or else grant them the right for a fair trial.

Is it really that hard to understand?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


And in practice? It's OK to break obligations as long as there is noone who will punish you for that? Do you have ANY moral standard?



Honestly, I try to avoid morals. I have some moral standards, but not many.

What makes you think that your definition overrules the UN's?

Nothing, I never said mine did. I just dont agree with the UN's.



The UN is not an organization that has nothing to do with the US. The US are part of the UN.

Duh! :p

Yes, I know what the UN is.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The exploitation of children by adults to fight in wars is a disgrace in many countries around the world. That does not mean they should then be treated as anything other than children.
By international convention, 15 is the minimum acceptable age for military recruitment. (You can become a U.S. Marine at age 17.)

By the time Alexander (the soon-to-be-Great) and his army prevailed at the battle of Chaeronea at age 18, he'd been fighting for two years. Joan of Arc achieved her first victory on the battlefield at age 16. Should Alexander and Joan have been treated as nothing more than children?

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the very youngest Gitmo detainees had wives and children back home. A 16-year-old mujahedin is different from the typical contemporary American teenager, who generally won't reach psychosocial maturity until his 20s (30s in some cases).

How fast we mature from childhood to adulthood - and, indeed, our very views on what those terms mean - is largely determined by social considerations. Under the circumstances, I think there's little reason for an uproar solely on that basis.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


That's because they were POW's. As you said, the detainees are not POWs.



I was asking for your opinion. Not mine.


So either declare the detainees to be POWs or else grant them the right for a fair trial.

That seems fair enough. Mabey I agree. ;) But I also sympathize with the administration's rational for labeling the prisoners "enemy combatants".

How about this: Enemy combatants should be afforded the same rights as the POW's.

Is it really that hard to understand?

no :D

[armageddonman]

How about this: Enemy combatants should be afforded the same rights as the POW's.

If they had been labeled as POWs, they could never have been detained in the way they were, you know that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


If they had been labeled as POWs, they could never have been detained in the way they were, you know that?

yeah

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
yeah

Fine, then you also agree that the way the detainees are beeing held is wrong?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Zee German:
Oh, I didn't notice. When did the UN completely loose credibility.

Serb murder gang: Were just about to commit the worst act of genocide in Europe since WWII.

Dutch UN peacekeeping force: OK. We'll just sit here.

There's also the appointment of Libya to the human rights commision.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Fine, then you also agree that the way the detainees are beeing held is wrong?

I dont think its wrong, but I think abiding by the Geneva convention is reasonable and should be implemented.

[ceo_esq]

This thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16193) also discussed in some depth the treatment and legal status of the Guantanamo detainees, in case anyone's interested.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I have seen plenty of articles about children being trained to be killers. The advantage is that they are totally loyal, fearless and cheap. They are, however, still children.

Here, I found one for you.

http://www.amnesty.ca/stoptorture/actchildsoldiers.htm

Nothing about Al Queda training the Guantanamo kids to kill and getting them into this mess to start with, though.

Originally posted by The Fool


Americans who cheer children being held at guantanimo are behaving shamefully.

History will show this when the heat of the moment has subsided.



Fool, I hope you have noticed that no one here is cheering about the children being held at Gitmo.

I also find it strange that on the one hand, we have people complaining about the fact we took prisoners in Afghanistan and brought them to Gitmo, and label the camp in their media articles with adjectives such as "brutal" and "harsh" and so on.

Are you guys happy or unhappy we have actually released some of the prisoners? Make up your minds.

All this complaining reminds me of some street punk going on a killing spree and then blaming society for making him do it. And on top of that, saying the prison system is brutal and harsh and how dare they lock him up!

These are the scum who brought down the World Trade Center folks. Maybe you need to watch the video again.

And these scum know where the rest of the scum who haven't been caught yet are. I suppose we could rush the process and just beat the information we need out of them. Would that be quick enough for ya?

Originally posted by The Fool

How would Americans react if the Australian army abducted a couple of US Citizens and held them on an island off Australia indefinitely?

If the Americans they abducted belonged to an organization that blew up the Sydney Opera House, you wouldn't hear me complaining.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LukeT
Fool, I hope you have noticed that no one here is cheering about the children being held at Gitmo.


Enjoyed your comments Luke..

Just wanted to add: It is fools, indeed, who think that ' children ' are being held at Gitmo.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
To sum up then - if this is a "proper war" then persons captured are POW. If they are, then Geneva convention applies.
If this is not a proper war, they are not POW, only terrorists. Terrorists are criminals, they need to be arrested and charged. Actually no. To be guaranteed protection under the Geneva Convention you need to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention.

To qualify for the protections of that treaty, combatants have to follow basic rules of war, like wearing uniforms, carrying your arms openly, and respecting the rules of war. Al Qaeda's members obviously don't qualify, and even Taliban soldiers may not.

Torturing the truth about Guantanamo (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20020128.shtml)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
All But I want to say it again, this policy is a disgrace that will even surpass Manzanar and the Communist witch hunts of the 50's as an example of political hysteria driving public policy. Since we are moving over here I would like to move my repsonse over here also (at least part of it).

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not sure about prisoners being treated better than guards. However, the eminent humanitarian law expert (and Human Rights Watch bigwig) Kenneth Anderson wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

Notwithstanding the shrillness of the criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the [Guantanamo Bay] detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on." When you contrast treatment of the detainees with the treatment of prisoners in nearly all other Muslim countries (dismemberment, torture, disfigurement, murder, etc.) then I can't imagine how it could possibly have any such negative historical context.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LukeT


If the Americans they abducted belonged to an organization that blew up the Sydney Opera House, you wouldn't hear me complaining.

Who says they belong to such an organisation? They havent even been charged let alone had a trial and been found guilty.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Lily the Pink
If this is not a proper war, they are not POW, only terrorists. Terrorists are criminals, they need to be arrested and charged.
Uh, you have heard of the presumption of innocence, right?
And you do understand the right of the accused to a fair trial (it's too late for "speedy")?

These so-called "detainees" are only suspected of being "terrorists", whatever that means in the context of their incarceration. As you say, they need to be formally charged with something--then tried and convicted. Until then, they are not "terrorists", only alleged to be.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The exploitation of children by adults to fight in wars is a disgrace in many countries around the world. That does not mean they should then be treated as anything other than children.

Your use of the word; "Children" is highly suspect. The word is an inference. It conjures up happy playground memories for most of us. Still others of us envision our own kids when we hear that word. The inference is of innocence and playfulness.

The young people being held in Gitmo are not the "children" that your misuse of this word implies. They are terrorists, and or enemy combatants. While I do not blame them for their circumstances, I still must acknowledge the reality of what they have become.

Thankfully, there are not many of them. But to encourage their release merely on the grounds of their age could be dangerous. After all wasn't Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge chock full of these vicious "children"??

-z

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Who says they belong to such an organisation? They havent even been charged let alone had a trial and been found guilty.

I suppose it is possible they were wayward tourists who stumbled into an Al Queda unit by accident. And took up arms in the confusion. And have no means to prove it was all an accident during their interrogations.

As for Gitmo's Camp X-Ray, I find it very insulting that it has been labelled as harsh and brutal. That suggests our Marines are being cruel to them and treating them inhumanely. I can't tell you how sick I am of the image some people have of our armed forces. They are clueless. Just clueless.

I was stationed in Gitmo for three years. I know exactly where Camp X-Ray is. I've gotten drunk there a couple of times. And from the photos I've seen of it lately, I can tell you that it has been greatly improved. The people who used to live there had worse living conditions than the prisoners do now.

I can tell you that there are Jamaican and Indian workers living in Gitmo who live just as badly, if not in worse conditions.

It used to really annoy me what the foreign workers were forced to live in. It was substandard living quarters. Quonset huts that were very cramped. I used to complain about it often.

The Jamaicans and Indians never complained, though, because the conditions were ten times better than their native living conditions.

But that is a whole different topic. Sorry about that. I still feel a little chafed about it.

[Jon_in_london]

Dont try and change the topic Luke, fact is your country is holding children prisoner indefinitely and without trial.

If I were an American I would be ashamed.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
These so-called "detainees" are only suspected of being "terrorists", whatever that means in the context of their incarceration. As you say, they need to be formally charged with something--then tried and convicted. Until then, they are not "terrorists", only alleged to be. Actually no, they were caught engaging unlawfully as illegal combatants. As such they don't qualify as POWs or "terrorists".

POWs fall under different laws than criminals. They don't enjoy things like being charged or speedy trials. The detainees were acting as combatants but doing so in an illegal manner.

To try and place the detainees into either group (criminal or POW) is creating a false dichotomy IMO. There is another legal distinction "illegal combatant".

I think that there is a point to be made about the lack of legal council but trying to say that the detainees should be treated as either POW or criminal is without precedent or legal justification.

I understand the concept that you are sincerely trying to defend but I am not sure how to apply it to this case.

I am not an expert. Can you show legally how one must either be a criminal or a POW?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Dont try and change the topic Luke, fact is your country is holding children prisoner indefinitely and without trial.

If I were an American I would be ashamed. As an American I am honestly concerned. I see no reason for shame at this time. I would like more information.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Dont try and change the topic Luke, fact is your country is holding children prisoner indefinitely and without trial.

If I were an American I would be ashamed.

If you were an American, I would be ashamed also...

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Dont try and change the topic Luke, fact is your country is holding children prisoner indefinitely and without trial.

If I were an American I would be ashamed.

Well, I didn't bring up the topic of the supposed harshness of the camp. I also said I that what I was talking about was a different topic and stopped.

As for the alleged "children" being held, the shame is on the people who trained them to be killers, not us.

[Clancie]

originally posted by The Fool
Can the US army arrest someone anywhere they like and send them to cuba and hold them without trial?
Well, yes, indeed they can according to the Bush/Rumsfeld administration.

After all, so-called "detainees" from over 30 different nations are being incarcerated at Guantanamo.

Would the Bush administration suppport such a policy if the Chinese or Russians did something like this?

Would they be so supportive if Russia had invaded Afghanistan and toppled the government based on their claim that terrorists were living inside that country?

If Russians then arrested and imprisoned nationals from 30 different nations whom they found in Afghanistan (or Pakistan)--including Americans!--without charges, without counsel, without protection under international of law--the Bush administration would be in an uproar.

"Americans detained in Russian jails? Without charges? Without counsel? An outrage!"

But when we do it...Well, of course, its perfectly okay.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LukeT

As for the alleged "children" being held, the shame is on the people who trained them to be killers, not us.

Whats this about alleged "children"?!?!!!

They are 16 years and under which is children in any reasonable persons book.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Clancy
"Americans detained in Russian jails? Without charges? Without counsel? An outrage!"
Do you really think this administration would go to the mat for John Walker Lindh if he'd been picked up by the Russians instead?

[Clancie]

originally posted by ceo_esq
Do you really think this administration would go to the mat for John Walker Lindh if he'd been picked up by the Russians instead?
Sure, if he was helping "rebels" against them instead of against us.

Why, given the opportunity, we might even portray him as an idealistic young American helping others fight for religious freedom and against unfair Soviet (sorry, Russian) oppression.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Whats this about alleged "children"?!?!!!

They are 16 years and under which is children in any reasonable persons book.

So what do you think will happen to these 'children' if we just took them home, and left them where we found them? Or if they would be better off, if we had left them there in the first place?

Try to be at least as honest, as your concern over their treatment by U.S. authorities.

Or is this all about your concern for the ' rule of law ', rather than your concern about the wellfare of a group of human beings; children or otherwise?

[Clancie]

So what do you think will happen to these 'children' if we just took them home, and left them where we found them? Or if they would be better off, if we had left them there in the first place?
Diogenes,
The incarceration of Japanese Americans was said to be for their own protection or, alternatively, because they could be spies.

I'm curious. In retrospect, do you think that policy was beneficial after all? Or an egregious infringement of their civil liberties?

I know the situation is different from Guantanamo. But I'm curious to determine your feelings about civil liberties in general, as you seem to have no concern about it in this case--something I have difficulty understanding in anyone who values the rule of law.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancy

Diogenes,
The incarceration of Japanese Americans was said to be for their own protection or, alternatively, because they could be spies.

I'm curious. In retrospect, do you think that policy was beneficial after all? Or an egregious infringement of their civil liberties?

I know the situation is different from Guantanamo. But I'm curious to determine your feelings about civil liberties in general, as you seem to have no concern about it in this case--something I have difficulty understanding in anyone who values the rule of law.

And the answer to my question, is?

[Clancie]

Diogenes,
You asked me a question? Sorry, I must have missed it.

(And...mine?)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Whats this about alleged "children"?!?!!!

They are 16 years and under which is children in any reasonable persons book.

"Children" do not carry weapons on a battlefield. They are more properly called young soldiers. As such they are as dangerous as any other enemy combatant. Sometimes even more dangerous! Remember Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, their most merciless soldiers were young.

From UN website: More than 300,000 children under 18 are currently fighting with government and opposition forces in more than 30 countries of the world.
http://www.child-soldiers.org/cs/childsoldiers.nsf/cb07c1bbb4418dcd80256b27006fbc0b/036179fd75df4d6f80256b2600549c78?OpenDocument


These young people are not "Children"....their childhood has been brainwashed out of them. :(

-z

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancy
Diogenes,
You asked me a question? Sorry, I must have missed it.

(And...mine?)

So what do you think will happen to these 'children' if we just took them home, and left them where we found them? Or if they would be better off, if we had left them there in the first place?


Your reply didn't seem to address this..

There are no details about these "children." Not even their actual ages. And for all we know, their dads may be in the same camp.

What do you do with a kid who has been trained as a terrorist? I am curious to know what alternatives those who deplore their detainment suggest.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LukeT

What do you do with a kid who has been trained as a terrorist? I am curious to know what alternatives those who deplore their detainment suggest.

I have alluded to this in my obligatory sarcastic manner a couple of times..

It has been avoided assiduously..

Perhaps they entertain some idea about giving them a box lunch, a rail pass and dropping them off on a corner in Miami.

[Tmy]

Wasnt it about a week or so ago there were these stories about children being freed from Saddams jail, and wasnt that all swell n great!!! Well how do we know what them kids did! maybe they were jailed for a reason!

I dont mind the US cathing theses kids, but i am bothered by this conveinent "enemy combatant" tag. It's juts a convenient tool for the goverment to sidestep the Geneva conevention while expecting our eneimes to follow the rules.

Does the Gen Con say anthing about minors.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tmy
.....................................

Does the Gen Con say anthing about minors.
If you come up with anything make sure you fill Ashcroft in on it..

P.S..

If those kids that were let out of jail in Iraq, are anything like American kids; if they deserved to be in jail, there's a pretty good chance they will find their way back...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by LukeT


Fool, I hope you have noticed that no one here is cheering about the children being held at Gitmo.


ok, with the posting of the cartoons, would you be happier if I used the word "laughing at" instead of "cheering about"?



I also find it strange that on the one hand, we have people complaining about the fact we took prisoners in Afghanistan and brought them to Gitmo, and label the camp in their media articles with adjectives such as "brutal" and "harsh" and so on.


not only prisoners from Afghanistan are held at gitmo, did you know this? one of our citizens was kidnapped from Pakistan....
As to brutal and harsh, well maybe if you lived in a cage for a while you may consider these words appropriate.


Are you guys happy or unhappy we have actually released some of the prisoners? Make up your minds.

I will be happy when you release the Australians your Army kidnapped.


All this complaining reminds me of some street punk going on a killing spree and then blaming society for making him do it. And on top of that, saying the prison system is brutal and harsh and how dare they lock him up!


Gitmo is not a prison system, It is a place where abductees are held. If I was doing this instead of your army (deciding someone was a terrorist and holding them) it would be a crime scene... And guess what!!! Under the laws of the USA or Australia You can't lock up a "street punk" without trial as you do to the people you hold at gitmo. Your analogy is perfect for proving my point. .....Nobody is "blaming society" or claiming that the people held at gitmo are innocent...who knows? they are not being tried....


These are the scum who brought down the World Trade Center folks. Maybe you need to watch the video again.


So a wink and a nod from the US army is good enough to prove a persons guilt? You could save a lot of money on judges and courts if you just used this system. Is the USA a democracy with a rule of law or a military Junta where the army can arrest and detain whoever it likes for as long as it likes? I've seen the damn video Luke....point me out the bit that lists those responsible. Maybe you need to apply for the million if you can figure out who did it from watching the crime....



And these scum know where the rest of the scum who haven't been caught yet are. I suppose we could rush the process and just beat the information we need out of them. Would that be quick enough for ya?

perfect.....you now know what information they hold, your psycic powers are increasing.

Lastly, I'll say this only one more time. I don't care how long you hold them to determine if they are guilty or innocent, i don't care what punishment you dish out. Just do it within your own laws or give us back our citizens and let us do it within our laws....

Don't just kidnap people and hold them as political prisoners without trial....why is that so hard for people to get thier head around????

Originally posted by The Fool
ok, with the posting of the cartoons, would you be happier if I used the word "laughing at" instead of "cheering about"?

The cartoons were about the adult prisoners, IIRC. Nothing about child prisoners. Nobody is laughing or cheering. I am not happy about it at all, Fool.


not only prisoners from Afghanistan are held at gitmo, did you know this? one of our citizens was kidnapped from Pakistan....
As to brutal and harsh, well maybe if you lived in a cage for a while you may consider these words appropriate.

You have highlighted the exact nature of the problem. Al Queda has no borders. They are not a nation. They are a terrorist group. We are at war with them. The rules of engagement in these situations is not the same as for guys who hold up liquor stores and their right to a speedy trial.

I will be happy when you release the Australians your Army kidnapped.

Do you not believe these fellas are members of Al Queda? Do you think they are accidental tourists? And I said before that if Australia took some Americans who belonged to a group that blew up the Sydney Opera House to a remote island camp, you wouldn't hear me complaining.


Gitmo is not a prison system, It is a place where abductees are held. If I was doing this instead of your army (deciding someone was a terrorist and holding them) it would be a crime scene... And guess what!!! Under the laws of the USA or Australia You can't lock up a "street punk" without trial as you do to the people you hold at gitmo. Your analogy is perfect for proving my point. .....Nobody is "blaming society" or claiming that the people held at gitmo are innocent...who knows? they are not being tried....

Again. The rules for terrorists are not the same as for street punks. My analogy was about the fact that they use the same complaints.

And does it make a difference if they are interred in Gitmo or Afhganistan? Do you have a problem with our internment camps in Iraq?

So a wink and a nod from the US army is good enough to prove a persons guilt? You could save a lot of money on judges and courts if you just used this system. Is the USA a democracy with a rule of law or a military Junta where the army can arrest and detain whoever it likes for as long as it likes? I've seen the damn video Luke....point me out the bit that lists those responsible. Maybe you need to apply for the million if you can figure out who did it from watching the crime....

You don't believe Al Queda is responsible for the WTC attack? :eek:

Do the POWs in Iraq need a trial before we can encamp them?


perfect.....you now know what information they hold, your psycic powers are increasing.

That is my point. We don't know what information they hold. But it is reasonable to assume that a member of an organization will have knowledge about other members of that organization who are still at large.


Lastly, I'll say this only one more time. I don't care how long you hold them to determine if they are guilty or innocent, i don't care what punishment you dish out. Just do it within your own laws or give us back our citizens and let us do it within our laws...

Don't just kidnap people and hold them as political prisoners without trial....why is that so hard for people to get thier head around????

You are confusing civil law with the laws of war.

Fool, I'm not trying to antagonize you. I hope you understand that. I'm not some cold-hearted person who doesn't care that some kids are being held in a prison camp. I care a lot. But most of my concern is about the source of the problem. The people who made them what they are.

I don't know if you believe these kids are trained killers or not. There really is no way to know for sure. The data is not available to the public, apparently. I am putting some degree of faith that my country wouldn't take these measures without good cause, and is providing them the best care possible under the circumstances. A lot of that faith is based on my own experiences in the U.S. military. And I have faith that sooner or later, the information will come out.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by LukeT
Fool, I'm not trying to antagonize you. I hope you understand that. I'm not some cold-hearted person who doesn't care that some kids are being held in a prison camp. I care a lot. But most of my concern is about the source of the problem. The people who made them what they are.

I don't know if you believe these kids are trained killers or not. There really is no way to know for sure. The data is not available to the public, apparently. I am putting some degree of faith that my country wouldn't take these measures without good cause, and is providing them the best care possible under the circumstances. A lot of that faith is based on my own experiences in the U.S. military. And I have faith that sooner or later, the information will come out.

Luke, i know you're not trying to be antagonistic. I'm not trying to be stroppy either but too many people are happy to accept that everyone held at gitmo is Al Qaeda, simply on the say of the US army. I have seen and read a lot about one of them (one of the 2 Australians), he is a young confused man....I doubt if Osama would have been interested in him. He has found God and fought in Bosnia alongside the Bosnian Muslims (he was a goody in that war). When that war ended he drifted to Afghanistan to Join the Taliban Army, Not Al Qaeda. There Is no evidence available to support linking him to Al Qaeda, the US army only winks and says "we know stuff" well tough. I'm not impressed with what the US army thinks it knows, they are soldiers not Judges. Unless these people are POW (which the army says they are not) the army has no right to hold them, they should be handed over to civil authorities.

Luke, If your Courts find either of these Australians guilty I would accept it. If they handed them back to us and we found them guilty then I would also be happy. Until they get a fair trial thier human rights are being denied. Thier being held by your Army like some banana republic military junta is just intolerable. Last time I checked we were on the same side.

As for the issue of children. I accept that these things happen, I have been shot at by children. I have seen children bought in as prisoners. They may have been committed VC but when they are sitting there tied up and crying for thier mothers they just looked like children to me.... they should not be treated as adults. If people think 16 is old enough then lets start calling 16yo adults and 15yo children. As long as 18 is the current mark then these people are children, like it or not. Children should not be detained in this manner.....


anyway...I promise I'll calm down if you give us these 2 idiots back to sort out under our laws...:)

[davefoc]

Ok, I read through three pages of this stuff. So what do the it's-so-terrible folks want to do?

Let's say, all of a sudden you're in charge. You've got a slew of folks in custody pretty bent on committing terrorist acts against the US and others. Note that this is not an unreasonable assumption because the US has released the vast majority of people that were captured in Afghan so presumably the folks remaining represent some pretty serious threats in the view of the people holding them. As I understand it, many of the folks fighting in Afghanistan were criminals from their own countries released to go fight the Russians. So presumably some of these folks are pretty bad and their home countries may not be too anxious to get them back. There's probably some sociopaths mixed in that would probably just kill lots of people before they were eventually killed themselves whereever they're sent.

So let's hear the solution. You're in charge.

edited to add
Fool, I just wanted you to know I read your concerns about your two citizens and I sympathize. I think, it is at least possible that the Austrailian government isn't pressing to get them back because they're not sure what to do with them either. Am I wrong?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
Ok, I read through three pages of this stuff. So what do the it's-so-terrible folks want to do?

Let's say, all of a sudden you're in charge. You've got a slew of folks in custody pretty bent on committing terrorist acts against the US and others. Note that this is not an unreasonable assumption because the US has released the vast majority of people that were captured in Afghan so presumably the folks remaining represent some pretty serious threats in the view of the people holding them. As I understand it, many of the folks fighting in Afghanistan were criminals from their own countries released to go fight the Russians. So presumably some of these folks are pretty bad and their home countries may not be too anxious to get them back. There's probably some sociopaths mixed in that would probably just kill lots of people before they were eventually killed themselves whereever they're sent.

So let's hear the solution. You're in charge.

edited to add
Fool, I just wanted you to know I read your concerns about your two citizens and I sympathize. I think, it is at least possible that the Austrailian government isn't pressing to get them back because they're not sure what to do with them either. Am I wrong?

Given that we don't even know if anyone is guilty, they should at the very least be held in humane conditions.

The 'progress' of their trials should be on public record.

The line that I should just trust the army to do the right thing doesn't ring true to me.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Given that we don't even know if anyone is guilty, they should at the very least be held in humane conditions.

The 'progress' of their trials should be on public record.

The line that I should just trust the army to do the right thing doesn't ring true to me.

AUP, every organization that has examined the conditions at Camp X-Ray has said they are humane. Only in the minds of people who are looking for any excuse to hate America are the conditions deemed inhumane. It's like the John Edward show, you believe it is inhumane because you want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary.


As for the juveniles, it is too bad I didn't leave for work one minute earlier today. I turned on NPR and caught the tail end of a report they were doing on this very topic. They called them "teens." I don't know if they said their ages at the top of the story. But they also reported that the teens were living in the military housing and not in Camp X-Ray. So they are living in the exact same houses as the troops stationed there. And they are attending school. They said the kids had been kidnapped by Al Queda and pressed into service.

As for the Australians and other nationals in custody, Fool, we can't trust every nation to properly prosecute or handle these guys. Some of them would probably just let them go.

Look. We have been attacked several times in the last ten years. The WTC in 1993, in which they tried to knock them down then. Two U.S. Embassies in Africa. The USS Cole. And then the WTC in 2001. We have lost a lot of lives to these scum. You understand? WE'VE HAD IT!

We are tired of having to worry about stepping on a few toes while these guys have been operating freely and killing Americans by the score and by the thousands. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Instead of ballyhooing about the rights and comfort and amount of ice cream these prisoners are getting, we are all about the victims' rights now.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by LukeT
We are tired of having to worry about stepping on a few toes while these guys have been operating freely and killing Americans by the score and by the thousands. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Instead of ballyhooing about the rights and comfort and amount of ice cream these prisoners are getting, we are all about the victims' rights now.

If you are tired of worrying about 'stepping on a few toes' then presumably those who are wronged by the US are entitled to 'step on a few US toes' and you won't see anything wrong with that at all or does that not follow from your 'logic'?

If you had any interest in saving the Iraqi people from an evil leader why then did the US sell Saddam Hussein with WOMD when it knew he was a murdering swine? Why then did the US support Noreiga when he was murdering innocent people in his country. If you are really all about victims rights, don't the innocent victims of the regimes supported by the US have rights too or is that another case where the law is different for Americans and the rest of the world?

When are you going to advocate dealing with American terrorists like the Mafia, in the same way you deal with 'terrorists' from other countries?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


If you are tired of worrying about 'stepping on a few toes' then presumably those who are wronged by the US are entitled to 'step on a few US toes' and you won't see anything wrong with that at all or does that not follow from your 'logic'?

If you had any interest in saving the Iraqi people from an evil leader why then did the US sell Saddam Hussein with WOMD when it knew he was a murdering swine? Why then did the US support Noreiga when he was murdering innocent people in his country. If you are really all about victims rights, don't the innocent victims of the regimes supported by the US have rights too or is that another case where the law is different for Americans and the rest of the world?

When are you going to advocate dealing with American terrorists like the Mafia, in the same way you deal with 'terrorists' from other countries?

Not only are these things off topic, you have made a few assumptions about me that are incorrect, and a few misstatements of fact. Good score.

For sales of WMD to Iraq, see the couple dozen or so topics which have already been started here. Make sure you check who really are the top weapons sellers to Iraq. And then check to see who was opposed to our invasion of Iraq. You might find a coincidence or two.

As for the Mafia, what the...?

You sound to me like one of those people who feels we deserved to have thousands of civilians killed on 9/11.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT


AUP, every organization that has examined the conditions at Camp X-Ray has said they are humane. Only in the minds of people who are looking for any excuse to hate America are the conditions deemed inhumane. It's like the John Edward show, you believe it is inhumane because you want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary.


As for the juveniles, it is too bad I didn't leave for work one minute earlier today. I turned on NPR and caught the tail end of a report they were doing on this very topic. They called them "teens." I don't know if they said their ages at the top of the story. But they also reported that the teens were living in the military housing and not in Camp X-Ray. So they are living in the exact same houses as the troops stationed there. And they are attending school. They said the kids had been kidnapped by Al Queda and pressed into service.



So why are they treated like this? My point right from the start has been that they have been abused by both sides. The line of 'They did it first' is not valid.



As for the Australians and other nationals in custody, Fool, we can't trust every nation to properly prosecute or handle these guys. Some of them would probably just let them go.



Australia? You won't find a bigger toady to GWB than John Howard.

And we are to trust the US to do the right thing, when right from the start, every step has been taken by the US to circumvent the rule of law.



Look. We have been attacked several times in the last ten years. The WTC in 1993, in which they tried to knock them down then. Two U.S. Embassies in Africa. The USS Cole. And then the WTC in 2001. We have lost a lot of lives to these scum. You understand? WE'VE HAD IT!



And every year far more Americans die due to domestic crime. This is still dealt with following the rule of law



We are tired of having to worry about stepping on a few toes while these guys have been operating freely and killing Americans by the score and by the thousands. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Instead of ballyhooing about the rights and comfort and amount of ice cream these prisoners are getting, we are all about the victims' rights now.

I have never raised the issue of the amount of ice-cream or anything else.

The 'no more Mr Nice Guy' hardly rings true, when you consider that a lot of the terrorism the US is facing is part of an ongoing process of global political strategy and tactics. There have been plenty of deaths attributable to questionable US policy around the world. Far more than the US has itself suffered.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by LukeT
Not only are these things off topic, you have made a few assumptions about me that are incorrect, and a few misstatements of fact. Good score.

Given that I quoted your own words and addressed the issues you raised it appears to be you who is off topic. You also did not state where my facts were wrong. Perhaps you might like to actually do so and back up your own arguments?

You specifically stated that 'We are tired of having to worry about stepping on a few toes...'. The logical deduction is that you meant that as a threat because you had been wronged. If that is the case then the logic of your argument is that everyone else in the world who has been wronged by the US can also step on a few American toes. Perhaps you would care to state which assumptions I made about you are wrong. For sales of WMD to Iraq, see the couple dozen or so topics which have already been started here. Make sure you check who really are the top weapons sellers to Iraq. And then check to see who was opposed to our invasion of Iraq. You might find a coincidence or two Please note that I did not say that the US was the only supplier of WOMD to Sadam Hussein which would have to be the case for your statement to be factually correct.
The topic relates to children held at Guantanamo Bay. You however raised the issue of people attacking Americans in the post I quoted and I believe that America sold weapons and WOMD to some of those groups now attacking America which may just have something to do with the fact that youngster are being pressed into action around the world and turning up in Guantanamo Bay. As for the Mafia, what the...? If you start a war on terrorism acroos the world and send 'suspect' children to an area not subject to the America Constitutionit might be reasonable to ask why you don't treat your own domestic terrorists in the same way? The Mafia has been terrorising people in the US for decades yet their children are not treated like the children in Guantanamo Bay. The America Taliban was not incarcerated with the children in Guantanmo Bay. I understand that he is attempting a PhD during his negotiated prison term but that would be off topic as well. You sound to me like one of those people who feels we deserved to have thousands of civilians killed on 9/1 Well you would be wrong then. It appears that when some of the consequences of your position are pointed out you respond with wild and unsubstantiated assertions. If that is the quality of your argument then all I can say is duh. Would you like to address the logic of your own arguments or are you content to continue to make wild assertions.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you start a war on terrorism acroos the world and send 'suspect' children to an area not subject to the America Constitutionit might be reasonable to ask why you don't treat your own domestic terrorists in the same way? Why do you ignore so much that has already been addressed in this thread? Could you address the points about illegal combatants that has been documented thus far. You act as if the arguments presented don't even exist. It is frustrating when you won't acknowledge points made in the advancement of the argument. We have to go back to the begining to bring you up to speed.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So why are they treated like this? My point right from the start has been that they have been abused by both sides. The line of 'They did it first' is not valid.

I'm afraid it is a valid argument. Especially considering no one on your side of the argument has yet to offer a viable alternative to what to do with teens who have been trained to be terrorists against the U.S.



Australia? You won't find a bigger toady to GWB than John Howard.

And we are to trust the US to do the right thing, when right from the start, every step has been taken by the US to circumvent the rule of law.

Again, like Fool, you are confusing civil law with the rules of warfare.



And every year far more Americans die due to domestic crime. This is still dealt with following the rule of law

See my last comment.



I have never raised the issue of the amount of ice-cream or anything else.

The 'no more Mr Nice Guy' hardly rings true, when you consider that a lot of the terrorism the US is facing is part of an ongoing process of global political strategy and tactics. There have been plenty of deaths attributable to questionable US policy around the world. Far more than the US has itself suffered.

And here is the "blame America first" argument that is at the base of every complaint about the way the world is.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Given that I quoted your own words and addressed the issues you raised it appears to be you who is off topic. You also did not state where my facts were wrong. Perhaps you might like to actually do so and back up your own arguments?

I, nor anyone else for that matter, brought up the Mafia or WMD or Iraq until you came along.

The subject of Australian, or other non-juvenile prisoners, was brought by Fool and I have been trying to address him since it is at least related to Camp X-Ray.

You specifically stated that 'We are tired of having to worry about stepping on a few toes...'. The logical deduction is that you meant that as a threat because you had been wronged. If that is the case then the logic of your argument is that everyone else in the world who has been wronged by the US can also step on a few American toes. Perhaps you would care to state which assumptions I made about you are wrong. Please note that I did not say that the US was the only supplier of WOMD to Sadam Hussein which would have to be the case for your statement to be factually correct.

What I meant about "stepping on toes" is that we took a blow in 1993 when the WTC was attacked. We took two more blows when our embassies were blown up. We took yet another blow when the USS Cole was blown up. And we took the last and final blow on 9/11. Enough is enough.

Now are you saying the U.S. is comparable in the "wrongs" it commits? Do we blow up skyskrapers?

Another "blame America first" argument. It is getting old.

And again, WMD isn't even part of this discussion. See the other dozen topics about it.

The topic relates to children held at Guantanamo Bay. You however raised the issue of people attacking Americans in the post I quoted and I believe that America sold weapons and WOMD to some of those groups now attacking America which may just have something to do with the fact that youngster are being pressed into action around the world and turning up in Guantanamo Bay. If you start a war on terrorism acroos the world and send 'suspect' children to an area not subject to the America Constitutionit might be reasonable to ask why you don't treat your own domestic terrorists in the same way? The Mafia has been terrorising people in the US for decades yet their children are not treated like the children in Guantanamo Bay. The America Taliban was not incarcerated with the children in Guantanmo Bay. I understand that he is attempting a PhD during his negotiated prison term but that would be off topic as well. Well you would be wrong then. It appears that when some of the consequences of your position are pointed out you respond with wild and unsubstantiated assertions. If that is the quality of your argument then all I can say is duh. Would you like to address the logic of your own arguments or are you content to continue to make wild assertions.

Wow. You have even manage to find a way to blame America for the fact that these kids were trained as terrorists. Amazing. The mind boggles.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Luke T

You have even manage to find a way to blame America for the fact that these kids were trained as terrorists.

Could you post a source for the "fact" that all the kids being held in Guantanamo were trained as terrorists?

From what I've read, the DOD has been very quiet on the specifics of why they are holding any of these detainees.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by LukeTI, nor anyone else for that matter, brought up the Mafia or WMD or Iraq until you came along.
I quoted your own words and responded to them directly amongst other things. You stated that 'We are tired of having to worry about stepping on a few toes while these guys have been operating freely and killing Americans by the score and by the thousands....' I responded to the initial part of your comment and raised the other matters because you also talked about the killing of Americans around the world and not just in Afghanistan. I also contrasted what was happening around the world and in Guantanamo with what America does to its own domestic terrorists. You clearly don't feel that is relevant to a debate about the issues of the children in Guantanamo.What I meant about "stepping on toes" is that we took a blow in 1993 when the WTC was attacked. We took two more blows when our embassies were blown up. We took yet another blow when the USS Cole was blown up. And we took the last and final blow on 9/11. Enough is enough.

Now are you saying the U.S. is comparable in the "wrongs" it commits? Do we blow up skyskrapers?

Another "blame America first" argument. It is getting old.

And again, WMD isn't even part of this discussion. See the other dozen topics about it.
.I notice that you still don't say what you actually mean by 'stepping on toes'. It implies a threat to bend the law and you have still not quoted one misstatement of fact I made. America is not the only country to have been attacked and some countries have suffered very grieviously indeed.

The point I am making is very simple. If you believe that you have the right to step on a few toes because you have been wronged then anyone who has been wronged by another country whether it is the US or not also has the right to step on a few toes. AS well as doing good ij many areas America has also supported a number of terrorist regimes around the world including Saddam Hussein's at one time and as such many innocent people in those countries have died including in Central America. Either that is a correct statenment or it is not. Under your own analysis that would give the people who had been wronged the right to step on a few American toes and would be just as wrong.

It is not clear to me that Americans fully understand what their government has been doing across the world for many years and how it undermined democracies and supported murderers like Noriega and in the processs many innocent people were killed. If you are entitled to revenge when your innocents (and British as well as many othe countries died on 11Sept) then my point is that others are entitled to do the same and that would be just as wrong. The reason for making the point is that I do not believe that you do have the right to step on toes as you put delicately put it because this would incite others to do the same to the detriment of world peace.

As such it is not a blame America first argument but an open your eyes to what you have done before it is too late argument. That I have pointed out American failings does not mean that I do not recognise that the UK, USSR, Pakistan, Indonesia, China, Argentina, Chile etc have also committed acts of abuse on their own and othe citizens. The US and the UK have recently initiated a war for dubious reasons in my opinion and that is why I am pointing it out at present. I have also highlighted the part played by the UK in the invasion on many occasions so cannot be accused of mentioning the US only.

The topic is children at Guantanamo. Some of the recent appropriation of funds was for the extension of the facilities in Guantanamo presumably to take fighters from Iraq including possibly children to that camp. If you don't want to talk about the so-called reason for that war then you don't have to. Wow. You have even manage to find a way to blame America for the fact that these kids were trained as terrorists. Amazing. The mind boggles. I see. You appear to be unwilling to even consider the part played by American foreign policies over the decades in relation to many of the problems around the world such as what is happening in the Middle East and how that might have a part to play in why the children in Guantanmo might actually be there. I haven't seen anyone here claiming that all the world's problems have been caused by the US but you do appear to have a tendency to take refuge in the other extreme. Unless you are prepared to accept what America has actually done around the world as well as other countries then the debate cannot even start properly and you are going to keep on repeating the mistakes of previous years. I think that is a pity and if you imagine that you have suffered the fina blow then while I hope that you are correct I fear that you are not and the UK ad the US have just made the situation worse.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Why do you ignore so much that has already been addressed in this thread? Could you address the points about illegal combatants that has been documented thus far. You act as if the arguments presented don't even exist. It is frustrating when you won't acknowledge points made in the advancement of the argument. We have to go back to the begining to bring you up to speed.
Please tell me exactly what you have done to bring me up to speed. I didn't realise that you have to address all the points that have been made in a thread when commenting on a specific comment by another poster. Is that what you do? Let me see - on your first post on this thread you said

'Since we are moving over here I would like to move my repsonse over here also (at least part of it).



When you contrast treatment of the detainees with the treatment of prisoners in nearly all other Muslim countries (dismemberment, torture, disfigurement, murder, etc.) then I can't imagine how it could possibly have any such negative historical context.'

You then went on to say
'__________________
To counter any misconceptions about Sir Winston Churchill, the following are quotes from him regarding war.

"Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar."

"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour." -- Speech delivered to the House of Commons on June 18, 1940 following the collapse of France. Many thought Britain would follow. But knowing that "Hitler will have to break us in this island or lose the war" Churchill challenged the British people to uncommon efforts to win the Battle of Britain.

In response to suggestions that Brittian Surrender,

:"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.''

Many more to come...'
So not keeping to the subject and ignoring much of what was said before. I see that you don't follow your own advice RandFan.

The way a country treats its prisoners says a lot about that country and the detention of children under sixteen years old in Guantanamo Bay where the American constitution does not operate is in my view barbaric. If thee was something to be proud about in these case why will the American military not specify exactly how old the youngest child is? What are they afraid of? Do human rights not matter in the US any more?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by LukeT

Again, like Fool, you are confusing civil law with the rules of warfare.


No Luke, I understand the difference. Treat these people under either...I don't care.

Are they prisoners of war? Are they criminals? It seems to me they must be one or the other.... one of our citizens was not even a soldier so I don't see how he could possibly be a pow...He is a middle age fat civilian, he was abducted from Pakistan...This leaves the posibility that he is a criminal. Is the US army ever going to hand him over to your (or our) courts so this can be determined? ever? maybe? someday? when they feel like it? Do they have any evidence against him? who knows, they don't feel they need to provide any. They seem to feel they can abduct and hold whoever they want for as long as they want.

It is the US Army that is refusing to clarify this situation.

Once again, this seems very clear to me. Either hold them as POW or hand them over to your own (or our) civil authorities. If they have evidence that they are criminal conspiritors, they should hand that over too.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool


Are they prisoners of war? Are they criminals? It seems to me they must be one or the other....


So the problem is you arent open minded? :)