Guantanamo vs. Iran

[Thunder]

So the Iranians blindfolded, shackled, isolated, and used psychological pressure on the 15 Brits. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans or the Brits treat "enemy combatants"?

What could we possibly say to Iran? "Only we can declare people enemy combatants and withhold Geneva Conventions protections. You do not have this discretion."

Perphaps things are coming full circle. Perhaps we are seeing the danger of legalizing the suspension of legal and humanitarian protections during wartime. If its ok for the USA to do it...then its also ok for Iran.

[Ziggurat]

So Nelson Mandela got put in prison. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans treated Charles Manson?

What could we possibly say to South Africa?

:rolleyes:

[RandFan]

So the Iranians blindfolded, shackled, isolated, and used psychological pressure on the 15 Brits. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans or the Brits treat "enemy combatants"?

What could we possibly say to Iran? "Only we can declare people enemy combatants and withhold Geneva Conventions protections. You do not have this discretion."

Perphaps things are coming full circle. Perhaps we are seeing the danger of legalizing the suspension of legal and humanitarian protections during wartime. If its ok for the USA to do it...then its also ok for Iran.


Individual taken to Guantanamo where combatants in a military conflict involving America and the combatants.
There was no military conflict between Iran and Britain.
The British soldiers were following the code of military conduct including the wearing of proper military uniforms.Perhaps you should think about these things before you post. Please note that I'm not excusing the actions of the US, I'm saying that your argument is nonsense.

[Thunder]

So if those captured in Afghanistan were wearing green uniforms they would be allowed Geneva Conventions protections? I didnt realize it was that simple. This also means that if Iran captures any Americans doing covert ops in Iran, not wearing official American uniforms including an American flag badge, then the Iranians have the right to blindfold, shackle, isolate, and intimidate our soldiers?

[Ziggurat]

This also means that if Iran captures any Americans doing covert ops in Iran, not wearing official American uniforms including an American flag badge, then the Iranians have the right to blindfold, shackle, isolate, and intimidate our soldiers?

According to the Geneva conventions, yes.

[Thunder]

It is my best guess that if Iran, or Syria, or any other country actually did capture covert ops Americans out of uniform, the USA would still insist that they be treated under Geneva Convention guidelines. But we will have to wait for that to happen.

By the way, did the Colonial forces during the Revolutionary war actually have a uniform?

[RandFan]

So if those captured in Afghanistan were wearing green uniforms they would be allowed Geneva Conventions protections? {sigh} This is a single item.

I didnt realize it was that simple.No, it's not which is why I enumerated three. It looks like you missed the other two.

This also means that if Iran captures any Americans doing covert ops in Iran, not wearing official American uniforms including an American flag badge, then the Iranians have the right to blindfold, shackle, isolate, and intimidate our soldiers? I said, I don't condone the actions of the US. I did say that your argument is nonsense and it is.

If Iran captured Americans doing covert ops in Iran then your argument would make sense.

That wasn't what happened.

Right?

[Ziggurat]

It is my best guess that if Iran, or Syria, or any other country actually did capture covert ops Americans out of uniform, the USA would still insist that they be treated under Geneva Convention guidelines. But we will have to wait for that to happen.

Well, blindfolding and shackling are permitted under the Geneva conventions, so I'm not sure why you brought that bit up. You seem rather incoherent in your position. As for "intimidating", well, that's a pretty vague word. You can intimidate someone without even meaning to, and you can do it deliberately without making them fear imminent death.

By the way, did the Colonial forces during the Revolutionary war actually have a uniform?

Not all of them did, but there were various uniforms used by the continentals. The Geneva conventions did not exist at the time, but there are previsions within it for irregular forces which are formed without being able to create a standardized uniform. One of the requirements that still applies in such cases is that they bear their arms openly, something the continental army definitely did do.

[Thunder]

All I'm trying to say is that I believe it is in America's best interests to allow anyone captured on "the battlefield" the right to not be mistreated and the right to defend accusations and charges made against them. Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge, we demean our own sense of democracy and justice, and may infact be imprisoning innocent people. Justice for all and security do not have to be mutually exclusive.

p.s. how about a spell checker for JREF posts?.. :)

[Azure]

Individual taken to Guantanamo where combatants in a military conflict involving America and the combatants.
There was no military conflict between Iran and Britain.
The British soldiers were following the code of military conduct including the wearing of proper military uniforms.Perhaps you should think about these things before you post. Please note that I'm not excusing the actions of the US, I'm saying that your argument is nonsense.

#4. Parky is an idiot.

[Azure]

All I'm trying to say is that I believe it is in America's best interests to allow anyone captured on "the battlefield" the right to not be mistreated and the right to defend accusations and charged made against them. Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge, we demean our own sense of democracy and justice, and may infact be imprisoning innocent people. Justice for all and security do not have to be mutually exclusive.

p.s. how about a spell checker for JREF posts?.. :)

Last time I checked, POWs were held until the completion of the war they were involved in.

In other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[Wat Tyler]

Of course, there is something else to consider here:

Iran does NOT swan around the globe telling other countries what to do and calling itself 'the Land of the Free'.

Nor does it insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms' on them, when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources (which is, after all, and as any fule kno, why all wars are started - to strengthen and perpetuate the initiating society's rulers' grip on power and wealth).

As a subject of a country that used to do both of the above, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it.

[Wat Tyler]

p.s. how about a spell checker for JREF posts?.. :)

Get Firefox - it has one built-in.

:Banane09:

[Azure]

Of course, there is something else to consider here:

Iran does NOT swan around the globe telling other countries what to do and calling itself 'the Land of the Free'.

Nor does it insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms'' on them, when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources (which is, after all, and as any fule kno, why all wars are started - to strengthen and perpetuate the initiating society's rulers' grip on power and wealth).

As a subject of a country that used to do both of the above, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it.

And what exactly does ANY of that have to do with the OP?

Go home. :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

All I'm trying to say is that I believe it is in America's best interests to allow anyone captured on "the battlefield" the right to not be mistreated

The UCMJ sets out standards for the treatment of prisoners to prevent abuse. These standards apply irregardless of Geneva conventions.

and the right to defend accusations and charges made against them.

There is already a mechanism in place where detainees can defend themselves and challenge their status. "Charges" is a misnomer, however: enemy combatants, just like POW's, are not held on "charges".

Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge,

This statement betrays a deep ignorance of the issues involved. Holding prisoners indefinitely without charges is EXACTLY the treatment demanded by the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war.

[Wat Tyler]

And what exactly does ANY of that have to do with the OP?

Go home. :rolleyes:

Actually, more than your statement about POW's - after all, there are NO 'POW's at Gitmo - only a hitherto unheard-of category of detainee created by the US Executive, which they nominate 'Enemy Combatant'.

Who 'doesn't know what they're talking about' now?

Oh, and please note that I didn't descend to personal insults, unlike your good self (see posts 10 & 11 in this Thread).


My point about the Cheney regime lying about their motivations for invading Iraq is in the same vein as Parky's OP where it points out the hypocrisy evident in our lecturing Iran about illegally detaining non-combatants from nations with whom it is not at-War.

The rest of my post refers to the fact that, throughout history, ALL nation states have lied about their motivations for initiating Wars - to their own populations and to the rest of the World.

Neocon-run America is no different than any of the others in this respect.

But that doesn't excuse its actions.

[Azure]

Actually, more than your statement about POW's - after all, there are NO 'POW's at Gitmo -

Who said there were POWs at Gitmo?

I said POWs captured during a conflict are held until the end of said conflict.

You see, parky said...


Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge,


Now you get it? Or did you miss something else?

[Thunder]

POW is a legal status. It assumes that an official state of war exists between two nations. During an official state of war, enemies can be detained, without charge, until hostilities end.

The "War on Terror" is not a war in the legal sense. The use of the word "war" is figuritive. It is no different then "the War on Poverty" or "the War on Drugs". We are not at war with a single nation, or a single organization, or even a single ideology. This "war" is against Al Qaeda and like minded groups or individuals. This "war" will be without end, because there will never cease to be Muslems who are pissed off with the America and might seek to do us harm. The USA needs to rewrite our laws of war regarding conflicts against non-state entities, groups, and ideologies. We need new rules to govern our conduct during this new era. Otherwise, a perpetual state of war can exist, until the President or whoever decides "war is over".

[Wat Tyler]

Who said there were POWs at Gitmo?

I said POWs captured during a conflict are held until the end of said conflict.

You see, parky said...

Now you get it? Or did you miss something else?


Oh, right - now I get it - you are deliberately trying to alter the content of the discussion in order to wrench it away from topics in which you are unable to refute the assertions of your opponents - or is it that you are trying to put words in the mouths of those that do not share your opinions to try to hide the first point?

Perhaps I am being obtuse here, so let me rephrase my remarks:

What the Vorsprung dürch Technik do the internationally-agreed conventions governing the treatments of Prisoners of War have to do with the people held at Gitmo, or those peple who have been 'extraordinarily-rendered' on CIA flights to who-knows-where?

They are NOT POW's, so why mention the treatment of POW's at all, other than to try to muddy the waters?

[Cylinder]

POW is a legal status.

Correct.

It assumes that an official state of war exists between two nations. During an official state of war, enemies can be detained, without charge, until hostilities end.

Incorrect. Common Article 2:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The "War on Terror" is not a war in the legal sense. The use of the word "war" is figuritive.

Please point me to the Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted by Congress against poverty and drugs.

[Ziggurat]

We need new rules to govern our conduct during this new era. Otherwise, a perpetual state of war can exist, until the President or whoever decides "war is over".

Once again, you betray your ignorance of the issues. Congress authorized a war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Congress can repeal that authorization if it so chooses. That isn't up to the president, and Congress isn't just "whoever". Congress has always had the power to declare war for however long it's felt like.

[The Fool]

[LIST=1]
Individual taken to Guantanamo where combatants in a military conflict involving America and the combatants.

Sorry...
Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, was kidnapped in Pakistan and given to Egypt for a while..then on to Gitmo. He was released when no evidence was produced of him ever doing anything . He was not a combatant , he was a fruit shop owner from Sydney.

[Art Vandelay]

It is my best guess that if Iran, or Syria, or any other country actually did capture covert ops Americans out of uniform, the USA would still insist that they be treated under Geneva Convention guidelines. But we will have to wait for that to happen. No, we won't. Gary Powers as sentenced to hard labor, even though he was in uniform. There are plenty of spies who were not afforded the protections of the GC.

Iran does NOT swan around the globe telling other countries what to do and calling itself 'the Land of the Free'.They most certainly do tell other countries what to do, going so far as to hire hitmen to kill citizens of other countries that publish books that they don't like.

Nor does it insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms' on them, when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resourcesSo during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran wasn't after Iraq's oil?

Actually, more than your statement about POW's - after all, there are NO 'POW's at Gitmo - only a hitherto unheard-of category of detainee created by the US Executive, which they nominate 'Enemy Combatant'.

Who 'doesn't know what they're talking about' now?Seeing as how the category of "illegal combatant" is not hitherto unheard-of, you would be the one who "doesn't know what they're talking about".

My point about the Cheney regime lying about their motivations for invading Iraq is in the same vein What proof do you have that he lied?

[Thunder]

The London bombers were not Al Qaeda members. The Madrib bombers were not Al Qaeda members. Are you suggesting that this "war" is only against Al Qaeda and the Taliban? How do you identify someone as being Al Qaeda? Do they carry a membership card?

[Ziggurat]

The London bombers were not Al Qaeda members. The Madrib bombers were not Al Qaeda members.

And they aren't in Guantanamo either. You've been incoherent and clueless from the start of this thread. What the hell is your point?

[Wat Tyler]

They most certainly do tell other countries what to do, going so far as to hire hitmen to kill citizens of other countries that publish books that they don't like.


Right, so a 'Religious Leader' telling his followers that it's OK/'a Good Thing' to murder an individual (however reprehensible this is) is the same thing as threatening nation States with the might of your Armed Forces is it?

Don't think so.


Could you let me have your opinon of the 'conservative Christian' preacher (Pat Buchanan, IIRC?) who called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez?



So during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran wasn't after Iraq's oil?


Either show me where I have alleged that, or please stop trying to 'put words in my mouth' in order to obfuscate the issue, OK?

It's bloody puerile, it convinces no-one, and it's becoming more than a little annoying.


Seeing as how the category of "illegal combatant" is not hitherto unheard-of, you would be the one who "doesn't know what they're talking about".


Really?
Cite please.

Oh, and lastly, I repeat my earlier question:

Why the Vorsprung dürch Technik did you mention Prisoners of War in this thread at all?
Or does your refusal to answer this simple question indicate an admission that you were merely trying to muddy the waters because you lack the facts to be able to refute your opponents' assertions?


What proof do you have that he lied?

How about the ones I cited earlier?

E.g. - his speech in 1999 to the Institute of Petroleum?
(Example quote:
"So where is this oil going to come from?" he asked. His answer: the Middle East was "where the prize ultimately lies". The problem was that "governments and national oil companies" controlled almost all of the "assets", and "even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow".)

How about the stated aims of the PNAC?

How about the Production Sharing Agreements for the exploitation of the Iraqi oilfields - the ones that rule-out any involvement of regional experts like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and leave the way open to exclusive exploitation by firms like say, I dunno - Halliburton?
For contracts twice the length of Industry Standard ones, at TWICE the shares-of-profits for the Companies involved?

How about the way that the 'Iraq reconstruction' contracts were GIVEN to certain Corporations with absolutely no competition?

How about the way that Cheney et al overruled the Pentagon, CIA & DIA analysts who told them that they had not allowed enough time to plan for an occupation, or allowed sufficient numbers of troops to run it?

How about the fact that the ONLY facilities that the US Military was ordered to guard after the toppling of Saddam were the Oil production facilities and the Oil Ministry?

How about the fact that Halliburton was charging the US Military twice the going rate for gas in Iraq - when the facilities producing it had been 'liberated' for Halliburton by that same US Military, who are also now guarding them for it?

Or, if you'd like some evidence of the man's character, how about you look up his role in the 'whiter-than-white' Nixon administration - or how about the fact that that famous 'shy and retiring ingenue' Henry Kissinger described him as a 'Black Belt in the arts of Bureaucratic warfare'?

I explain these nuggets by saying that Dick Cheney is a liar - you appear to put these 'failures' down to him being peerlessly stupid.

I put it to you that a man does not get as far in Life® as he has done if he is that thick.

Anyway, I needs-must be off to climb the wooden hill to Bedfordshire now - catch you tomorrow.

[The Painter]

The London bombers were not Al Qaeda members. The Madrib bombers were not Al Qaeda members. Are you suggesting that this "war" is only against Al Qaeda and the Taliban? How do you identify someone as being Al Qaeda? Do they carry a membership card?

How do you know they weren't Al Qaeda?


Two of the four suicide bombers who attacked London a year ago had spent time at an al Qaeda camp to prepare themselves for a suicide attack, the deputy leader of al Qaeda claimed in new video excerpts released Friday.

http://kdka.com/homepage/topstories_story_188182021.html




Investigators believe the train bombings that killed 200 people here last week were the work of a multinational cell of al Qaeda loyalists, some of whom entered Spain specifically to carry out the attacks and who are now the target of an international effort to identify and capture them, according to European and Arab intelligence officials.
The officials said the preliminary investigation and interrogation of five arrested suspects -- three Moroccans and two Indians -- as well as other evidence indicated that the Thursday morning rush-hour bombings were carried out by the al Qaeda network, marking the first time the group has struck in Europe.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58697-2004Mar14?language=printer


Looks like they may have been associated with Al Qaeda.

[Thunder]

Zig- the London bombers and the Madrid bombers are not in Guantanamo. They are dead. But the copycat bombers are on trial and this is a good thing. They will be convincted but they will have the right to defend themselves and actual evidence will be presented against them. I hope this is the same outcome with the folks at GITMO.

[Azure]

They are NOT POW's, so why mention the treatment of POW's at all, other than to try to muddy the waters?

Your stupidity amazes me.

Keep it up. You just might qualify for a Darwin award.

[Azure]

The London bombers were not Al Qaeda members. The Madrib bombers were not Al Qaeda members. Are you suggesting that this "war" is only against Al Qaeda and the Taliban? How do you identify someone as being Al Qaeda? Do they carry a membership card?

There were extremists. This war is against Islamic extremism.

[Ziggurat]

Zig- the London bombers and the Madrid bombers are not in Guantanamo. They are dead. But the copycat bombers are on trial and this is a good thing. They will be convincted but they will have the right to defend themselves and actual evidence will be presented against them. I hope this is the same outcome with the folks at GITMO.

The Gitmo detainees do indeed get to defend themselves. So what's your point?

[Thunder]

Yes. They do now..after years of pressure and law suits. Thanks to people like me who value true justice and dont want to perpetually imprison possibly innocent individuals. America still works. Thank God.

[Darth Rotor]

Could you let me have your opinon of the 'conservative Christian' preacher (Pat Buchanan, IIRC?) who called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez?


The Ayatollah Khomeni was the leader of his government (at least the Islamic High Council element of the Islamic Republic) while Pat Robertson is not a member of any government. Ayatollah Khomeni had to power to assign government assets via official channels to whatever hit he ordered. Pat Robertson could only suggest a hit, or try to hire his own hit men out of his own pocket, which I suspect he was too cheap to do.

Is that distinction clear enough for you?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Yes. They do now..after years of pressure and law suits. Thanks to people like me who value true justice and dont want to perpetually imprison possibly innocent individuals. America still works. Thank God.
What did you do to influence the cases at Gitmo, personally?

DR

[Cylinder]

Yes. They do now..after years of pressure and law suits. Thanks to people like me who value true justice and dont want to perpetually imprison possibly innocent individuals. America still works. Thank God.

Who holds responsibility for the blurring of the distinction between combatant and non-combatant?

[Art Vandelay]

Right, so a 'Religious Leader' telling his followers that it's OK/'a Good Thing' to murder an individual (however reprehensible this is) is the same thing as threatening nation States with the might of your Armed Forces is it?
http://blog.lextext.com/_photos/DSCN0126.JPG

Either show me where I have alleged that, or please stop trying to 'put words in my mouth' in order to obfuscate the issue, OK?I already quoted where you suggested it, and then I asked whether that’s actually what you meant. Do you have an answer, or are you just going to duck the issue with dishonest personal attacks?

Really?
Cite please.Why should I bother to dig up a cite when you’ve already shown yourself to be dishonest jackass? Tell you what. You admit that you acted with blatant disregard for the truth, and apologize, and I’ll give a cite that the concept of illegal combatants predates the Bush Administration.

Oh, and lastly, I repeat my earlier question:And by “repeat”, you mean “ask for the first time”.

Why the Vorsprung dürch Technik did you mention Prisoners of War in this thread at all?You were the one who mentioned them, not me. Perhaps you should see a doctor to be screened for dementia.

Or does your refusal to answer this simple question indicate an admission that you were merely trying to muddy the waters because you lack the facts to be able to refute your opponents' assertions? And by “refuse to answer”, you mean “not read my mind and give an answer to a question that I haven’t even asked yet”. And by “simple”, you mean “based-on-false-premises”.

How about the ones I cited earlier?I asked for proof, not circumstantial evidence.

[Art Vandelay]

The Ayatollah Khomeni was the leader of his government (at least the Islamic High Council element of the Islamic Republic) while Pat Robertson is not a member of any government. Ayatollah Khomeni had to power to assign government assets via official channels to whatever hit he ordered. Pat Robertson could only suggest a hit, or try to hire his own hit men out of his own pocket, which I suspect he was too cheap to do.

Is that distinction clear enough for you?

DRAlso, Khomeni ordered a hit over an "offense" to Islam. Robertson wants Chavez killed for alleged violations of human rights. More importantly, Robertson merely expressed an opinion regarding whether Chavez should be killed. Khomeni actually participated in attempted murder.

[Darth Rotor]

Also, Khomeni ordered a hit over an "offense" to Islam. Robertson wants Chavez killed for alleged violations of human rights. More importantly, Robertson merely expressed an opinion regarding whether Chavez should be killed. Khomeni actually participated in attempted murder.
In any event, Pat Robertson is a man in severe need of a bottle of STFU pills. :cool:

DR

[Thunder]

LOL. What did I do to personally influence the cases at GITMO? Nothing. I said people LIKE me...not me. Im am not a member of the ACLU or any other group that has sued the Feds over this issue.

[Dorian Gray]

So the Iranians blindfolded, shackled, isolated, and used psychological pressure on the 15 Brits. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans or the Brits treat "enemy combatants"?

What could we possibly say to Iran? "Only we can declare people enemy combatants and withhold Geneva Conventions protections. You do not have this discretion."

Perphaps things are coming full circle. Perhaps we are seeing the danger of legalizing the suspension of legal and humanitarian protections during wartime. If its ok for the USA to do it...then its also ok for Iran.

One way it's different is that Iran released the Brits after about 2 weeks, while we still hold hundreds of people we captured up to 4 years ago.

[Darth Rotor]

LOL. What did I do to personally influence the cases at GITMO? Nothing.
Then why were you trying to associate yourself with this successful challenge to the government's policy?

DR

[RandFan]

Of course, there is something else to consider here:

Iran does NOT swan around the globe telling other countries what to do and calling itself 'the Land of the Free'.

Nor does it insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms' on them, when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources (which is, after all, and as any fule kno, why all wars are started - to strengthen and perpetuate the initiating society's rulers' grip on power and wealth).

As a subject of a country that used to do both of the above, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it.Sure, screw critical thinking and skepticism. Any CT will do.

[RandFan]

Sorry...
Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, was kidnapped in Pakistan and given to Egypt for a while..then on to Gitmo. He was released when no evidence was produced of him ever doing anything . He was not a combatant , he was a fruit shop owner from Sydney.Not according to what I understand.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamdouh_Habib)


Before his arrest the Australian police had recorded Habib making threatening phone calls.
Habbib was arrested by local police in Pakistan and not kidnapped.
Australia, for whatever reason deemed Habib a terrorist and transfered him to Egypt. He later was turned over to US authorities after having confessed to a number of crimes (apparently no one is taking his confessions seriously due to the fact that Habib was tortured)I now that Wiki can be unreliable so please to provide documentation for alternative version.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Ziggurat]

Yes. They do now..after years of pressure and law suits.

Wrong once again. They had a review process from the start. What's different now is that Congress has spelled out the details of that process - this was a separation of powers issue (the SC ruling that Congress had to be the ones to decide), not one of inadequate process.

[Wat Tyler]

Your stupidity amazes me.

Keep it up. You just might qualify for a Darwin award.

You just insult people, don't you?

You cannot offer any actual debate or evidence to back up your viewpoints, so you just throw insults at your opponents in the hope that no-one else will notice your absolute inability to debate anything.

Thank you for playing.

[Wat Tyler]

The Ayatollah Khomeni was the leader of his government (at least the Islamic High Council element of the Islamic Republic) while Pat Robertson is not a member of any government. Ayatollah Khomeni had to power to assign government assets via official channels to whatever hit he ordered. Pat Robertson could only suggest a hit, or try to hire his own hit men out of his own pocket, which I suspect he was too cheap to do.

Is that distinction clear enough for you?

DR

Yes.

The question was "does Iran swan around the world telling other countries what to do?".

So far, my opponents in this discussion have managed to recall one instance of the psychos running Iran threatening one individual.

The distinction is absolutely crystal to me.

It's just a shame that no-one on the other side of this discussion has the cojones to admit it.

[Wat Tyler]

I already quoted where you suggested it, and then I asked whether that’s actually what you meant. Do you have an answer, or are you just going to duck the issue with dishonest personal attacks?


No, actually your quote shows that you cannot read.

The piece of mine that you quoted clearly refers to American actions.

You, on the other hand, said that I was saying that Oil was Iran's motivation in the Iran-Iraq war, no doubt to try to muddy the waters yet again.

Oh dear.

You're the one ducking the issue.


Why should I bother to dig up a cite when you’ve already shown yourself to be dishonest jackass?


Right, so I have to cite evidence for anything and everything that you disagree with, whereas you can just throw personal insults at your opponents, invariably demand proof from them, and don't have to provide any evidence whatever to support your viewpoint?

What does that say about you?



Tell you what. You admit that you acted with blatant disregard for the truth, and apologize, and I’ll give a cite that the concept of illegal combatants predates the Bush Administration.


G.A.L.



And by “repeat”, you mean “ask for the first time”.


You are quite right here - so my apologies to you for that.

I asked that question of your fellow-traveller Azure, and he has ducked it twice - you merely jumped in an attempt to distract readers from the fact that he had slipped in his little piece about POW's to try to disguise the issue that the inmates of Gitmo are being held in a legal limbo where they are 'not in any legal jurisdiction' - i.e held beyond the safety of the Law.

How very 'American' and 'just' that is - not.



You were the one who mentioned them, not me. Perhaps you should see a doctor to be screened for dementia.


See above.

Azure was the first to mention them, not me.

Of course, this does give you a 'golden' opportunity to obfuscate and throw insults around - which, btw, is not a way to convince anyone of anything - other than your own lack of intelligence.

Why is it that you can only do those things, rather than offering any actual evidence to support your POV?

Is it perhaps because, somewhere deep down in your subconscious mind, you do actually know that you've been had, and it is your sense of embarrassment that sparks such bouts of unfocussed rage every time someone offers evidence to show this?



And by “refuse to answer”, you mean “not read my mind and give an answer to a question that I haven’t even asked yet”. And by “simple”, you mean “based-on-false-premises”.


Well, let's see - Azure won't answer the question, and apparently you won't either.

You're in the wrong, and you know it - or why else offer only personal insults?


I asked for proof, not circumstantial evidence.

Hmm, let's see - I offer you more proof than has ever been offered by the Cheney regime to justify its illegal actions - or indeed by you and your fellow-travellers on their side - and you just say "that doesn't count!", rather than offering any shred of evidence to discredit what I have offered.

You're no Barrister, are you?

[Wat Tyler]

Sure, screw critical thinking and skepticism. Any CT will do.

Got any, you know, evidence of Iran doing any of those things?

Because there's plenty of evidence of us doing it.

Without evidence to back up your assertions, who's the Conspiracy Theorist?

[Cylinder]

...the issue that the inmates of Gitmo are being held in a legal limbo where they are 'not in any legal jurisdiction' - i.e held beyond the safety of the Law.

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station are not being held beyond the safety of the law nor in legal limbo. You may not agree with the Commissions Act but it is the law. The US Supreme Court has ruled some years ago that citizen-detainees at least are under the jurisdiction of US federal courts though that jurisdiction need not be enforced to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. The Bush administration had argued that they were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the military tribunal system.

[Cylinder]

So if those captured in Afghanistan were wearing green uniforms they would be allowed Geneva Conventions protections? I didnt realize it was that simple.

It's not. As spelled out in the Conventions text, the minimum procedures for some force not party to the Conventions to successfully petetion for their protections they must:

Inform the opposing party that they intend to abide the provisions.

Wear a fixed device visible from a distance.

Be subject to a command structure that ends in the petitioning party.

Carry arms openly.

Obey the laws and customs of warfare.

[Wat Tyler]

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station are not being held beyond the safety of the law nor in legal limbo. You may not agree with the Commissions Act but it is the law. The US Supreme Court has ruled some years ago that citizen-detainees at least are under the jurisdiction of US federal courts though that jurisdiction need not be enforced to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. The Bush administration had argued that they were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the military tribunal system.

What about those detainees at Gitmo who are not U.S. citizens?

I mean, it's NOT U.S. sovereign territory, so as I understand it U.S. Criminal Law does not apply, and it isn't Cuba, so Cuban law doesn't apply, and they aren't (according to the Cheney regime) POW's, so international treaties afford them no protection under 'military' law - so what rights or legal protection do they have?

Sounds like a pretty good 'limbo' to me.

If I'm wrong about their status, please correct me.

[Azure]

You just insult people, don't you?

You cannot offer any actual debate or evidence to back up your viewpoints, so you just throw insults at your opponents in the hope that no-one else will notice your absolute inability to debate anything.

Thank you for playing.

Actually no. If you're too dumb to realize that any POWs captured in a war, by LAW they are supposed to be held until the end of said conflicts, then I have no words for you.

Of course, what I just said has absolutely nothing to do with Iran, or with Guantanamo...but rather with this post made by parky, which shows blatant ignorance towards the subject at hand.


Any time we allow a person to be held indefinately without charge,


I NEVER said that there were POWs at Guantanamo. Which you falsely assumed I did, here..


Actually, more than your statement about POW's - after all, there are NO 'POW's at Gitmo -


Now take your stupidity elsewhere.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Except this isn't a real war. That's why they aren't POWs. You can't just grab people, many of whom have silm to no evidence that they were combatants, say we're in a war, then not define the terms of the war in such a way that you can really definitively say it's over at some point and then hold them indefinitely. After all, we're at war with drugs. Why not just lock up everyone who had dreads and see if we can get them to confess to dealing. It may take a few years and require some unusual methods, but hey, we're at war.

[WildCat]

Except this isn't a real war. That's why they aren't POWs. You can't just grab people, many of whom have silm to no evidence that they were combatants, say we're in a war, then not define the terms of the war in such a way that you can really definitively say it's over at some point and then hold them indefinitely. After all, we're at war with drugs. Why not just lock up everyone who had dreads and see if we can get them to confess to dealing. It may take a few years and require some unusual methods, but hey, we're at war.
I don't suppose you can show the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force for the "war on drugs"?

Didn't think so, but thanks for playing!

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I don't suppose you can show the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force for the "war on drugs"?

Didn't think so, but thanks for playing!

I see a sarcastic dismissal of a metaphor, but no actually adressing of any points. If this is a war, despite a lack of actual declaration of one, when is it over? After all, it was mission accomplished years ago. Should everyone at Gitmo be released as soon as Congress withdraws authorization?

[Azure]

You can't just grab people, many of whom have silm to no evidence that they were combatants,

Sure you can; its written in the Geneva Conventions.

Perhaps you should read it.

And I never called it a real war, nor did I call them POWs.

[Azure]

I see a sarcastic dismissal of a metaphor, but no actually adressing of any points. If this is a war, despite a lack of actual declaration of one, when is it over? After all, it was mission accomplished years ago. Should everyone at Gitmo be released as soon as Congress withdraws authorization?

Mission accomplished? Why are we still fighting?

You're referring to talking points, made by a politician who is not actually fighting. I will let the troops involved in this 'war' raise the mission accomplished banner.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Sure you can; its written in the Geneva Conventions.

Perhaps you should read it.

I did. This fourth Geneva convention seem to prohibit this. There is a distinction between civilians and combatants and it isn't up to the warring parties to decide what that is.



And I never called it a real war, nor did I call them POWs.

I specifically said you didn't. If it isn't a war, how is the rule that combatants are held to the end of a war relevant?

Mission accomplished? Why are we still fighting?

You're referring to talking points, made by a politician who is not actually fighting. I will let the troops involved in this 'war' raise the mission accomplished banner.

Troops never make this sort of decision anymore than they make the decision to go to war in the first place. It's always politicians.

[Darth Rotor]

I did. This fourth Geneva convention seem to prohibit this. There is a distinction between civilians and combatants and it isn't up to the warring parties to decide what that is.



I specifically said you didn't. If it isn't a war, how is the rule that combatants are held to the end of a war relevant?



Troops never make this sort of decision anymore than they make the decision to go to war in the first place. It's always politicians.

Tell me, Ace, what is a "real" war?

DR

[WildCat]

I see a sarcastic dismissal of a metaphor, but no actually adressing of any points. If this is a war, despite a lack of actual declaration of one, when is it over? After all, it was mission accomplished years ago. Should everyone at Gitmo be released as soon as Congress withdraws authorization?
You're not very good at this, are you? There were separate AUMF's for Iraq and the terrorist war - for all intents and purposes this is a declaration of war. I don't think there's anyone in Gitmo as a result of the Iraq war, captured insurgents get turned over to the Iraqi government. And you may be shocked to find that a war isn't over because some admiral hangs a banner on his ship.

AUMF for al Qaeda (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html)

AUMF for Iraq (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-notes.html)

AUMF for drugs (http://www.mcgeheezone.com/graphics/404.htm)

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Tell me, Ace, what is a "real" war?

DR

One that's declared by Congress as required in the Constitution. I don't see how this is relevant as I'm not the one arguing there shoudl be different standards for behavior in a war vs a non-war anyway.

[Darth Rotor]

One that's declared by Congress as required in the Constitution. I don't see how this is relevant as I'm not the one arguing there shoudl be different standards for behavior in a war vs a non-war anyway.
Then you know no more of war than you do of fornication.

The Korean war was indeed war, whether or not the paperwork was perfect. It was a political act of armed force, undertaken by multiple parties to achieve political aims through said armed force. That is what war is, globally, regardless of what pinheads who live in Ivory Towers think war is. Whether or not all parties choose to abide by the "civilized" conventions of intramural homicide is irrelevant to whether or not there was a war on. The American prisoners captured in Korea were POW's. So too were the POW's in Viet Nam, even though Congress never had the sack to declare that a war. They played the silly "Gulf of Tonkin" Resolution dodge, just as Congress more recently played the "authorize use of force" dodge for Iraq. Police action in Korea? War. The fight in Afghatnistan? War. Acts of armed force, of blood and iron, for a political purpose. That is what war is.

It's a war, in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether you care for how it was undertaken on the administrative side or not. Theory and practice don't always match, mister, but the hot lead always hits the flesh and bone.

Lead tends to win.

DR

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Again, I'm not arguing there is a real difference between war and non-war. I understand it's a technicality. WildCat is arguing that if people are our enemies in a war, it is okay to hold them until said war is over. I am asking hwo we determine when we're at war and when it's over and who is our enemy and who is a civilian. I haven't even received an attempt at answers for any of those except the first one.

[Darth Rotor]

Again, I'm not arguing there is a real difference between war and non-war. I understand it's a technicality. WildCat is arguing that if people are our enemies in a war, it is okay to hold them until said war is over. I am asking hwo we determine when we're at war and when it's over and who is our enemy and who is a civilian. I haven't even received an attempt at answers for any of those except the first one.

I understand. The Gitmo deal was a dodge, due to the political nature of war. It was an attempt to deny the prisoners (terrorists in particular) the use of a show trial as a political venue for rhetoric and salvoes in the battles of images and symbols, the battle of perception. In truth, it was a gambit played that ignored the long term political context, but there it is. It's part of the information war, which Washington has been fuxoring up since about November 2002, on the international playing field.

War and courtrooms don't mix well.

DR

[Azure]

I did. This fourth Geneva convention seem to prohibit this. There is a distinction between civilians and combatants and it isn't up to the warring parties to decide what that is.


Sure. I never suggested otherwise. My point all along has been, people captured during a conflict, are to be held as POWs until the end of said conflict.

All this stems back to what parky said about it being 'wrong' to hold POWs for a certain period of time.


I specifically said you didn't. If it isn't a war, how is the rule that combatants are held to the end of a war relevant?


Well there is the whole argument. Is it a 'real' war? Are these people really POWs.

My personal opinion is that they are. The majority have been captured 'while' fighting against American forces. And if they weren't, they shouldn't be there in the first place. But this being a different sort of war, some people might object to the POW status.


Troops never make this sort of decision anymore than they make the decision to go to war in the first place. It's always politicians.

Aye. But it will be the troops that accomplish the mission.

Surely you agree that they should have the right to fly that banner?

[Azure]

One that's declared by Congress as required in the Constitution. I don't see how this is relevant as I'm not the one arguing there shoudl be different standards for behavior in a war vs a non-war anyway.

Actually that doesn't even matter.


even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.


Perhaps the UN should write a convention regarding illegal combatants, and militias the do not follow the 'rules' of war.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

My personal opinion is that they are. The majority have been captured 'while' fighting against American forces. And if they weren't, they shouldn't be there in the first place. But this being a different sort of war, some people might object to the POW status.

That's the problem. A lot of them weren't and sometimes "there" is where they lived or worked. it's not like there have been designated battlefields drawn and civilians given sufficient warning to clear out. If we were only holding people who had been caught fighting the US and treating them with some minimum of decency while we held them, I wouldn't have much of a problem, but neither of these things are true.

[Azure]

That's the problem. A lot of them weren't and sometimes "there" is where they lived or worked. it's not like there have been designated battlefields drawn and civilians given sufficient warning to clear out. If we were only holding people who had been caught fighting the US and treating them with some minimum of decency while we held them, I wouldn't have much of a problem, but neither of these things are true.

I have a problem with that too.

But, I trust our troops to not randomly gather law-abiding civilians and ship them to Gitmo.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I did trust our troops to do that, until evidence showed that to be a foolish thing to do. It's not all our troops, either. We also have the mercenaries private military contractors to worry about.

[The Atheist]

So Nelson Mandela got put in prison. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans treated Charles Manson?

What could we possibly say to South Africa?

:rolleyes:


When, as always, unable to refute an argument, make up and post the most ludicrous analogy possible.
Glad you've been doing your homework.

[The Atheist]

So the Iranians blindfolded, shackled, isolated, and used psychological pressure on the 15 Brits. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans or the Brits treat "enemy combatants"?

What could we possibly say to Iran? "Only we can declare people enemy combatants and withhold Geneva Conventions protections. You do not have this discretion."

Perphaps things are coming full circle. Perhaps we are seeing the danger of legalizing the suspension of legal and humanitarian protections during wartime. If its ok for the USA to do it...then its also ok for Iran.

Deja vu. I said a very similar thing a few days ago on one of the British prisoner threads.

Goose/gander arguments don't apply.

[The Atheist]

I have a problem with that too.

But, I trust our troops to not randomly gather law-abiding civilians and ship them to Gitmo.


Yeah, well the troops have proven so trustworthy to date, so I can see why you're so satisfied.

Those trustworthy blokes wouldn't ever rape and murder anyone, or blow up a wedding party because someone crapped their pants when a few rifles were fired. It's just marvellous that they're so trustworthy that they always check their targets prior to firing so they don't kill a whole load of blokes on their own side.

Get off'n their case, Ace. These blokes have been chosen by god's earthly messenger to fight the Crusade War on Islam Terror.

[Azure]

Yeah, well the troops have proven so trustworthy to date, so I can see why you're so satisfied.

Those trustworthy blokes wouldn't ever rape and murder anyone, or blow up a wedding party because someone crapped their pants when a few rifles were fired. It's just marvellous that they're so trustworthy that they always check their targets prior to firing so they don't kill a whole load of blokes on their own side.

Get off'n their case, Ace. These blokes have been chosen by god's earthly messenger to fight the Crusade War on Islam Terror.

God.

Stereotype much?

UN troops rape women and children too....oh wait...

[Azure]

I did trust our troops to do that, until evidence showed that to be a foolish thing to do. It's not all our troops, either. We also have the mercenaries private military contractors to worry about.

All of whom are former military personnel, and some of whom I know personally and would call my close friends.

I guess you have to rely on such people when the government cuts funds and fires field agents that did what the mercenaries are doing now.

[The Atheist]

God.

Stereotype much?

UN troops rape women and children too....oh wait...


No stereotype involved - you were saying they were trustworthy. Probably most of them are, but the unthinking generalisation was all yours.

[Tony]

#4. Parky is an idiot.


:id::id::id::id:

[Ziggurat]

I am asking hwo we determine when we're at war and when it's over

Congress decides that in whatever manner they feel is appropriate.

and who is our enemy and who is a civilian.

Military tribunals authorized by congress make that determination for detainees.

[Azure]

No stereotype involved - you were saying they were trustworthy. Probably most of them are, but the unthinking generalisation was all yours.

And most of them are trustworthy, just like I said.

[Beerina]

Nor does insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms' on them,

I will continue to say this: Stopping a dictator from lording over you is not "imposing freedom" on someone any more than killilng a bank robber holding a teller hostage and threatening to kill her is "imposing freedom" on the bank teller.

How dare you impose freedom on me! And it's curious this feeling we shouldn't impose freedom on people always comes out of the mouths of people free and safe in the West.

And if I were a person living in a dictatorship, I might understand if a free nation didn't want to go to war with my dictator to free me, for practical reasons. But if I heard a free person wringing their hands, wondering if they had the "right" to free me, I would feel something akin to a mixture of deep hatred and vile contempt for them.

when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources (which is, after all, and [I]as any fule kno, why all wars are started - to strengthen and perpetuate the initiating society's rulers' grip on power and wealth).

As a subject of a country that used to do both of the above, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it.

With Cuba, the US did the right thing -- refused to deal with the dictator. And paid the price as they went to the USSR instead and suddenly Castro decided to be communist, which he was not when he made his initial forays and appeals to the US.

So is it ethical to prefer dictators friendly to us if there are going to be dictators there anyway? I don't know. And you wring your hands about freeing them, anyway, so what do you care? Not buy their oil, which will make it onto the free, international market anyway, and thus lower your prices anyway, even if indirectly?

Now if you want to suggest the West should band together and apply pressures to said dictatorships to increase freedoms, then I'd be all for it, especially now that there's no USSR for the dictators to "switch sides" to.

[Beerina]

Zig- the London bombers and the Madrid bombers are not in Guantanamo. They are dead. But the copycat bombers are on trial and this is a good thing. They will be convincted but they will have the right to defend themselves and actual evidence will be presented against them. I hope this is the same outcome with the folks at GITMO.

You understand that the first World Trade Center bombing, treated as a criminal case, is considered to be a failure point that lead to 9/11? It's precisely because it was treated "only" as a criminal case, rather than an act of war, that insufficient resources were applied to preventing it in the future.*

* Which isn't to say protections aren't necessary, nor that it must be a military response rather than a CIA/spy/diplomatic type response.

[Beerina]

One way it's different is that Iran released the Brits after about 2 weeks, while we still hold hundreds of people we captured up to 4 years ago.

Grouping by non-essentials for rhetorical purposes.

Rhetoric aside, the Brits weren't actually in Iranian water. Furthermore, the activities the Brits were up to weren't directed against Iran.

[Beerina]

Perhaps the UN should write a convention regarding illegal combatants, and militias the do not follow the 'rules' of war.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't hold out hope for several decades. Experience with the international war crimes stuff shows there are lots of international people much more interested in twisting it to make the US look bad rather than make an honest attempt at dealing with the issue.

[Azure]

Perhaps, but I wouldn't hold out hope for several decades. Experience with the international war crimes stuff shows there are lots of international people much more interested in twisting it to make the US look bad rather than make an honest attempt at dealing with the issue.

Plus, it would make the UN seem useful, something that will never happen.

[Art Vandelay]

No, actually your quote shows that you cannot read.

The piece of mine that you quoted clearly refers to American actions.That's an outright falsehood. You said

Iran does NOT swan around the globe telling other countries what to do and calling itself 'the Land of the Free'.

Nor does it insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms' on them, when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources

Now you're trying to pretend that this doesn't refer to Iran?

You, on the other hand, said that I was saying that Oil was Iran's motivation in the Iran-Iraq war, no doubt to try to muddy the waters yet again.No, I am saying that you are implying that oil WASN'T one of Iran's motivations. Clearly, you're the one with the reading comprehension problem.

Right, so I have to cite evidence for anything and everything that you disagree with, whereas you can just throw personal insults at your opponents, invariably demand proof from them, and don't have to provide any evidence whatever to support your viewpoint?Don'ttry to pretend that there's a double standard. You have shown yourself to be arguing in bad faith (the fact that you are pretending that I haven't presented any evidence to support my views is simply more proof of that), and therefore there is little sense in wasting time producing evidence that you're just going to ignore, nor is there any reason to accept anything you say without proof. Furthermore, I'm not the one who made this personal. My comments were in response to your extremely rude posts.

I asked that question of your fellow-traveller Azure,Fellow traveler? You sure are quick to lump other peopl into categories, aren't you?

and he has ducked it twice - you merely jumped in an attempt to distract readers from the fact...Yes, that's right. I posted merely to distract readers from the subject that YOU wanted to discuss. The entire universe revolves around you.
:rolleyes:

Well, let's see - Azure won't answer the question, and apparently you won't either.No, I can't, because the question is based on a false premise.

Hmm, let's see - I offer you more proof than has ever been offered by the Cheney regime to justify its illegal actions What proof have you offered that they were in Iranian waters?

- or indeed by you and your fellow-travellers on their side - and you just say "that doesn't count!", rather than offering any shred of evidence to discredit what I have offered.There's nothing to discredit. Claiming that someone has done something, then, when challenged on it, wasting other people's time presenting a cite that merely shows motive, shows that you're not worth responding to.