[iWrite]

Read here.

What do you think of keeping human beings caged up indefinitely without concrete evidence of their supposed crimes? Isn't this anti-American? Do you agree with it or disagree?

[eklipse]

More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ma/3122416.stm

I spent 13 months in jail. My life is ruined. I experienced all the bitterness of life. Why? For which
crime? I'd heard that in America or Europe when they arrest someone, they have proof. I saw none of that.
I was just driving. Arrested and taken to prison. My hands were tied behind my back. they put a sack over
my head and took me away in a helicopter.

........

They put cuffs and tape on my hands, taped my eyes and taped my ears. They gagged me. They
put chains on my legs and chains around my belly. They injected me. I was unconscious. I don’t know
how they transported me. When I arrived in Cuba and they took me off the plane they gave another
injection and I came back to consciousness. I did not know how long the plane was flying for. It might
have been one day or two days. They put me onto a bed on wheels. I could sense what was going on. They
tied me up. They took me off the plane into a vehicle. We go to a big prison and there were cages there.
They built it like a zoo.

........

Each container housed 48 cages. Everyone was in a cage individually. Every cage had a tap, a
toilet and water for washing. There was room to sit but not enough to pray. We were praying with
difficulty. My joints were damaged. The light was very bright there as well. They were switched on all the
time. Because of that our eyes were damaged and from constantly having to look through the netting.
There were other blocks and we were not allowed to speak to the people on the other blocks. If we talked
to them, they would draw the curtains and they would take or bedding and blankets and they wouldn't give
them back for three days. We would just have our towels to sit on.

What is it that America is fighting to protect again?

[iWrite]

What is truly amazing is that the rest of the world -- and Americans -- are ignoring the fact that we are treating human beings this way!

It's as though these people are subhuman and do not really exist.

In reality, though, they have no one to fight for them because they have no government to fight for them. There is no body of people to say, "They have our citizens unlawfully."

It is really wrong -- Ashcroft is behind this (and probably Rumsfeld) -- and it is abhorrent to me, personally.

No one has been able to tell me why or how this can be justified. All it does for me is strengthen my belief that this administration is castrating the basic rights of many human beings without a second thought.

This is a dangerous government we have in place.

[macvillage.net]

Yet we bitch and moan when our troops are captured.

We insist that the Geneva convention covers them.

Yet we insist we can do whatever we want with whom we catch.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by eklipse:
More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ma/3122416.stm


What is it that America is fighting to protect again?

The freedom of Americans.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The freedom of Americans.

Not according to Bush:

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom.

History has called our nation into action. History has placed a great challenge before us: Will America -- with our unique position and power -- blink in the face of terror, or will we lead to a freer, more civilized world? There's only one answer: This great country will lead the world to safety, security, peace and freedom.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Not according to Bush:

You must remember Bush is a politician. Hence doesn't speak the truth, but what his audience wants to hear.

[Uday's Carcass]

You infidels must establish a basis before debating further. There are two paths one can take, which will lead to two very different answers.

1. the losers at Gitmo are covered under the geneva convention and deserve to be released when hostilities cease between the US and Taliban.

2. they are not because they are foreign, unlawful combatants--foreign fighters who came to afghanistan to defend the Taliban, an enemy of the United States. Taliban fighters are serving jail terms (or have been released) in Afghanistan. The foreign fighters are being held at gitmo.

so establish your position and move from there, soft-minded infidels.
************************************
I take the track that they are NOT entitled to anything (apart from semi-humane treatment). But prison is rough, so if their ears are taped or they're yelled at (boo-hoo, a terrorist has his feelings hurt), so be it.

[AutoJC]

Guantanamo Bay Prisoners: How Long Do We Keep Them?

The sharks in the Florida Strait and Caribbean Sea are hungry. It's time we fed them.

[Spliffdaddy]

Release them?

heck no.

It's far too dangerous to let 'em go back home. They might get killed there.

Still, I don't see how you can say those prisoners are suffering. Nobody mentioned having to choose between drinking out of a showerhead or the toilet. And their hillbilly ass never shared a jail cell with a gargantuan black inmate named Dwight.

I'd have swapped places with any of those gitmo prisoners. Sounds like a vacation resort when compared to the facilities Sumner County Tennessee has to offer.

"Of course it's cold. Fifty-six degrees, give or take. Extends the life of the concrete. Saves the taxpayers money." - Deputy Sheriff in Sumner County

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
I take the track that they are NOT entitled to anything (apart from semi-humane treatment). But prison is rough, so if their ears are taped or they're yelled at (boo-hoo, a terrorist has his feelings hurt), so be it.

And what of the innocents who have wasted in prison for months - whose only crime would appear to have been 'being Afghani'?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
You infidels must establish a basis before debating further. There are two paths one can take, which will lead to two very different answers.

1. the losers at Gitmo are covered under the geneva convention and deserve to be released when hostilities cease between the US and Taliban.

2. they are not because they are foreign, unlawful combatants--foreign fighters who came to afghanistan to defend the Taliban, an enemy of the United States. Taliban fighters are serving jail terms (or have been released) in Afghanistan. The foreign fighters are being held at gitmo.

so establish your position and move from there, soft-minded infidels.
************************************
I take the track that they are NOT entitled to anything (apart from semi-humane treatment). But prison is rough, so if their ears are taped or they're yelled at (boo-hoo, a terrorist has his feelings hurt), so be it.

In either case. It goes both ways.

Why was detaining one of our soldiers a violation of International law (or so the US claimed). Yet we can hold them indefinately.

Either way, there was double speak. Something the US government needs to clear up.

The US claimed in both Iraq and Afganistan that it's soldiers could not be held by the enemy.

In both cases it claimed it could hold the enemy indefinately.

Where in International law is this double standard written?

[christ]

"Guantanamo Bay Prisoners: How Long Do We Keep Them?"

Until Bush is out of office.

Bush is clueless as to what to do with them.

Spliff, JC and their fellow red-necks couldn't care, the prisoners are foreign, and therefore the lowest form of life.

The next President will release them under an amnesty, either as a mark of goodwill (if he/she is Republican) or to spite Bush (if he/she is a Democrat).

[macvillage.net]

Bush ideally would like to take them to Texas an execute them.

But still to many Democrats around to allow that to happen.

[iWrite]

Seriously, I REALLY want to know: What did these people DO to end up there?

As far as people in Tennessee in jail I daresay that the majority of those people DESERVED it...they DO get to converse with each other...they DO get an attorney...they DO get to call or speak to their families...they DO get a bigger cell than what is described in Guantanamo.

I don't see how anyone can state, without feeling ashamed, that those prisoners are there for legitimate reasons...they're not.

If they are there for legitimate reasons then let's hear those reasons, you know?

[christ]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Seriously, I REALLY want to know: What did these people DO to end up there?...

They fought against the US.

The problem is that the US shouldn't have been there in the first place, and so have no legal grounds to do anything with the prisoners that they took. Therefore, they are doing nothing with them, making them into a problem for Bush's successor, thus my last post.

[macvillage.net]

I'm sure part of this is true Republican Democrat bickering.

No Democrat wants to deal with this mess. No matter what they do with these guys... it's bad PR for them.

Republicans know that. So if Bush were to loose the next election... he can just leave it to the next president to deal with... hence they have material for the next scum campaign during the election.



It's a loose loose situation regardless. This way, at least someone benefits.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by christ:
They fought against the US.

The problem is that the US shouldn't have been there in the first place,

ahhh, now your true position comes out. You disagree with US actions in Afghanistan. It's very simple, and is very Pearl-Harbor like in the scenario.

1. Threat attacks and kills thousands of Americans.
2. Threat's base and area of support is identified.
3. Military actions in self-defense are undertaken to avenge lives lost and protect the lives of other Americans from allowing so strong a threat to continue and proliferate.

How you can say that allowing Al Queda and the Taliban (for supporting Queda, even after given the chance to assist the US) is unconscionable. You are nothing more than an enormous pacifist whose weakling ideology would do nothing more than invite more attacks and make Americans nauseous at the thought your your cowardly stance.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's a loose loose situation

that's lose lose. A common mistake that third-graders make.

[christ]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
ahhh, now your true position comes out. You disagree with US actions in Afghanistan....

Yes

1. Threat attacks and kills thousands of Americans.
2. Threat's base and area of support is identified.
3. Military actions in self-defense are undertaken to avenge lives lost and protect the lives of other Americans from allowing so strong a threat to continue and proliferate...

1. Threat attacks and kills thousands and themselves in suicide terrorist mission. Group (Al Qaeda) and Boss (OBL) Identified

2. Anyone that can be retaliated against is identified, particularly someone who has few friends and is not likely to be supported by anyone else, i.e. Taliban.

3. Military actions are undertaken in which Group is not destroyed, and leader is completely missed. Taliban are (in contravention of International Law) ousted from legitimate power in their country. You meant 'revenge' not 'avenge', although neither concept has any legal legitimacy. And what on earth has this action done to 'protect the lives of other Americans'?

How you can say that allowing Al Queda and the Taliban (for supporting Queda, even after given the chance to assist the US) is unconscionable.

say it? I don't even understand it!

You are nothing more than an enormous pacifist whose weakling ideology would do nothing more than invite more attacks and make Americans nauseous at the thought your your cowardly stance.

I am not enormous.

I am not a pacifist.

I certainly would not invite more attacks (although America's actions do)

And I couldn't care less how nauseous American warmongering cretins get at having their noses rubbed in their irrectitude.

And I am not a coward.

And your user name is silly. And your 'infidel' act is insulting. And silly.

Na nee na nee na na.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
How you can say that allowing Al Queda and the Taliban (for supporting Queda, even after given the chance to assist the US) is unconscionable. You are nothing more than an enormous pacifist whose weakling ideology would do nothing more than invite more attacks and make Americans nauseous at the thought your your cowardly stance.

How does the necessity to exterminate al-Qaeda justify the inhumane treatment of hundreds of Afghanis - many of them innocents - in a camp, in Cuba?

Where is the cowardice in caring about human rights?


....and, that's 'of your' not, 'your your'. A common mistake that third-graders make.

[moki]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Read here.

What do you think of keeping human beings caged up indefinitely without concrete evidence of their supposed crimes? Isn't this anti-American? Do you agree with it or disagree?

I think we hold them until we no longer believe they are a danger. If that takes life, then it takes life. Remember, these are people who were caught out in the battlefield, and people who have been organizing terroristic activities.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
3. Military actions in self-defense are undertaken to avenge lives lost and protect the lives of other Americans from allowing so strong a threat to continue and proliferate.

Except the guy you think responsible is still sitting in his little cave, eating bread and growing poppy plants whilst planning more attacks against America.

Do you really believe America is any safer now than it was before?

[moki]

Originally posted by christ:
They fought against the US.

The problem is that the US shouldn't have been there in the first place, and so have no legal grounds to do anything with the prisoners that they took. Therefore, they are doing nothing with them, making them into a problem for Bush's successor, thus my last post.

The US should not have been in Afghanistan? Please. That's utterly ridiculous.

We were attacked on 9/11 by perpetrators who were dwelling in Afghanistan. Bush gave the Taliban a number of chances to hand over the terrorists, but it was clearly not going to happen.

We had every right to go on there, and just about every country on the planet agreed at the time, and assisted in one way or another.

Your position is fairly untenable.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Remember, these are people who were caught out in the battlefield, and people who have been organizing terroristic activities.

.....or driving taxis?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
I think we hold them until we no longer believe they are a danger. If that takes life, then it takes life. Remember, these are people who were caught out in the battlefield, and people who have been organizing terroristic activities.

Are you serious? this is unbelievable.
I have watched and read many reports about the circumstances under which those prisoners were captured and detained. It is likely that some of them are innocent Those people are having their whole lives destroyed while they sit there for reasons unknown to their captures or themselves. They have no rights, no lawyers, absolutely nothing. Yet if it takes life for the 'officials' then let it? that is disgusting.

So what if they were taken from the battlefield? they have a right to defend themselves. You then say they were organising terrorist activities, how do you know? and that's just it, the assumption is that they are terrorists despite there being absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.

This camp has received widespread condemnation from human rights lawyers and others, yet it is still allowed to exist.

It's sickening.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Are you serious? this is unbelievable.
I have watched and read many reports about the circumstances under which those prisoners were captured and detained. It is likely that some of them are innocent Those people are having their whole lives destroyed while they sit there for reasons unknown to their captures or themselves. They have no rights, no lawyers, absolutely nothing. Yet if it takes life for the 'officials' then let it? that is disgusting.

...and some of them who have been deemed no longer a threat have been released. I expect that to continue to happen.

However, I also expect that some will be there for a very, very long time.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
...and some of them who have been deemed no longer a threat have been released.

After how long?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
So what if they were taken from the battlefield? they have a right to defend themselves.

They were foreign fighters fighting against the United States. They weren't 'taken' as much as captured. These foreign fighters are nothing more than criminals, battlefield gangsters fighting what they think is some righteous Jihad. They have no rights under US laws or under international law. They weren't drafted, as they chose to come to Afghanistan and fight and defend terrorists and a regime of torture, oppression, and brutality. They sealed their fate the moment they took up arms against the United States.

Think of it as a jail term determined by the military (since no laws apply to these unlawful combatants). What's the civilian equivalent for murder, attempted murder, assault, or supporting terrorism? Lengthy prison terms. They're only on Year Two of their sentence. hahah!

[lil'babykitten]

:sigh:

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
They were foreign fighters fighting against the United States.

No see the US was the foreign invader. Therefore the Afghanis were defending their territory.

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
These foreign fighters are nothing more than criminals, battlefield gangsters fighting what they think is some righteous Jihad.

You don't know that, neither to those that have thrown them in this camp.

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
They have no rights under US laws or under international law.

Wrong. Every human being has rights. The ones in question now are every individuals right to a fair trial. The US is in violation of their rights.

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Think of it as a jail term determined by the military (since no laws apply to these unlawful combatants). What's the civilian equivalent for murder, attempted murder, assault, or supporting terrorism? Lengthy prison terms. They're only on Year Two of their sentence.

The term 'unlawful combatant' means nothing to anyone.
Let me explain the difference between a civilian serving time for murder and the guys sitting in Guantanamo. The civilian has been tried and found guilty of murder thus he is in prison. The guy in Guantanimo has not undergone any kind of hearing and yet is being treated as if her were guilty .

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No see the US was the foreign invader. Therefore the Afghanis were defending their territory.

You conveniently ignore the point. They aren't afghans, but foreign fighters. They were the invaders. They weren't defending anything of theirs--not their land or (dictatorial) government.

You don't know that, neither to those that have thrown them in this camp.

and you don't know that they aren't.

Every human being has rights. The ones in question now are every individuals right to a fair trial. The US is in violation of their rights.

bonk! wrong. Every human has only basic rights, and then those rights are extended by their respective governments. Humans don't have a right to vote--citizens do. Fair trials for combatants are a luxury in wartime. Since hostilities are ongoing, the US can hold these losers until it deems that trials can be held.

The civilian has been tried and found guilty of murder thus he is in prison. The guy in Guantanimo has not undergone any kind of hearing and yet is being treated as if her were guilty .

They don't deserve a hearing. They're still part of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. There is no innocent-until-proven-guilty here. It's fairly obvious that if you're (1) not afghan, (2) in afghanistan, and (3) found on the battlefield, armed and operating against the US, that you're not exactly playing by any rules. Your fate is sealed. Lesson to others who'd go and fight: don't do it, or you'll wind up rotting in gitmo or, more likely, dead.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Your pompous attitude tells me nothing except that you prefer to know as little as possible, absorbing only that which feeds your disgusting, expanding Blob-like hatred for the US and any justified military action.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
You conveniently ignore the point. They aren't afghans, but foreign fighters. They were the invaders. They weren't defending anything of theirs--not their land or (dictatorial) government. and you don't know that they aren't.



[/b]bonk! wrong. Every human has only basic rights, and then those rights are extended by their respective governments. Humans don't have a right to vote--citizens do. Fair trials for combatants are a luxury in wartime. Since hostilities are ongoing, the US can hold these losers until it deems that trials can be held. [/b]They don't deserve a hearing. They're still part of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. There is no innocent-until-proven-guilty here. It's fairly obvious that if you're (1) not afghan, (2) in afghanistan, and (3) found on the battlefield, armed and operating against the US, that you're not exactly playing by any rules. Your fate is sealed. Lesson to others who'd go and fight: don't do it, or you'll wind up rotting in gitmo or, more likely, dead. Your pompous attitude tells me nothing except that you prefer to know as little as possible, absorbing only that which feeds your disgusting, expanding Blob-like hatred for the US and any justified military action. [/B]

Now why did we demand the release of US Soldiers?

Why can we hold enemies, while they can't?

Where is the US exceptoin clause?

[christ]

Originally posted by moki:
I think we hold them until we no longer believe they are a danger. If that takes life, then it takes life. Remember, these are people who were caught out in the battlefield, and people who have been organizing terroristic activities.

You would. You unfortunately come into the category above noted 'they fought the US, therefore they are guilty'. Of what? Who cares, throw away the key.

The US should not have been there. They (the Gitmo crowd) believed that they were helping to defend the legal authority of a nation. They were supporting the Taliban, not al-Qaeda. The US were fighting the Taliban (not al-Qaeda). The US were wrong.

The US desperately needed someone on whom to take out their anger, and al-Qaeda were too difficult to attack, so the US (and, to our eternal shame, the UK) picked on Afghanistan. Why? Because they were small, weak, foreign, a long way away, and had no allies.

Do you imagine for one moment that the US would have attacked Russia, China, Israel if al-Qaeda were living there? Of course not.

We were attacked on 9/11 by perpetrators who were dwelling in Afghanistan. Bush gave the Taliban a number of chances to hand over the terrorists, but it was clearly not going to happen.

We had every right to go on there, and just about every country on the planet agreed at the time, and assisted in one way or another.

Your position is fairly untenable.

Rubbish.

You were attacked by suicide bombers. This is the worst sort of attack because it gives you no-one to revenge yourselves upon. Others of their group, including possibly their leaders were in Afghanistan, but you didn't get them, you replaced the legitimate government of that country, because you could. How did this help? You felt better. Good for you. Did it reduce the terrorist risk? Not a jot, nor a tittle.

You had no right to go there, but the rest of the planet got out of your way because they understood your need for revenge, and they didn't like the Taliban anyway.

My position is not only tenable, but just.

Yours sucks.

[christ]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
You conveniently ignore the point. They aren't afghans, but foreign fighters. They were the invaders. They weren't defending anything of theirs--not their land or (dictatorial) government. and you don't know that they aren't... [/B]

No. the US were the invaders. The non-Afghan fighteres were invited, by the legitimate government of Afghanistan, to help defend them against an invader. They were defending something of theirs (and yours), that is the right to self-determination.

You are wrong to hold these people.

Your ineloquent dismissal of international law is self-serving junk.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Now why did we demand the release of US Soldiers?

Why can we hold enemies, while they can't?

Where is the US exceptoin clause?

afghan taliban have been released to the custody of the afghan government. some have been freed, others continue to serve prison terms. therefore, afghan taliban holding US solders falls under the geneva convention, just as the US holding afghan taliban fighters. That's how it works, robert.

[nonhuman]

If they were fighting to defend the country/government, even if they are foreigners, so long as they were even so much as openly carrying arms or wearing a headband that identified them as being connected to the fighting forces, then they are protected as lawful combatants under the Geneva Convention, and must now be considered Prisoners of War.

The Geneva Convention sets forward explicit rules as to the treatment of Prisoners of War. The prison camp at Guantanamo Bay doesn't even begin to pretend to observe those rules.

Terrorists may not be protected by the GC (though it is debateable), spies may not be. But anyone who openly carries arms or is otherwise visually identifiable as part of the fighting forces is protected. And people who weren't even involved in the fighting at all, are definitely protected by all sorts of laws.

Maybe not all, but at least some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are being deprived of the rights guaranteed to them by Internation Law. As such, the United States is in violation of those laws, and the administration is guilty of war crimes. If even a single prisoner there meets the standards of the Geneva Convention, Bush (along with others in the administration) is a war criminal.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by christ:
They were defending something of theirs (and yours), that is the right to self-determination.

what they were defending is their 'right' (hah!) to brutalise, torture, and deny the rights of the afghan people. That's what they were defending. In a country that was ran by dictatorial theocrats and no female suffrage, there is no self-determination. Stop spewing that ridiculous and dead-end argument. It reads like a regurgitation (or excrement) from your Taliban fanclub newsletter.

[lil'babykitten]

nonhuman,

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
afghan taliban have been released to the custody of the afghan government. some have been freed, others continue to serve prison terms. therefore, afghan taliban holding US solders falls under the geneva convention, just as the US holding afghan taliban fighters. That's how it works, robert.

We hold some indefinately. Still, months after major conflict has ended.

We denounce the capture of US forces as a violation.

[christ]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
what they were defending is their 'right' (hah!) to brutalise, torture, and deny the rights of the afghan people. That's what they were defending. In a country that was ran by dictatorial theocrats and no female suffrage, there is no self-determination. Stop spewing that ridiculous and dead-end argument. It reads like a regurgitation (or excrement) from your Taliban fanclub newsletter. [/B]

So you don't like the Taliban. Neither do I. What gives you the right to remove them from their legal position as the rightful government of a foreign country?

They had dictatorial theocrats - so what?

There was (and is) no female suffrage - so what?

They were defending ... their 'right' (hah!) to brutalise, torture, and deny the rights of the afghan people - so what?

Remember, this is not the USA, and USA values do not apply.

Your government brutalises unborn children.

Your government kills other human beings by dint of an inhuman 'death penalty'..

Your government holds people without trial, indefinitely.

Do you therefore call for people to invade your country to stop this unjust government?

What the Taliban did in Afghanistan was none of your business. You invaded, unjustly. They defended their land, justly, just as you would have done if the boot were on the other foot. They called for, and got, support from people that believed in their right to self-determination. You (idiotically) called these supporters 'invaders', and imprisoned them, unjustly.

Your position is ridiculous. Mine is right, and just.

That doesn't make the Taliban's position pleasant, and I'm certainly not a supporter, but someone famous once said: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it". You are going out of your way to deny this common sense with your ridiculous vilification of anyone that disagrees with your patently absurd point of view.

IMHO.

[moki]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
We hold some indefinately. Still, months after major conflict has ended.

We denounce the capture of US forces as a violation.

There is a difference -- check the Geneva conventions, and specifically whom they apply to. They do not apply to people who are not wearing a uniform, among other things.

[moki]

Originally posted by christ:
They were supporting the Taliban, not al-Qaeda. The US were fighting the Taliban (not al-Qaeda). The US were wrong.

Nonsense. The majority of the people there are related to al-qaeda, not the Taliban. If we were imprisoning everyone in Gitmo who was related to the Taliban, we'd need a hundred thousand more jail cells. The Taliban fighters were given to the Afghani's to do with what they liked. Most of them were just let go, much to the dismay of many (but certainly not you).

The US desperately needed someone on whom to take out their anger, and al-Qaeda were too difficult to attack, so the US (and, to our eternal shame, the UK) picked on Afghanistan. Why? Because they were small, weak, foreign, a long way away, and had no allies.

right, right. The US just indiscriminately went in and attacked the little guy, right? What an utter crock. They were given the option to give up Osama et al, and they declined -- because they were so intertwined that it wasn't feasible.

BTW, it wasn't just the US and the UK in Afghanistan, it was Canada, Germany, France, and many other countries as well.

Honestly, the revisionism that's going on here is truly astounding.

Do you imagine for one moment that the US would have attacked Russia, China, Israel if al-Qaeda were living there? Of course not.

Russia, China, and Israel would have handed them over. If they didn't, then yes, I believe absolutely the US would have attacked them. I don't think it would ever, ever come to that though, because those regimes weren't actively involved in hiding said people, nor would they protect them.

My position is not only tenable, but just.

Yours sucks.

given that your position involves an extreme amount of revisionism, I'll take that as a compliment.

[MacGorilla]

I don't think we should hold them at Gitmo indefinately. I can't see what good intelligence you can get from someone after ten years, for instance.

[beni]

Originally posted by moki:
I think we hold them until we no longer believe they are a danger. If that takes life, then it takes life. Remember, these are people who were caught out in the battlefield, and people who have been organizing terroristic activities.

Let me ask you this: If I see you in the street doing something illegal (in my opinion). Do you think it is fair that you go to jail indefinetly, with no trial, and no rights?

No?

Well, that is why we have courts. They are designed to figure out if what I (in this case) saw is in fact illigal, and also what I claimed to have seen really took place.

Do you feel that what a 19 year old US soldier claims to have seen is sufficient evidence to lock a human being in a cage whithout a trial, and not even tell them where they are or why?

[moki]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Maybe not all, but at least some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are being deprived of the rights guaranteed to them by Internation Law. As such, the United States is in violation of those laws, and the administration is guilty of war crimes. If even a single prisoner there meets the standards of the Geneva Convention, Bush (along with others in the administration) is a war criminal.

No, they are not "war criminals" they are in violation of the Geneva convention, if true. There is a difference.

I agree with you, though, regular fighters for the Taliban should be subject to the Geneva convention, and I fully support them being treated in accordance to them. In this respect, I disagree with the administration's stance on the matter.

Attempting to sort out who is who, though, is another story.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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

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

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

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

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

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

[macvillage.net]

The United states was key in creating international law.

The way the laws are written, it would be a low ranking soldier carrying out orders who is guilty... not high ranking officials.

This is why the US military is very strict on the wording used when giving orders.


So if that soldier disobeys... he is not a war criminal, but disobeyed orders. Serious offense.

If he obeys. He's a war criminal.


Most countries have modified their methods so that they have the same immunity.

Bush could technically order a nuke launch on London, and not be a war criminal, or violate any international law personally. The "United States" as an entity might though.


Bush himself makes no decisions. He implies his wishes, and others make the decision that matches his wishes.

That way it's not his responsibility.

Every western military in the world does this.

The question with Milosevic is in part... how were his orders stated? Did he directly do it? Or did others do it believing it's what he wanted?

Obvously on a moral level... it's quite different.

[moki]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
So if that soldier disobeys... he is not a war criminal, but disobeyed orders. Serious offense.

If he obeys. He's a war criminal.

**after** a court martial/conviction, yes. People violate laws all of the time, and are never convicted, and thus are not "criminals"

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by moki:
No, they are not "war criminals" they are in violation of the Geneva convention, if true. There is a difference.

The Geneva Convention governs the behavior of nations during war. If you break the laws of war, you're a war criminal, no?

[NYCFarmboy]

I have absolutely no problems with how the prisoners are being treated.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
I think we hold them until we no longer believe they are a danger. If that takes life, then it takes life. Remember, these are people who were caught out in the battlefield, and people who have been organizing terroristic activities.

But.....haven't we determined that Saudis are MORE involved and responsible for 9/11?

are there Saudis in G. Bay?

If so, how many?