Author Topic: how can we imprison people without evidence?  (Read 2535 times)

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #60 on: January 03, 2005, 02:09:56 PM »
Holding people without evidence? wtf...
They pick up some guy living next door to a terrorist and then keep him locked for as long as they want and never knowing if the guy had anything to do with the terrorist(s)?

How lopsided is that....

How the hell do they even know without evidence they were some sort of criminals?
Some cab driver gets picked up and whops... "lets keep him locked just in case"

This sort of stuff isn't making the USA any better than the dictators they've fought against.
Let alone those laughable prison torture convictions, where wasn't a single one of the high brass accused, who ordered it.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2005, 02:12:05 PM by Fishu »

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #61 on: January 03, 2005, 02:15:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by milnko

The Constitution and Bill of Rights must be obeyed by it's own people or else it's ideals become meaningless.

So if we wish to circumnavigate our own legal system, we should turn them over to UK and let them run the terrorists through their judicial system.


FWIW, I'm not certain that there is anything within the Bill of Rights that limits it to U.S. citizens.
sand

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #62 on: January 03, 2005, 03:35:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
You quoted me like this: "The fact that routine torture of prisoners is under investigation is worrying enough", and asked me where I did get my information from. I answered you by giving you my source, namely Thomas Harrington of the FBI who informed the public about the ongoing investigation into multiple cases of abuse and torture of prisoners being used routinely at Guantanamo, reported by FBI personnel stationed there.

If you still don't get it you're a world-class twit.


Simply PROVE IT.  You stated that these ARE facts and they ARE routine based on FBI memos you read.  Well what memos did you read brainiac?

Quote
LOL .... so... are foreigners most of the time terrorists or not always ?


or most of the time terrorists are foreigners.....but not allways.  read it how you wish.

Quote
ummm actualy what gives you right or duty to judge people who doesnt belong to any other national army and fighting with agressor, who attacked them at their home land ?


If they are an enemy of my nation or attacked members of our armed forces then we have every right to hold them and judge them.

And don't give me this crap about invaders of their homland aggressors junk.  Most of the terrorist being held in Cuba are not even afgani.

Quote
may be you can name me some other countrieS, whitch are doing the same...... or even worster things with the people who fought agains them while they were occupied


why bother?  with you it would have to be a foreign news source written in farsi ONLY published by religious fundamentalist in order for you to beleive it.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #63 on: January 03, 2005, 03:39:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fishu
Holding people without evidence? wtf...
They pick up some guy living next door to a terrorist and then keep him locked for as long as they want and never knowing if the guy had anything to do with the terrorist(s)?

How lopsided is that....

How the hell do they even know without evidence they were some sort of criminals?
Some cab driver gets picked up and whops... "lets keep him locked just in case"

This sort of stuff isn't making the USA any better than the dictators they've fought against.
Let alone those laughable prison torture convictions, where wasn't a single one of the high brass accused, who ordered it.


well how many non-terrorists cab drivers have been picked up and held without evidence or trial?

Most of the people that this is referring to are enemy combatents picked up in afganistan while fighting US and coalition forces their.  Lets say for the sake of argument that these are treated as POWs.  are you going to release them back into the Army that you are currently fighting so that you can fight them some more?

If the answer is yes I have a bridge next to some ocean front property in arizona I'd like to sell ya.....dirt cheap!

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #64 on: January 03, 2005, 04:17:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
You complete cretin. I said it was a fact that it is being investigated.


The fact that my brother heard my cousin tell my sister's friend's nephew that Norway is the armpit of the world is scary enough.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #65 on: January 03, 2005, 04:46:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
You complete cretin. I said it was a fact that it is being investigated.


It's not a fact until an investigation and then a trial prove it to be fact. Until then its just allegations. :D
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #66 on: January 03, 2005, 05:12:46 PM »
From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

Quote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

In uniform: Wear distinctive clothing making them recognizable as soldiers from a distance.
Openly bearing arms: Carrying guns or small arms and not concealing them.
Under officers: Obedient to a chain of command ending in a political leader or government.
Fighting according to the laws of war: Not committing atrocities or crimes, not deliberately attacking civilians or engaging in terrorism.
A combatant who has surrendered or been captured becomes a prisoner of war.

A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a lawful combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war. Such persons should be treated according to applicable civilian laws (if any). In practice they may be tortured or executed.
 


These guys we are talking about are not subject to the laws of war (because they were not following the laws themselves).  They are lucky to still be breathing.  IMO the US should have already executed them as terrorists.

Hooligan

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #67 on: January 03, 2005, 06:01:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz

Also you claim to know what they did or did not do in combat. Do you really know the details of their actions and capture?


no more than you do, but it didn't stop you from having an opinion.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #68 on: January 03, 2005, 06:02:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Hooligan, that quote is downright misleading. There are a lot of qualifiers, and a lot of disqualifiers. Read the actual convention instead.

Also you claim to know what they did or did not do in combat. Do you really know the details of their actions and capture?


Do you KNOW?  Oh yea you know its a FACT they it's being investigated.  I have an Idea.  Maybe they have evidence to hold the majority of the people at gitmo to convict them in a civilian court.  The rest committed hanus acts that can't be discussed because of nation security risks and they themselves are a risk to national security.  There GS.....now its a FACT that somone thinks there's evidence and justification to hold the prisoners at gitmo indefininately.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #69 on: January 03, 2005, 06:04:51 PM »
Quote
A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:


He leaves out a fifth:

Article4, clause 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.

If an Afghan heard the Americans were coming, took his rifle, and started taking pot shots out of his bedroom window, he is entitled to prisoner of war status upon capture.

If he did the same the day after the Americans had arrived, he isn't.

Quote
A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a lawful combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war.


This is completely and utterly wrong.

If he doesn't qualify as a POW, he is a civilian, entitled to protection under the (Fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War)

The Fourth Convention has specific clauses relating to a person not in uniform carrying out warlike acts.

In particular:

Quote
Article 5

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.


Note how, even if they have carried out hostile acts, they are still calssified as protected persons under the convention.

Quote
Article 68

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that, since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Article 70

Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.

Nationals of the Occupying Power who, before the outbreak of hostilities, have sought refuge in the territory of the occupied State, shall not be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or deported from the occupied territory, except for offences committed after the outbreak of hostilities, or for offences under common law committed before the outbreak of hostilities which, according to the law of the occupied State, would have justified extradition in time of peace.

Article 71

No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial.

Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible. The Protecting Power shall be informed of all proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons in respect of charges involving the death penalty or imprisonment for two years or more; it shall be enabled, at any time, to obtain information regarding the state of such proceedings. Furthermore, the Protecting Power shall be entitled, on request, to be furnished with all particulars of these and of any other proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons.

Article 72

Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.

Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.

Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court. They shall have the right at any time to object to the interpreter and to ask for his replacement.

Article 73

A convicted person shall have the right of appeal provided for by the laws applied by the court. He shall be fully informed of his right to appeal or petition and of the time limit within which he may do so.

Article 75

In no case shall persons condemned to death be deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve.

No death sentence shall be carried out before the expiration of a period of at least six months from the date of receipt by the Protecting Power of the notification of the final judgment confirming such death sentence, or of an order denying pardon or reprieve.

The six months period of suspension of the death sentence herein prescribed may be reduced in individual cases in circumstances of grave emergency involving an organized threat to the security of the Occupying Power or its forces, provided always that the Protecting Power is notified of such reduction and is given reasonable time and opportunity to make representations to the competent occupying authorities in respect of such death sentences.

Article 76

Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.

They shall receive the medical attention required by their state of health.

They shall also have the right to receive any spiritual assistance which they may require.

Women shall be confined in separate quarters and shall be under the direct supervision of women.

Proper regard shall be paid to the special treatment due to minors.

Protected persons who are detained shall have the right to be visited by delegates of the Protecting Power and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in accordance with the provisions of Article 143.

Such persons shall have the right to receive at least one relief parcel monthly.

Article 77

Protected persons who have been accused of offences or convicted by the courts in occupied territory shall be handed over at the close of occupation, with the relevant records, to the authorities of the liberated territory.


The Geneva Convention goes into a lot of detail about what can be done to civilians who engage in attacks on occupying forces. How that equates to them not being protected, when there is so much in the convention about exactly how they may be treated, I don't know.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #70 on: January 03, 2005, 07:57:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Undoubtedly. But I give far more credence to the statements of Mr. Harrington, than to those uttered by a twit on the intardnet.



Odd.  I was just going to apply that to you.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #71 on: January 03, 2005, 08:41:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Undoubtedly. But I give far more credence to the statements of Mr. Harrington, than to those uttered by a twit on the intardnet.


odd that through investigation those assume guilt.  What's funny though is a twit just made you look like a fool.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #72 on: January 03, 2005, 09:42:35 PM »
Gunslinger,

Don't waste any time on Vidkun schultz. He doesn't need any help in proving he is a fool. If you notice he posts when he can make a negative comment towards the US. He has nothing positive to add to a discussion. All he wants to do is criticise, not discuss. His tactic is to claim allegations or investigations indicate proof. As has already been stated, an allegation or even investigation does not prove that wrongdoing has happened. Vidkun would be far more comfortable with collaboration anyhow.

For what it's worth, a trial doesn't provide proof either given the ability to sway juries on the basis of inuendo or emotionalism versus evidence.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #73 on: January 03, 2005, 10:58:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Most of the people that this is referring to are enemy combatents picked up in afganistan while fighting US and coalition forces their.  Lets say for the sake of argument that these are treated as POWs.  are you going to release them back into the Army that you are currently fighting so that you can fight them some more?
 


Ummh.... wouldn't the evidence then exist in a case where the guy has been picked up during a fight? :rolleyes:

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
how can we imprison people without evidence?
« Reply #74 on: January 04, 2005, 12:19:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fishu
Ummh.... wouldn't the evidence then exist in a case where the guy has been picked up during a fight? :rolleyes:


which makes me think that the thread title is unfounded or at least a rare occurance.  Hopfully due to an oversight.