Federal Judge rules about Gitmo

[JB88]

Originally posted by TalonX
I can't stand animals, such as the terrorists, depending on the rights, freedoms, and culture of the Americans to defend them.

It's somehow like a criminal using the legal system to sue the prison system.

one little, two little, three little savages.

[patrone]

Thanx for a good post, again, Cobra

[lasersailor184]

You guys don't get it.


For these guys to be treated with any rights, they must be captured wearing their uniform.  They must be part of a military unit to be called a POW or get ANYTHING from the geneva convention.


But they weren't wearing uniforms, so they get jack ****!

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You guys don't get it.


For these guys to be treated with any rights, they must be captured wearing their uniform.  They must be part of a military unit to be called a POW or get ANYTHING from the geneva convention.


But they weren't wearing uniforms, so they get jack ****!

maybe they cant afford uniforms. Kinda hard being a third world country fighting a modern superpower to spend your budget on uniforms.

[lasersailor184]

The VC scrounged together an All black uniform.  Probably cost them 20 cents per outfit.

[john9001]

actualy, according to the Geneva convention they do not need a full uniform, they only need something to identify them as the opposition, even a arm band will do.

have any of you actualy read the Geneva convention?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The VC scrounged together an All black uniform.  Probably cost them 20 cents per outfit.

So your comparing the VC and American military in the 60s/70s in Vietnam to Taliban/AL-Qaidia vs American military presently? the enemies technology has gone nowhere whereas ours is through the roof. The VC was a better match against us in regular combat. These taliban/al-qaidia's wouldnot/do not stand a chance. That is why they dont fight "our way".  But to deny them basic human rights is not IMO "American". Its funny that anybody committing war crimes gets these protections but you dont if your not in a uniform.So you can slaughter millions and be treated fairly once captured just make sure you wear the right uniform.

 I would think an enemy with an AK is pretty identifiable as an enemy soldier. So spies are classified as what? Terrorists? They dont wear uniforms. Spies are routinely responsible for people getting killed yet I dont see any complaints about them not wearing uniforms.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by john9001
actualy, according to the Geneva convention they do not need a full uniform, they only need something to identify them as the opposition, even a arm band will do.

have any of you actualy read the Geneva convention?

Your right they dont.


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:


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

this is one of the 6 categories.

I have no problem with the way we deal with terrorists. I just ask for proof that those being held are indeed that and not something else. I don't need to see, I would just like a board or something to have been set up to decide who is what. not some CIA or interrigator that decides he is gonna hold someone who he/she "cant break". If its so obvious these guys held in GITMO are terrorists this should be no problem.

[Mighty1]

Most if not all were captured on the battlefield. What more proof do you need?

Personally I think this is a military matter and the courts should butt out.

[AWMac]

But to see a Great country as the USA, resort into stoneage cause they wont comply with the coming changes of energy sources, is very tradgic. You rather kill and get your people killed for the sake of one product: The car=freedom?

Spoken rather well....for a clueless idiot.  You are so far out in the land of BS that you actually believe the watermelon you spewlforth.

I bet someday you will receive a "Darwins Award" but as for now your village must be missing their Idiot.

[patrone]

Originally posted by Mighty1
Most if not all were captured on the battlefield. What more proof do you need?

Personally I think this is a military matter and the courts should butt out.

Read the posts.

The protection from the Geneva Convention applies to both POW and civilians during a situation of war. The convention is in 2 parts, one part applies to POW and the other to civilians.
If you are not concidered to be a POW you are a civilian. There is no middle thing.
As prisoners at Gitmo are not  POWs, they are entiteled to a trail by a civilian court, not by a military tribunal.
The US federal court has ruled that this is the case: The Prisoners of Gitmo are civilians according to the Geneva convention and are entiteld to a fair trail.
The Bush administration and Department of Justice does not agree, so the whole issue will go forth to The Supreme Court of USA and the ruling from this court, even the President has to obey.

Thar was all Gentlemen.......Questions?

[lasersailor184]

provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war

The geneva convention is an agreement between civilized nations.  It's pretty much, "We won't kick you in the nuts, you don't kick us in the nuts" type of agreement.

[Lizking]

Actually, Laser, it is an agreement among nations as to what is civilized behavior, and not just among signatories.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by patrone
Read the posts.

The protection from the Geneva Convention applies to both POW and civilians during a situation of war. The convention is in 2 parts, one part applies to POW and the other to civilians.
If you are not concidered to be a POW you are a civilian. There is no middle thing.
As prisoners at Gitmo are not  POWs, they are entiteled to a trail by a civilian court, not by a military tribunal.
The US federal court has ruled that this is the case: The Prisoners of Gitmo are civilians according to the Geneva convention and are entiteld to a fair trail.
The Bush administration and Department of Justice does not agree, so the whole issue will go forth to The Supreme Court of USA and the ruling from this court, even the President has to obey.

Thar was all Gentlemen.......Questions?

I read a lot of it after this post and I have to say I agree with your post here. According to the convention you are one or the other and if you status is undetermined you are then a POW. Now if they want to call these guys criminals so be it but then try them and if they truly are the evidence will show it and then we can hang em or whatever. But not without a trial. To hold them without one would be to say that law and order matter as little to us as it does to them. And we are not like them.

[patrone]

Breaking the Geneva Convention is also known as "War crimes" and "Crimes against humanity" and it reaches up to the whole line of Command, until it hits the very top.

Rumsfield has been accused for theese crimes in Germany and he can not enter this country without getting arrested and put to a trail.