Author Topic: Too freekin Bad (Read 1520 times)

weaselsan · « **Reply #30 on:** March 13, 2004, 08:55:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Weaselsan, your "rank and serial number" criteria is about the most ignorant thing I have seen posted yet on this bbs. The Geneva Convention is pretty inclusive when it comes to defining who has the right to POW status.

Lets make this post offical...read this very slowly and carefully so you can retain it.

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

NUKE · « **Reply #31 on:** March 13, 2004, 09:03:32 PM »

to the USA

~~to the people of Guantanamo!~~

-tronski- · « **Reply #32 on:** March 13, 2004, 09:05:39 PM »

Pei has pretty much said it all...

Anyone who has any doubts should look at the Bali terrorists...scum like Amrozi and his compatriots were tried in open court and justice was served.

Tronsky

NUKE · « **Reply #33 on:** March 13, 2004, 09:21:10 PM »

I'm just happy we have Guantanamo

Sandman · « **Reply #34 on:** March 13, 2004, 09:53:33 PM »

Yeah... I'm happy we have the drug war too.

...and the Patriot Act.

...and John Ashcroft.

~~...and cancer. The world would be more crowded without cancer.~~

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 13, 2004, 11:04:19 PM »

Just to clear everything up, but this guy wasn't released because he was innocent.

They released him because they didn't have enough to convict him.

Sandman · « **Reply #36 on:** March 13, 2004, 11:10:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Just to clear everything up, but this guy wasn't released because he was innocent.

They released him because they didn't have enough to convict him.

I'm sure the difference will make Pei feel all warm and cuddly.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 13, 2004, 11:16:53 PM »

I'm just saying, don't go all flocking to his side because he went to the media and told a few tall tales.

Pongo · « **Reply #38 on:** March 14, 2004, 01:34:24 AM »

The far secondary object of detaining them was proving thier guilt. The primary purpose was to break the terror networks. He was not on trial. He was a person suspected of being an enemy of the US in war. So he was detained and interrogated for that purpose. I just aggree that he was behaving very suspiciosly post 9/11.

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #39 on:** March 14, 2004, 01:42:29 AM »

My head hurts and I have a sore throat. Time for salt-water gargle, tea with lemon and a nappy.

Replicant · « **Reply #40 on:** March 14, 2004, 06:13:27 AM »

Weaslesan, if all the users on this forum tipped the FBI off and said that you were a terrorist, would you be happy spending 2 years locked away without any trial? The problem with being detained without trial is that it's simply one persons word against anothers without clear obvious proof.

Whether the persons held are guilty or not, there has been no trial to convict them and if they were guilty then why were they not prosecuted immediately?

And before you say, we've been living with terrorist threats for over 30 years and we are sympathetic to those who suffer from them. (imagine our thoughts when IRA terrorists used to get funded by Irish Americans and nothing was done about it. It wasn't until 911 when terrorists/freedom fighters were alienated).

weaselsan · « **Reply #41 on:** March 14, 2004, 10:46:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Replicant
Weaslesan, if all the users on this forum tipped the FBI off and said that you were a terrorist, would you be happy spending 2 years locked away without any trial? The problem with being detained without trial is that it's simply one persons word against anothers without clear obvious proof.

Whether the persons held are guilty or not, there has been no trial to convict them and if they were guilty then why were they not prosecuted immediately?

And before you say, we've been living with terrorist threats for over 30 years and we are sympathetic to those who suffer from them. (imagine our thoughts when IRA terrorists used to get funded by Irish Americans and nothing was done about it. It wasn't until 911 when terrorists/freedom fighters were alienated).

1.We don't detain on a simple acusation...2.Funding IRA (terrorists) is illegal, anyone doing that are terrorists themselves..3. Anyone who refers to terrorist scum as a freedom fighter deserves no response from me.

ravells · « **Reply #42 on:** March 14, 2004, 01:38:10 PM »

If what the suspect says was true he was extremely unlucky. First to be captured by the Taliban and considered a spy and then to be detained by the allies and treated as a potential terrorist.

Weasel makes a good point on the question of disclosing evidence in cases against terrorists and this is something which the UK has had to grapple with for many years when trying suspected IRA members. In order to attempt to get as fair a trial as possible under the circumstances witnesses would be able to testify anonymously, certain documents could only be disclosed to the judge and some hearings were held in camera (without the public having the right to be present). The point is that there are methods to have trials for suspected terrorists in which the prosecution does not have to compromise national security - they may not be as open as trials for say, shoplifters, but at least there is a trial.

That is not what is happening in Gitmo. I think this is because the purpose of Gitmo is not as a 'holding pen' for people awaiting trial, it is to gather intelligence.

I feel extremely sorry for innocent individuals at Gitmo who were in the wrong place at the wrong time but where intelligence is urgently required to address an immediate problem, then it has to be a price worth paying. We all know that it is just a matter of time before another atrocity is visited on civilians in the west. If holding a handful of people under questionable legal justification helps to prevent that, then I have no problem with it.

I say, good job America on this one.

Ravs

-dead- · « **Reply #43 on:** March 14, 2004, 03:44:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Lets make this post offical...read this very slowly and carefully so you can retain it.

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

If you win on that point, it would just mean that they're civilians according to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:

Quote

Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

And that means that moving them to Gitmo is very naughty indeed:

Quote

Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Coolridr · « **Reply #44 on:** March 14, 2004, 04:50:54 PM »

Beaten for 12 hours at a time..I wonder what the interrogators watch rotation was..standard 4 hours at a time or 6? It would be awfully tiring beating scum for 12 hours.