Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: moose on January 02, 2005, 08:59:40 AM
-
just read this off of google news and it amazed me --
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7217367
-
if we don't have evidence to support a trial then how can we hold them?
can someone explain this to me?
-
ummmm hold a terrorist scumbag......or release one back in the wild to re-join the fight against us.
Yea Real tough choice. Of course I beleive US Citizens would be protected by the constitution but these guys are not us citizens and have no more rights than a pack of dogs.
-
If I am not mistaken, these guys were picked up in either Afghanastan or Iraq. They were not wearing military uniforms so under the Geneva convention they can be shot.
Hooligan
-
This isn't the first time an administration has gone to extremes violating the constitution and abusing citizens illegally to support a questionable overseas military expedition. During WW1, Wilson claimed to be acting on behalf of God. The publishers of German language newspapers were imprisoned. A US congressman was imprisoned for speaking out against the administration. A traveling salesman was murdered on suspicion of spreading influenza as part of a biological warfare plot by the Central powers.
There are many chilling parallels between that era and ours today. The only thing that gives me reassurance is that we survived that time, and that implies that we will survive this time as well.
Tom
-
I like the idea that this is actually a cover for a new power source that harnesses electricity from the spinning graves of our founding fathers.
-
have you hugged a terrorist today?
-
Of course I beleive US Citizens would be protected by the constitution
Jose Padilla is still in custody, still hasn't been charged with a crime, and is starting again at the lowest rung of the court system after the supreme court didn't order his release on technical grounds.
He's been in custody for over 2.5 years, most of it in military custody without access to a lawyer.
He's a US citizen, arrested in the US.
-
If I am not mistaken, these guys were picked up in either Afghanastan or Iraq. They were not wearing military uniforms so under the Geneva convention they can be shot.
No, if they were not wearing uniforms they are not protected by the Geneva Convention on the treeatment of prisoners of war, unless they qualify under other criteria. Note that if they took up arms before the territory they were in was occupied (ie, they went out to fight as the "enemy" reached their area) they do not have to wear uniforms to qualify as a POW.
If they are not entitled to prisoner of war status, they are protected by the fourth Geneva Convention, relative to treatment of civilians in wartime.
Under the fourth convention, they cannot be executed if they were under 18 at the time they committed an offence.
They must be granted all the rights accord to civilians as soon as the security state permits. Given that the detainees in Gitmo are securely locked up, they are entitled to all the protections of the Fourth geneva Conventions. They are entitled to a fair trial, can only be executed after a fair trial, and only if the acts they committed were punishable by the death sentence in Afghanistan (which is more than likely).
-
I believe in equality for all. You should treat your enemy the way they treat you. So I say.....
"Cut their heads off......"
-
Originally posted by mosca
This isn't the first time an administration has gone to extremes violating the constitution and abusing citizens illegally to support a questionable overseas military expedition. During WW1, Wilson claimed to be acting on behalf of God. The publishers of German language newspapers were imprisoned. A US congressman was imprisoned for speaking out against the administration. A traveling salesman was murdered on suspicion of spreading influenza as part of a biological warfare plot by the Central powers.
There are many chilling parallels between that era and ours today. The only thing that gives me reassurance is that we survived that time, and that implies that we will survive this time as well.
Tom
Those are fine examples BUT most of these guys are not Citizens. They are not even POWs, they are terrorists. They should not be afforeded the same rights and liberties that they were caught fighting against.
In cases were US citizens are wrongfully imprisoned or are not afforded their rights that is wrong IMHO. The courts have failed them if their apeals are not heard.
It's been proven though that release of these war criminals results in them going right back into the fight.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ummmm hold a terrorist scumbag......or release one back in the wild to re-join the fight against us.
Yea Real tough choice. Of course I beleive US Citizens would be protected by the constitution but these guys are not us citizens and have no more rights than a pack of dogs.
so you mean to say foreigners have no rights?
or just that terrorists have no rights?
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
so you mean to say foreigners have no rights?
or just that terrorists have no rights?
most of the time they are the same, foreigners and terrorists but not allways. BUT, to say they have NO rights is extreme. These terrorists were captured (and I'm speaking in general as in most of them) on a battlefield fighing US forces and not representing any particular country......they are criminals. Now in most cases they WOULD have some judicial rights but seeing as they are not US citizens they should NOT be afforded OUR rights. In most cases they are reciving far better treatment then if they were captured by other countrys.
to say they have NO rights is dumb.....to say they should be afforded the same rights as a US citizen is extreme.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I like the idea that this is actually a cover for a new power source that harnesses electricity from the spinning graves of our founding fathers.
brilliant!
-
The word "Suspected" does not carry the weight to justify this. Welcome to the mentaility of Bushism.
A lot of these people are innocent and were rounded up like wild horses from the streets. We are not sure about some of them. So since we aren't sure, lock them up for life to be safe.
We have no one to blame but ourselves, we put this admin in place, not once, but twice now, that makes us twice as stupid.
2 cents
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ummmm hold a terrorist scumbag......or release one back in the wild to re-join the fight against us.
Yea Real tough choice. Of course I beleive US Citizens would be protected by the constitution but these guys are not us citizens and have no more rights than a pack of dogs.
-
Dont you think you need to prove to the public that a person is a terrorist before you can treat him like one?
IIRC there where kids in Gitmo, 13-14 years old.
If they where so sure about their proofs, why have they released so many?, People spent over 2 years in Gitmo without trail, then suddenly released without anything?
This really puzzles me. If they where terrorists, why where they not punished further?
Why do they not dare to bring them to court, why will they not dare to give information about Saddam peoples trails, not admitting Journalists at the trails?
What is so secret? What danger could this bring?
Are USA affraid of the truth?
No, it is not bashing, its questions. It would be nice if someone could answer them.
Crabofix
BOOORK
-
And while I am at it: I can understand that many of you guys does not like Michael Moore.
I dont like him either. He pushes things way to far. He uses cheap tricks to get easy points.
But then again, he asks questions that really makes you wonder, dosīnt he? And if he didīnt, would you even think about why thoose Saudis where rushed out of the country 9/11?
Would you even know about it?
Crabofix
Bork
-
Originally posted by mosca
This isn't the first time an administration has gone to extremes violating the constitution and abusing citizens illegally to support a questionable overseas military expedition. During WW1, Wilson claimed to be acting on behalf of God. The publishers of German language newspapers were imprisoned. A US congressman was imprisoned for speaking out against the administration. A traveling salesman was murdered on suspicion of spreading influenza as part of a biological warfare plot by the Central powers.
There are many chilling parallels between that era and ours today. The only thing that gives me reassurance is that we survived that time, and that implies that we will survive this time as well.
Tom
yeah US is still full of religion fanatics, no doubts about it
and its quite funny to hear things like "Freedom is right given to us by a God" and so on....
-
We have no one to blame but ourselves, we put this admin in place, not once, but twice now, that makes us twice as stupid.
2 cents
=====
your right to spew filth and garbage is preserved, now shut up.
-
Man. im trying to imagine...... some group of Pakistanian dweebs will raid some US company in afghanistan, imprisment people and simply claim, that they are terrorist. Later on, they will shot them in name of terrorism [ may be God is better].
Can you imagine reaction of american citizens at home ?
Im just wondering, how many young people around the world did join some "terrorist" organization because of sutch politic.
-
Originally posted by patrone
And while I am at it: I can understand that many of you guys does not like Michael Moore.
I dont like him either. He pushes things way to far. He uses cheap tricks to get easy points.
But then again, he asks questions that really makes you wonder, dosīnt he? And if he didīnt, would you even think about why thoose Saudis where rushed out of the country 9/11?
Would you even know about it?
Crabofix
Bork
meeen Bork... hallo there..
dont be stupid.. everybody at this bodrd know, that all evil terrorist are brainless dweebs and its absolutly forbiden... i mean pointless to think about their motivation... You better do not consider them to be humans or they will call you "terrorist lover"
Because sutch acts CAN NOT BE result of any of US "freedom" spreading movement.
btw. few days ago there were aniversary of Russian invasion to afghanistan.... and there were few audio records from US training sessions with Mujahedins... LOL I would like to hear their contemporary teachers and their trough, i think it didnt change much :D
-
well that was a waste of time.......
-
Our treatment of the people who war on us is not a legal question. Why do you think it is? What do you think the United States has to prove? We captured these people on the battlefield and now we hold them prisoner.
As soon as all the elements of radical Islamic fundamentalism (around the world) renounce there desire to kill my fellow citizens (and prove it) then I say we consider their release. Until then, they can say in their Orange suits forever.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
We have no one to blame but ourselves, we put this admin in place, not once, but twice now, that makes us twice as stupid.
2 cents
=====
your right to spew filth and garbage is preserved, now shut up.
Sir, Yes sir, sorry sir, can I shine your boots sir...
Gee, so sorry other people have opinions that don't match yours, is that our loss or yours?
lets talk about garbage,... it fits the same subject.
~A
-
Does anybody remember the interment camps they put the Japanese Americans in during WW2?
And they were Americans!
I think If we are going to imprison people they should have access to due process.
After all we are America not some communist country!
There has to be a better way.
-
US has turned to be one of the banana republics.
-
Originally posted by Staga
US has turned to be one of the banana republics.
I think perhapes maybe not enough thought was put into what to do with people suspected of crimes against America.
Obviously we can't just let them run around blowing up people.
But it would be nice to have the ability to release the Innocent as quickly as possible to.
-
Originally posted by Staga
US has turned to be one of the banana republics.
If that will keep you from jumping out of the World Trade Towers with your skin on fire, so be it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... and the cigarette burns, dog attacks, murders and other crap must go.
Indeed wrong and stupid things to do to prisoners.
But much much worst things hove happened to POW's in times of war.
Not justifying it though and you have to admit it is much better than cutting there heads off.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
But it won't ... will it?
Well...., from Staga's view it has.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
But it won't ... will it?
It has so far.
-
well it goes without saying but I'm going to say it anway:
gschmoltz is a putz
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, actually you have to thank the terrorists for that one since it is now physically impossible to jump from the WTC towers.
If you guys are willing to become a banana republic to fight terrorism then I guess the terrorists have already won. Well ... it is quite evident that they have already won and America is no longer what it was.
You are over the top. What's with your American fetish? What's your problem?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... and the cigarette burns, dog attacks, murders and other crap must go.
cause of course we ALL KNOW for a FACT backed up by credible SOURCES that tortue and maltreatment of criminals and terrorists alike is status quo....IE not the exception but the rule.
But then again, he asks questions that really makes you wonder, dosīnt he? And if he didīnt, would you even think about why thoose Saudis where rushed out of the country 9/11?
PATRONE,
You must be trolling here!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm over the top? Right now I have a slight cold and it's getting late here. Other than that I can't say I have any problems right now.
I'm going to assume you are basically a troll and get your kicks out of making stupid statements to get under the American's skins here.
The bottom line is that you revell in expressing negative feelings towards America. You are nothing more than an ignorant troll.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Btw. that does not mean I'm not arrogant as well. I know I am.
Thank you....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The fact that routine torture of prisoners is under investigation is worrying enough. As for isolated incidents, don't you think you should have a bit more control over your armed forces? It's not like we hear about British soldiers torturing or murdering prisoners.
Also, please stop "importing" torture. It may be technically legal to ship prisoners to places like Syria, Egypt and Pakistan and collect them later along with the info they beat out of them ... but it hardly makes you look like good guys.
what's funny is that you so easily buy into this propaganda. I'd really like to know were you get your information from.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sometimes I do troll yes, but most times I simply have opposing views with you arrogant right-wing extremist types.
Btw. that does not mean I'm not arrogant as well. I know I am.
well, maybe you could lighten up a little and show a little sense of humor or personality so we could accept that part of you a little easier.
People like Nash, Beetle, Nilsen, Sandman, and others who I do not see eye to eye with a lot of things, still have my respect and I like them.
You are different it seems.....but I still have an open mind and can accept that you don't agree with me or others here.
Just seems like you could lighten up a little bit.
-
Originally posted by moose
how can we imprison people without evidence?
Step 1: Choose someone
Step 2: Arrest them
Step 3: Throw them in prison
Step 4: Leave them there
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sometimes I do troll yes, but most times I simply have opposing views with you arrogant right-wing extremist types.
Btw. that does not mean I'm not arrogant as well. I know I am.
HAHAHA. Look! GScholz is making even more friends.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Thomas Harrington, FBI. His memos and statements have been widely published.
I fail to see how this fits into the current subject?
-
Gunslinger:
"what's funny is that you so easily buy into this propaganda. I'd really like to know were you get your information from."
GScholz:
"Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Thomas Harrington, FBI. His memos and statements have been widely published."
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I fail to see how this fits into the current subject?
Wow.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
well it goes without saying but I'm going to say it anway:
gschmoltz is a putz
He has nation envy. The affliction is common in Europe.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Gunslinger:
"what's funny is that you so easily buy into this propaganda. I'd really like to know were you get your information from."
GScholz:
"Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Thomas Harrington, FBI. His memos and statements have been widely published."
Wow.
I still fail to see his point. "I read memos once so I know" If you have specific information to share with the group then by all means share it. I've read lots of stuff but just because I read it doesn't make it true nore does it prove my point in an argument.
I fail to see how you having read FBI memos brings any bearing to the current discussion. If you would care to elaborate with specifics then by all means enlighten us.
Yes thrawn....truely wow
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
the supreme court didn't order his release on technical grounds.
I think it's key to note his case and argument made it to the US Supreme Court.
One would think they'd have intervened if they saw a major problem with his treatment so far, wouldn't one?
-
I don't know what should be done.. Maybe they should all be sent home, maybe they should all be held until the end of hostilities. When you capture individuals in a combat situation, you have the right to hold them until the fight is over. A very large chunk of the gitmo terrorist were captured in battle so they should not be released. It is certainly a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. Some of the 200+ Gitmo prisoners who have been released have turned up back in Afghanistan, fighting with Taliban forces. At least one has been killed in battle since his return. Danish national Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, announced in September he planned to travel to Chechnya and fight Russian forces. I think he has recanted since then but I bet the Danes dont have a clue where he is.
Here is a real winner..
http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/weinreb041904.htm
The Khadrs are quite the little family. Ahmed, 57, was killed last October in a fight with the Pakistani army near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. It was in that battle that 14-year-old Karim was injured and paralyzed. Son Omar is currently being held in Guantanamo Bay after he was captured in a firefight. This little darling is accused of throwing a grenade that caused the death of an American medic. Their brother Abduallahs whereabouts are unknown and it is believed that he is somewhere in the tribal area of Pakistan, close to where his father was killed. Brother Abdurahman is back living in Toronto after having been released from Guantanamo Bay and claims to have worked for U.S. intelligence agencies. Since the prodigal sons return, Abdurahman has admitted that his family is an "al-Qaeda" family and close to Osama bin Laden.
-
wow krusher....I'm heart broken to hear about all the abuse and suffering that family has had to go through. This is yet another example of the big bad evil America going after arabs just because of their race. They have absolutly no reason to imprison these people at all. If they wish to blow up school buses and cafes or help with the planning in a hostage taking involving lots of kids by all means the US constitution should protect them even though they fight against it and do not hold a citizinship for it.
-
Gunslinger the part I don't understand Is how or why Canada is even allowing them there in the first place knowing there history?
-
Originally posted by wombatt
Gunslinger the part I don't understand Is how or why Canada is even allowing them there in the first place knowing there history?
Canada's lucky we let them exist on the same continent as us ;) ;) ;) ;) <-----notice the ;)
Not sure.
Brother Abdurahman is back living in Toronto after having been released from Guantanamo Bay and claims to have worked for U.S. intelligence agencies.
if this is true maybe the US hooked him up through diplomatic means.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
Gunslinger the part I don't understand Is how or why Canada is even allowing them there in the first place knowing there history?
Because our politicians and most of our bureaucrats are a bunch of ****ing moron *******s.
(whoo-hoo 5K posts)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Because our politicians and most of our bureaucrats are a bunch of ****ing moron *******s.
(whoo-hoo 5K posts)
Sad but true:(
-
If they're international criminals they should be treated as such.
If they are POWs they should be treated as such.
Are there any detained there who have not been charged with any crime?
-
In case you've been living in a cave and haven't seen this documentary yet.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/view/
-
what the government is doing is aggressive, and dangerous.
In this age of portable nuclear weapons and islamo-facist suicide bombers I agree with the direction the government is taking. Throw a wide wide net and make the bad guy extinct. I accept purely and cleanly that some innocents will be trapped in the net. Thats war and thats what 9/11 brought to my core level of understanding.
If your standing next to a AQ bastard, whether by accident or design, your loss will be a harsh but neccessary reality.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
most of the time they are the same, foreigners and terrorists but not allways. BUT, to say they have NO rights is extreme. These terrorists were captured (and I'm speaking in general as in most of them) on a battlefield fighing US forces and not representing any particular country......they are criminals. Now in most cases they WOULD have some judicial rights but seeing as they are not US citizens they should NOT be afforded OUR rights. In most cases they are reciving far better treatment then if they were captured by other countrys.
to say they have NO rights is dumb.....to say they should be afforded the same rights as a US citizen is extreme.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.....
If the terrorists are held by the US then our laws MUST apply to them, for if we deny them our legal system we undermine our own rights in respect to fair and timely trials, with adequate legal representation.
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.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
most of the time they are the same, foreigners and terrorists but not allways
Uh? So... I guess that makes ME a terrorist? I didn't know it, but thanks for telling me... now, where did I put that "terrorist's cookbook" again?...
-
Have an idea (it happens every now and then)
Put a big fence around Norway and send them all there.
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
If I am not mistaken, these guys were picked up in either Afghanastan or Iraq. They were not wearing military uniforms so under the Geneva convention they can be shot.
Hooligan
As far as I remember the Geneva convention, the enemy combatants are considered as such just by the evidence of organized command chain in their ranks even if they carry no ensignia whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by moose
just read this off of google news and it amazed me --
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7217367
-
if we don't have evidence to support a trial then how can we hold them?
can someone explain this to me?
Comrades Stalin and Khrushchev held German POWs in the labor camps till 1955 when the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR unilaterally issued a decree on the ceasing of the state of war between the USSR and Germany (the peace treaty was never concluded between these two countries following the "dividi et empera" Cold War strategy of the chief NATO members). So the German survivors of GULAG were sent back to their Vaterland, though formally the state of war beetween the USSR and Germany ceased to exist only on the August 31, 1994 when the last units of the Russian occupation forces were withdrawn from the Bundesrepublik of Germany.
I guess that when the USA sign peace treaties with Afganistan and Iraq, the POWs from these countries will be eligible for release, unless some or all of them are tried and convicted of war crimes. The fate of Saudis and others is less certain.
So it looks like the USA is preparing to make one step ahead of the above-mentioned Soviet leaders.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
most of the time they are the same, foreigners and terrorists but not allways.
LOL .... so... are foreigners most of the time terrorists or not always ? :rofl
Originally posted by Gunslinger
BUT, to say they have NO rights is extreme. These terrorists were captured (and I'm speaking in general as in most of them) on a battlefield fighing US forces and not representing any particular country......they are criminals. Now in most cases they WOULD have some judicial rights but seeing as they are not US citizens they should NOT be afforded OUR rights.
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 ?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
In most cases they are reciving far better treatment then if they were captured by other countrys.
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
-
Originally posted by lada
Man. im trying to imagine...... some group of Pakistanian dweebs will raid some US company in afghanistan, imprisment people and simply claim, that they are terrorist. Later on, they will shot them in name of terrorism [ may be God is better].
Can you imagine reaction of american citizens at home ?
Im just wondering, how many young people around the world did join some "terrorist" organization because of sutch politic.
Congratulations, you have just described the main modus operandi of the terrorist organizations we are fighting. You know, bust into a house, kidnap the occupants, then execute them for the "crime" of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The difference in what the US is doing is that we are at least TRYING to catch the guilty parties.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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:
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
gscmholtz is a putz. Plain and simple.
-
Chuck, i thought you were Christian not Jewish.
-
Nashwan:
Thanks for the links.
The US considers these prisoners "unlawful combatants".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1754444.stm
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described them as "unlawful combatants" with no rights under the Geneva Conventions....
Also see the following link:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0711-07.htm
The claim Wednesday came six months after the first shackled detainees from the US war on terror were flown to the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where 534 men from 39 countries are now being held in a state of legal limbo.
This was from a fairly old article but note the part about "men from 39 countries". Clearly some of these prisoners do not qualify as:
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms.
Of all the combatants taken prisoner by the US in Afghanstan this small subset was selected and classified as "illegal combatants". Do you think it is possible they were selected for a reason?
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Of all the combatants taken prisoner by the US in Afghanstan this small subset was selected and classified as "illegal combatants". Do you think it is possible they were selected for a reason?
Hooligan
Reason?!? They were selected because...(drum roll, please) Boosh is Evil!!
Cod but I crack me up.
:D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I like the idea that this is actually a cover for a new power source that harnesses electricity from the spinning graves of our founding fathers.
whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
-
Originally posted by Yeager
If your standing next to a AQ bastard, whether by accident or design, your loss will be a harsh but neccessary reality.
Yeager, I'll shed a tear for you afterthe USAF bombs your house when they SUSPECT that allah-allah-oxsun-free lives right next door...
:confused:
Ummmm on second thought.....
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Yeager, I'll shed a tear for you afterthe USAF bombs your house when they SUSPECT that allah-allah-oxsun-free lives right next door...
:confused:
Ummmm on second thought.....
Sure. When that happens.
Until then, we'll keep killing terrorists.
-
Shultzie:
If you have any proof that these guys were not examined before any type of military tribunal in Afghanistan before they were classified perhaps you should provide it.
Hooligan
-
The US considers these prisoners "unlawful combatants".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1754444.stm
The US is interested in finding a definition that allows them to treat the prisoners with total freedom. That doesn't mean it's correct or legal.
Note what the Geneva Convention says:
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.
Article 5 clearly covers them. In fact, artiicle 5 was written just for such men. There's no ambiguity about it.
This is what the Red Cross has to say:
Captured combatants must be granted prisoner of war status (POW) and may be held until the end of active hostilities in that international armed conflict. POWs cannot be tried for mere participation in hostilities, but may be tried for any war crimes they may have committed. In this case they may be held until any sentence imposed has been served. If the POW status of a prisoner is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a competent tribunal should be established to rule on the issue.
Civilians detained for security reasons must be accorded the protections provided for in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Combatants who do not fulfil the requisite criteria for POW status (who, for example, do not carry arms openly) or civilians who have taken a direct part in hostilities in an international armed conflict (so-called "unprivileged" or "unlawful" belligerents) are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention provided they are enemy nationals.
Contrary to POWs such persons may, however, be tried under the domestic law of the detaining state for taking up arms, as well as for any criminal acts they may have committed. They may be imprisoned until any sentence imposed has been served.
Persons detained in relation to a non-international armed conflict waged as part of the fight against terrorism as is the case with Afghanistan since June 2002 - are protected by Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and the relevant rules of customary international humanitarian law. The rules of international human rights and domestic law also apply to them. If tried for any crimes they may have committed they are entitled to the fair trial guarantees of international humanitarian and human rights law.
What is important to know is that no person captured in the fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is no such thing as a "black hole" in terms of legal protection.
That's the whole point. It's not that the US cannot capture, try and execute people who have committed illegal acts, or that it must give POW status to anyone it captures. Clearly many of them are not entitled to POW status (although they are entitled to have that status determined by a tribunal, not the say-so of a politician)
What every detainee is entitled to is protection under the law. Every single detainee is covered by the law, just as a criminal is, and just like a criminal, the law allows for them to be held accountable for their actions.
This was from a fairly old article but note the part about "men from 39 countries". Clearly some of these prisoners do not qualify as:
quote:
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms.
I wasn't suggesting they all do, or indeed that any of them do. I was just pointing out that because they were not in uniform does not automatically deprive them of POW status.
Note though that the convention says "inhabitants" of a territory, not citizens. It's perfectly possible for an American, Briton, Frenchman or Kuwaiti to be an "inhabitant" of Afghanistan.
Of all the combatants taken prisoner by the US in Afghanstan this small subset was selected and classified as "illegal combatants". Do you think it is possible they were selected for a reason?
I think they were selected because the US believes they are more dangerous, or have more information, than the rest.
-
red tail you are paranoid. perhaps a private session with bill clinton and his cigar will get the ibbyjibbies out of your system.
-
Im a agnostic torque but if it being a christian gets under the skin of liberal dorks and commie dweebs you can call me JEEBUS!!!!!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld does not have the authority to declare anyone an "illegal combatant" according to the GC. The GC stipulates that the status of any prisoner must be determined by a competent tribunal ... I.E. a court ... and that all prisoners must be afforded POW rights until such a tribunal has found them guilty of violating the GC to such an extend to warrant they not be afforded POW rights.
Of course, if the USA do not recognise the GC, there is no law, and as such no "illegal combatants" either.
The fact that you and others seem to bleed for the one's vowing to kill us is telling. You always seem so quick and determined to condemn US actions, all from the soverign soil of Norway is it?
Any imprisoned and found benign will be freed....sometimes guilt by association is unavoidable.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
People here see me as an anti-American for voicing my concern over this ... Not that I care ... However I am more concerned about how America is changing than how these individuals are treated.
No one cares about your concerns, nor the concerns of other America Haters.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sure. When that happens.
Until then, we'll keep killing terrorists.
yeah yeah yeah .. and you will be surprised at next "like 9/11" event... .
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im a agnostic torque but if it being a christian gets under the skin of liberal dorks and commie dweebs you can call me JEEBUS!!!!!
lol men... did you try to saw this thing to your psychologist ? :D
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sure. When that happens.
Until then, we'll keep killing terrorists.
I have no truck about killing terrorists, but the witch hunts yeager speaks of, are tantamount to the Salem trials.
As for me being paranoid, yeager, I'm not the one talking about killing people because some guy told another guy that the guy next door heard that some other dude was playin in an online flight simulator and flying WW2 formation bombers into aircraft carriers..
Oh jeebus, a terrorist.....ARRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRGH
********:lol
-
Originally posted by lada
yeah yeah yeah .. and you will be surprised at next "like 9/11" event... .
Why will I be surprised?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im a agnostic torque but if it being a christian gets under the skin of liberal dorks and commie dweebs you can call me JEEBUS!!!!!
Lol....M'kay.
-
perhaps lada is full of glee because he is in on planning the next big event?
Torque you poor bastard: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be Saved!
:)
-
this thread has been proven itslef mostly false by the persons defending it. The subject "how can we imprison people without evidence" just doesnt fit. Clearly if somone is detanined as an "illegal combatent" but must be held as a POW until the end of the conflict they were captured in.....well that spells it. they can be held AS A POW for the duration of this current conflict no matter what they are "classified as" by rumsfeld.
case closed as far as I'm concerned.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
this thread has been proven itslef mostly false by the persons defending it. The subject "how can we imprison people without evidence" just doesnt fit. Clearly if somone is detanined as an "illegal combatent" but must be held as a POW until the end of the conflict they were captured in.....well that spells it. they can be held AS A POW for the duration of this current conflict no matter what they are "classified as" by rumsfeld.
case closed as far as I'm concerned.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your beliefs, "as far as you're concerned" amounts to nothing.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your beliefs, "as far as you're concerned" amounts to nothing.
but of course that all depends on your definition of the word "is"
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
but of course that all depends on your definition of the word "is"
Why? I didn't use that word.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Why? I didn't use that word.
It was a metephor.
See: Testimony, Bill Clinton
-
Great article, glad you posted it.
;)
-
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.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
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?
Guns, there is no need to dig so deep into FBI files. Just buy any American newspaper (anyone). All of them are routinely reporting that the detainees in question were deprived of sleep and .....so on and so forth.
I don't know about your attitude towards such seemingly minor infraction of human rights, but I know that the most outrageous cases of false self-incriminating confessions during the rule of Comrade Stalin were achieved by the NKVD "investigators" when they TORTURED the suspects by depriving them of sleep. After several days of this torture people simply went crazy or signed any false confession they were given. Some tried to commit suicide because they could not bear this "small" torture anymore.
I wonder who instructs the US military "investigators" in this matter ?
-
damn, i posted this right before leaving for a cruise through the caribbean. still out there (just north of st. lucien) but im surprised it got this much attention..
i'm just kinda surprised and appalled at how our justice system works. us citizen or not we shouldn't sink to the level of our enemies by imprisoning suspects without any terms of release like that. in my mind it just brings us to the level of those we are fighting.
-
Are you disagreeing with your supreme leader?
TRAITOR! BURN HIM !