The Road to Guantanamo

[Sigundr]

I here quote the Geneva Convention: Article 3

 

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

 

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

 

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

 

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

 

(b) Taking of hostages;

 

© Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

 

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

The Geneva states it clearer than I ever could. Torture is prohibited. Now, now, this is going to get a wave of criticisim, but what the Convention don't know, won't kill 'em.

 

But if they did willingly put down their arms, and surrender without a fight, then they should not be treated inhumanely, or humanely for that matter. It clearly states that if they did comply and surrender without struggle then they are bound by the Geneva Convention not to treat hims/her with torture, sleep deprivation, sound exposure, food deprivation, etc. or anything.

 

Yes, you dudes are right, I third the "genius" thing about the dude upstairs from this post, but they are not allowed to be tortured inhumanely no MATTER WHAT

[Good Sir Knight]

The same ACLU that gives their free time and money to fight for YOUR civil rights? Damn them, damn them all to hell!!!

 

Yes the same organization that protects NAMBLA... if you don't know what that is please look into it.

 

Oh and they only defend the rights they care about, they seem to believe that the 2nd amendment really means our National Guard...which is hardly a militia since it's federally funded and it fights in the war that everyone cries so much about.

 

 

 

 

 

Ooh, lucky them... i assume you'd be happy to join them then? Cos if they decided to put you in there you'd have as much chance as them of appealing the decision and proving your innocence.

I also assume you are including the KIDS who have been locked up there for years now? And the british guys who were kept without trial, charges, the right to defend themselves etc.. for THREE YEARS before being completely released because there was NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM!!!

 

Why do you care so much about them? Why is it America that you center on? I think your energy can be best spent elsewhere...with real despotic regimes.

 

Of course it's cute when China persecutes people right?

 

Again it's so hip to stand against America, it's hard to take anyone's criticism serious now a days.

 

Oh and I hope Gary McKinnon ends up in Gitmo, that would be a real good laugh.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060510/ap_on_re_eu/britain_us_hacker

 

 

Gosh, i can't see why anyone would object to that fair, humane treatment... or why it would make america a hypocritical joke in a lot of the world.

 

Do you think I care? Everyone in the world hates us for a variety of reasons though really it comes down to who the big boy is on the block.

 

As soon as the big bad USSR was gone people needed someone else to blame their problems on. Oh and they felt alot safer... gee I wonder who stood against those folks?

 

If we invade, well then we're the world's policeman.

 

If we don't, then we're cowards.

 

No one is ever going to be happy with us and I'm just fine with that. So long as we stay on top and I'm pretty sure we will.

 

 

Oh now I'm just another arrogant American...go ahead say it... I'm starting to like the sound of it.

 

:usa::usa:

[Spider AL]

Yes the same organization that protects NAMBLA... if you don't know what that is please look into it.

There's an old saying attributed to Chomsky: "If you don't believe in free speech for those you disagree with, you don't believe in free speech at all." (paraphrased)

 

Yes, NAMBLA's a bunch of maniacal kiddy-fiddlers. Yes, they deserve to be put out of business. AND YES, they deserve legal representation. If you don't believe in legal representation for those you consider to be guilty, you don't believe in legal representation period.

 

Which might explain your stance on GTMO.

 

Why do you care so much about them? Why is it America that you center on? I think your energy can be best spent elsewhere...with real despotic regimes.

 

Of course it's cute when China persecutes people right?

 

Do you really expect in-depth criticisms of the Chinese regime in a thread entitled "The Road to Guantanamo"? That would be rather silly, wouldn't it.

 

Do you think I care? Everyone in the world hates us for a variety of reasons though really it comes down to who the big boy is on the block.

 

As soon as the big bad USSR was gone people needed someone else to blame their problems on. Oh and they felt alot safer... gee I wonder who stood against those folks?

Oh please. Nobody seriously believed that the USSR was a nation of "Bond Villains", surely? You can't have done.

 

And if your only defence against allegations of maltreatment of illegally held prisoners in Guantanamo is to say "YOU ONLY HATE US BECAUSE WE'RE BETTER THAN YOU"... It's not very convincing. Please use logical arguments.

[Good Sir Knight]

There's an old saying attributed to Chomsky: "If you don't believe in free speech for those you disagree with, you don't believe in free speech at all." (paraphrased)

 

Yes, NAMBLA's a bunch of maniacal kiddy-fiddlers. Yes, they deserve to be put out of business. AND YES, they deserve legal representation. If you don't believe in legal representation for those you consider to be guilty, you don't believe in legal representation period.

 

Which might explain your stance on GTMO.

 

Oh but you so conveniently missed my point. Here it goes again, you listening?

 

 

Oh and they only defend the rights they care about, they seem to believe that the 2nd amendment really means our National Guard...

 

 

The ACLU is willing to go to the extremes with NAMBLA though they don't even support the principle of the 2nd Amendment.

 

They have a point of view just like everyone else, no different.

 

 

Do you really expect in-depth criticisms of the Chinese regime in a thread entitled "The Road to Guantanamo"? That would be rather silly, wouldn't it.

 

Again that wasn't my point. I was just illustrating that more criticism is leveled on the US government's policies than the Chinese.

 

People are more concerned with a Democracy's legitimate fight against terrorism than a dictatorships persecution of free speech.

 

That's my perception and that's what I was illustrating.

 

You dig it? I know...not so hip.

 

 

And if your only defence against allegations of maltreatment of illegally held prisoners in Guantanamo is to say "YOU ONLY HATE US BECAUSE WE'RE BETTER THAN YOU"... It's not very convincing. Please use logical arguments.

 

No that's my oppinion, people are biased against the one and only super power.

 

I said it, that's what I believe. You have your oppinion and I have mine.

[Sigundr]

acutally, it's 2 super powers, Britain and USA, A.K.A. the Anglo-American World Power. let's stick to the facts.

[TK-8252]

I don't even see why the Geneva Convention is relevant.

 

We shouldn't use any torture-like tactics, because it's wrong. I agree with McCain on this issue; torture doesn't work. It works if you want to get what you want to hear (and piss off the entire Muslim world in the process)... which might not be the truth.

 

The difference between "us" and "them" is that they torture, behead, mutilate, abduct, and we don't (shouldn't). We (should) treat people justly despite how evil they may be or how others would be to them.

 

Another thing is that I don't trust the government to know who is seriously a terrorist, insurgent, "enemy combatant," whatever. I don't trust the huge bureaucracy that is in charge of it. You can't just lock a bunch of suspects up and throw away the key... no trial, representation, rights, or anything. And any mistreatment can be covered up no problem, nope didn't see anything, nuh-uh.

[Good Sir Knight]

acutally, it's 2 super powers, Britain and USA, A.K.A. the Anglo-American World Power. let's stick to the facts.

 

Are you saying that Britain would be a world power with out the United States? Perhaps economicaly though Britain is slipping in that respect also.

 

No offense but that's pretty untrue. If I had to name another super power it'd be China.

 

Oh and don't forget India, give it twenty years and they'll be an official super power...IMO.

 

 

 

EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I hold Britain in the highest regard, probably my favorite country next to my home. I just don't see them as a super power in the traditional sense.

[Good Sir Knight]

 

The difference between "us" and "them" is that they torture, behead, mutilate, abduct, and we don't (shouldn't). We (should) treat people justly despite how evil they may be or how others would be to them.

 

Always important to remember. We should also remember this before we release any of them.

 

Another thing is that I don't trust the government to know who is seriously a terrorist, insurgent, "enemy combatant," whatever. I don't trust the huge bureaucracy that is in charge of it. You can't just lock a bunch of suspects up and throw away the key... no trial, representation, rights, or anything. And any mistreatment can be covered up no problem, nope didn't see anything, nuh-uh.

 

In all do respect, who do you trust? Should we just let them go?

[TK-8252]

In all do respect, who do you trust? Should we just let them go?

 

I trust the due process of law. Most of the time.

 

Not advocating releasing them willy-nilly, but I do suggest that they be given the chance to have their day in court.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

In all do respect, who do you trust? Should we just let them go?

It's not an "all-or-nothing"-type situation. In between the two extremes (those being letting them go and torturing them/holding them indefinitely), there is a more moderate solution-treating them like any other prisoner, i.e not torturing them, bringing up charges against them and allowing said charges to be contested in court.

[rccar328]

It's not an "all-or-nothing"-type situation. In between the two extremes (those being letting them go and torturing them/holding them indefinitely), there is a more moderate solution-treating them like any other prisoner, i.e not torturing them, bringing up charges against them and allowing said charges to be contested in court.

This is assuming that they have rights under the US Constitution, which they do not. They (the vast majority of them) are enemy combatatants from foreign nations, not US citizens. Any US citizens held in GTMO (if any) are entitled to due process under the law...for the rest of them, an entirely different set of rules applies.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

This is assuming that they have rights under the US Constitution, which they do not. They (the vast majority of them) are enemy combatatants from foreign nations, not US citizens. Any US citizens held in GTMO (if any) are entitled to due process under the law...for the rest of them, an entirely different set of rules applies.

I never said they were entitled to those rights, I said they should have them. And the idea of calling them "enemy combatants" so that we can deny them rights that all humans should be entitled to is sickening.

[TK-8252]

This is assuming that they have rights under the US Constitution, which they do not. They (the vast majority of them) are enemy combatatants from foreign nations, not US citizens. Any US citizens held in GTMO (if any) are entitled to due process under the law...for the rest of them, an entirely different set of rules applies.

 

I see a problem in using the excuse that oh, the rules don't apply to them, so we can do what we want with them. Despite them not being actual soldiers, they are still, well, people, who may or may not be guilty. And I have a big problem with convicting people who may or may not be terrorists/insurgents without even giving them a chance to prove that they're innocent.

 

You really seem to have a LOT of faith that the government is doing everything right. I want to know what my government is doing. When the government insists on doing everything in secret, there's a problem. And I mean any government, no matter who's in charge.

[rccar328]

I don't trust the government implicitly. I do, however, believe that if torture at GTMO were as bad as many seem to believe, there would be irrefutable evidence plastered all over the media by now. There is just too much scrutiny of the US military for them to be doing what many allege they are doing. Think about Abu Gharaib - the Army screwed up, and they were called on the carpet for it.

 

There also seems to be a discrepancy in thinking regarding the definition of 'inhumane.' Personally, I don't see sensory depravation or sleep depravation as inhumane. I believe we have to do something to extract information from these terrorists, and frankly, asking them nicely isn't going to work. Neither is putting them on trial. Just look at the Moussaoui trial - he turned those proceedings into a circus.

 

Personally, I think you have too much faith in the court system. I believe that if we do give terrorists 'their day in court', it should be before a military tribunal...too many of our judges have shown themselves to be willing to make rulings based more on their own partisan political beliefs than on the law itself.

[toms]

Whyy do you care so much about them? Why is it America that you center on? I think your energy can be best spent elsewhere...with real despotic regimes.

 

Because you are supposed to be the good guys. You are supposed to be our allies. You can't tell people how to behave and then ignore it and claim "loopholes!!".

 

The bad guys are expected to behave in bad ways, that is why they are our enemies! However when our allies start acting in inhumane, illegal ways you should probably say something.

 

Of course it's cute when China persecutes people right?

 

I, and i guess many others here, have repeatedly mentioned civil rights abuses in china and a number of other countries. They don't calim to be the beacon of freedom and democracy though do they?

 

Its strange that you admit china has a list of civil rights abuses, but are happy to have chinese style detention camps and imprisonment without trial in your own country's name.

 

I'd think you kind of loose your right to complain about china when you don't stand up to your government about guantanamo. Sorry.

 

Official ACLU position on right to bear arms: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

 

Personally, I think you have too much faith in the court system. I believe that if we do give terrorists 'their day in court', it should be before a military tribunal...too many of our judges have shown themselves to be willing to make rulings based more on their own partisan political beliefs than on the law itself.

 

So what do you propose? Getting rid of the entire court system and replacing it with military tribunals? Of course the whole court system isn't prefect... but that is why it has checks and balances.. that is why you even HEAR about the mistakes!!

 

If the court system isn't good enough to try these people, it certainly isn't good enough to try murder suspects, or that 9/11 guy (surely he's a non-combatant too??), or decide important cases that will affect the lives of millions of americans.

 

And if you think a military tribunal will be any less influenced by their personal opinions then you are fooling yourself. They are still human. The only difference will be that there will be no jury of ordinary citizens, and no transparency so we won't KNOW about any partisan or incorrect actions that occur.

 

This is assuming that they have rights under the US Constitution, which they do not. They (the vast majority of them) are enemy combatatants from foreign nations, not US citizens. Any US citizens held in GTMO (if any) are entitled to due process under the law...for the rest of them, an entirely different set of rules applies.

I know the US is making up thinly stretched loopholes as they go along in order to justify their actions... but by my reading of the loopholes they used a US citizen that found himself in guantanamo would have no more rights than anyone else. After all, guantanamo isn't officially the USA so US citizens would be just as foriegn as anyone else. Innocent UK citizens certainly didn't seem to have any rights in there....

[Sigundr]

it IS the Anglo-American Dual World Power. America is like the rowdy child and Britain is like the father, keeping the U.S. in check. don't give me that

s#!t, i know what i'm talking about.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

Oh but you so conveniently missed my point. Here it goes again, you listening?

Actually I'm reading.

 

And no, I didn't miss anything you posted. It's just that your nod towards the ACLU's involvement in the gun control debate struck me as irrelevant to the discussion. I was replying to your attempt to cast aspersions on the ACLU's character by reminding everyone of the emotive fact that they represented NAMBLA, an almost universally despised organisation. And I reminded you, that if you don't believe in free speech and legal representation for insane, dangerous perverts... you don't believe in free speech and legal representation for yourself or for your Grandma. It's everyone, or no-one. Remember that.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

The ACLU is willing to go to the extremes with NAMBLA though they don't even support the principle of the 2nd Amendment.

Once again, irrelevant. What's your point here? Because you perceive the ACLU to be pro-gun control, that makes them hypocritical when they leap to the defence of free speech? That doesn't make any sense. Freedom to bear arms isn't remotely comparable to freedom of speech. And FYI, they don't "disagree with the 2nd amendment", they just disagree with your frankly dubious interpretation of it.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

Again that wasn't my point. I was just illustrating that more criticism is leveled on the US government's policies than the Chinese.

Of course it was your point. You referred specifically to the folks in this thread, when you typed: "Why do you care so much about them? Why is it America that you center on? I think your energy can be best spent elsewhere...with real despotic regimes. Of course it's cute when China persecutes people right?" Whenever anyone starts criticising US foreign policy, it's telling that people of your ilk pop up and scream: "QUICK, LOOK AT CHINA, NOT US!"

 

The Chinese regime's atrocities have been campaigned against by human rights activists for decades. But which country will you see criticised in a thread about Guantanamo? Why, the US of course. If you want criticism of China and a lack of anti-US sentiment, you'll have to start a thread entitled "Maoist evils and anti-western rhetoric of the despotic Chinese Government... And reasons why America is so gosh-darned great."

 

Then you'll be assured of the response you're looking for.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

People are more concerned with a Democracy's legitimate fight against terrorism than a dictatorships persecution of free speech.

Its legitimacy is the subject of the debate in this thread. Instead of just jumping in and saying "IT'S LEGITIMATE", try using logic and giving some deeper reasons as to WHY you think treating the men of Guantanamo as prisoners of war without even according them the same rights as real POWs... is "legitimate", in any way, shape, or form. Come now, give us some deeper reasons. Moral reasons. Legal reasons. Anything except Fox News soundbites.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

No that's my oppinion, people are biased against the one and only super power.

 

I said it, that's what I believe. You have your oppinion and I have mine.

Thank you, I did realise that it was your opinion, but here's the thing: opinions should be based on logic, otherwise they are merely insane and random opinions, without worth or relevance. You have given no evidence to support your claim that the only reason anyone EVER speaks out against US foreign policy, is because they are in some way jealous.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by rccar328:

There also seems to be a discrepancy in thinking regarding the definition of 'inhumane.' Personally, I don't see sensory depravation or sleep depravation as inhumane. I believe we have to do something to extract information from these terrorists, and frankly, asking them nicely isn't going to work. Neither is putting them on trial. Just look at the Moussaoui trial - he turned those proceedings into a circus.

 

Personally, I think you have too much faith in the court system. I believe that if we do give terrorists 'their day in court', it should be before a military tribunal...too many of our judges have shown themselves to be willing to make rulings based more on their own partisan political beliefs than on the law itself.

Once again, who decided that these men imprisoned in Guantanamo were terrorists? They certainly haven't been legally convicted of any crime in a civil sense, and they're not being treated as POWs ought to be treated under international conventions. So what gives you the right to sit there and pass judgement on them as your military have also summarily done?

 

Who decides who is and who is not a terrorist? If these shadowy figures decided that I was a terrorist, would that make me a terrorist? Do these people have such a monopoly on the dispensing of absolute truth? Of course not. Nobody does. That's why we have laws, juries and due process.

 

As a system of law it's not perfect, but it's a damn sight fairer than your preferred method of drumheads and summary condemnation.

[Good Sir Knight]

Oooh yes lots of responses, thanks guys. I'm at work right now and this is going to take some time, when I get off I shall respond in kind.

 

This will be good.

[rccar328]

Once again, who decided that these men imprisoned in Guantanamo were terrorists? They certainly haven't been legally convicted of any crime in a civil sense, and they're not being treated as POWs ought to be treated under international conventions. So what gives you the right to sit there and pass judgement on them as your military have also summarily done?

 

Who decides who is and who is not a terrorist? If these shadowy figures decided that I was a terrorist, would that make me a terrorist? Do these people have such a monopoly on the dispensing of absolute truth? Of course not. Nobody does. That's why we have laws, juries and due process.

 

As a system of law it's not perfect, but it's a damn sight fairer than your preferred method of drumheads and summary condemnation.

Well, first of all, I believe their official classification is "enemy combatant." They are enemies who were fighting our soldiers, but because they weren't fighting in the uniform of a particular enemy nation, they don't classify as POWs. Therefore, they are not afforded the same rights as POWs. That's not me "passing judgment," that's just how it works.

 

Second, if you went to Afghanistan or Iraq and started shooting at our troops, what would happen to you would depend on whether or not you're a citizen of the United States (I'm not sure where you're from). If you're a US citizen, then you are entitled to certain rights under the US Constitution, among them due process of the law and a trial by a jury of your peers. If you're not from the US, then the US Constitution doesn't apply to you, and you would fall under a different set of rules. By your statement above, you seem to be assuming that the US military is going around rounding up anyone they feel like rounding up...and that seeming assessment is entirely innacurate. These are enemy combatants who were fighting against the United States military. I refer to them as terrorists because many of them use terror tactics to try and drive US public opinion against the war, and many are, in fact, members of terrorist organizations. Maybe under a strict definition they wouldn't classify as "terrorists", but who cares? That's just semantics. Either way, they were captured while trying to kill US soldiers.

 

Finally, using the US court system to try foreign combatants for attacking our troops makes no sense whatsoever. These prisoners fall under a completely different set of laws. You may not like it, but that's how it works. Not liking it doesn't make it illegal. You wanna make it illegal, start passing the petition around to get it on the ballot. I'm sure you'll find somebody to sign it.

 

 

I'd also like to address something you said earlier that caused me to chuckle:

Most pundits agree that it's all completely counter to international law, AND US LAW TOO. Illegal.

Here's something about pundits: they can pretty much say whatever the heck they want, and that doesn't mean that it's true. Just because 9 out of 10 pundits agree that something is illegal, that doesn't make it illegal. Only the law can do that. Show me the law that is being violated, and I'll agree that it's illegal.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Most pundits agree that it's all completely counter to international law, AND US LAW TOO. Illegal.

Great Moments In Punditry:

 

Only the law can do that. Show me the law that is being violated, and I'll agree that it's illegal.

While disgusting, that's true. As long as we classify them as "enemy combatants", then the laws concerning the human rights they should be entitled to have not been broken.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

No, rape doesn't make you good just because you didn't commit murder. Osama isn't peachy because he "only" killed 3,000 people...because those acts are already wrong (...)

Which torture isn't. I see.

And just for the record, I'm not talking about sleep deprivation or forced stripping. I'm talking about serious torture. Just so you won't pretend to "misunderstand" me.

Edit: Whoops, just realized you already have:

There also seems to be a discrepancy in thinking regarding the definition of 'inhumane.' Personally, I don't see sensory depravation or sleep depravation as inhumane.

Darn it, too late:rolleyes:.

 

Also, there is a reason for subjecting these prisoners to sensory & sleep depravation - to get information from them that could save lives (unlike your strawman, in which rape is for self gratifica tion, and Osama did what he did out of hatred).

Can you prove to me that the people at Guantanamo were torturing for information? It seems odd that all the people tortured had information on upcoming attacks on the USA:confused:. It also seems odd that in every case of torture, the USA was in a state of 24-style time pressure that made it impossible to employ normal, humane interrogation methods?

 

Why do you care so much about them? Why is it America that you center on? I think your energy can be best spent elsewhere...with real despotic regimes.

"There are worse people than us, so we can do whatever we want".

Please.

 

Again that wasn't my point. I was just illustrating that more criticism is leveled on the US government's policies than the Chinese.

Even if that's so, I certainly critizise the Chinese regime. And it doesn't make the USA more right, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

This is assuming that they have rights under the US Constitution, which they do not. They (the vast majority of them) are enemy combatatants from foreign nations, not US citizens. Any US citizens held in GTMO (if any) are entitled to due process under the law...for the rest of them, an entirely different set of rules applies.

We're discussing ethics, not laws. "It's legal, so it's OK" is another fallacy on the same level as the "others are worse than us, so we rule!"-reasoning you presented above.

 

Let's make a hypothetical situation here. Do you think it's wrong to torture servicemen who are protected under the Geneva Conventions? OK, let's say the Geneva Conventions were thrown out the window all-together? Would it be OK to torture infantrymen in uniform and others previously protected then?

 

Personally, I think you have too much faith in the court system. I believe that if we do give terrorists 'their day in court', it should be before a military tribunal...too many of our judges have shown themselves to be willing to make rulings based more on their own partisan political beliefs than on the law itself.

Yup. There are diabolical judges, lawyers, attorneys, and juries out there who aren't anyplace near justice. The way certain lawyers treat rape victims in court's enough to make me want to kill (not that I will, of course).

 

However, if we are to follow that reasoning, we'd have to torture all suspects of malicious deeds. We'd have to torture alleged rapists (nearly all rapists rape again once they've done it once), murder suspects, and so on and so forth. "Can't risk having them go free due to a sick judge/lawyer/jury, so let's beat him up and rape him until he confesses". In fact, by your reasoing we'd have far more of a right to torture alleged homicide perpetrators and rapists as they rape/kill far more people in the US each year than the terrorists.

 

Well, first of all, I believe their official classification is "enemy combatant." They are enemies who were fighting our soldiers, but because they weren't fighting in the uniform of a particular enemy nation, they don't classify as POWs. Therefore, they are not afforded the same rights as POWs. That's not me "passing judgment," that's just how it works.

"It happens, so it's OK" is a fallacious argument.

 

If someone does something, he does something. For example, if I flame you, I can't say "I'm not insulting you, that's just how it works when you act dumbly" (not saying you are, thou'). Hope you know what I mean.

[toms]

Well, first of all, I believe their official classification is "enemy combatant." They are enemies who were fighting our soldiers, but because they weren't fighting in the uniform of a particular enemy nation, they don't classify as POWs. Therefore, they are not afforded the same rights as POWs. That's not me "passing judgment," that's just how it works.

 

Thats not an official classification.. its a made up name used to justify taking them outside of the established scope of the law. Who decides what counts as a uniform? Lots of people fighting in poorly funded, poorly equiped armies fight in their civilian clothing.. that doens't make them any less an army.

AFAIK non of the pepole held in guantanamo was found sneaking around behind our lines pretending to be one of us.

Those that were actually combatants were fighting "out in the open" as part of a milita. The fact they didn't get provided with a nice green berret doesn't affect anything.

 

Then again... half of those there weren't (or haven't in any way been proven to be) combatants at all. A number of them seem to be being held simply because they were in the country.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Then again... half of those there weren't (or haven't in any way been proven to be) combatants at all. A number of them seem to be being held simply because they were in the country.

From 9/11 on, a lot of people were held or deported illegally without trial, lawyer, or contact with the outside world.

[Good Sir Knight]

Once again, irrelevant. What's your point here? Because you perceive the ACLU to be pro-gun control, that makes them hypocritical when they leap to the defence of free speech?

 

 

Well first of all I didn't bring up the ACLU, I heard people espousing them as righteous and I thought I'd bring up their duplicity.

 

The simple fact is, you talk to any gun rights advocate and you'll get the real skinny on the ACLU.

 

Trouble is, people don't care. Personally, for me the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st.

 

The ACLU doesn't see it that way and I think thats wrong. This goes to you too Toms, no right in the constitution shall be infringed regardless of how scary some people might think it.

 

After all, guns don't kill people....people kill people.

 

 

You referred specifically to the folks in this thread....giving some deeper reasons as to WHY you think treating the men of Guantanamo as prisoners of war without even according them the same rights as real POWs

 

Well I did, if you were looking. I stated that they do not meet the legal requirements to be treated as POW's. In my opinion our government has the right to do what ever it wants with them yet we still treat them humanely.

 

As rccar stated, our military should be thanked for allowing them to practice their religion. Oh and we also serve ethnicaly friendly foods too... how cute.

 

Now 'humane' is different to different people. I accept that my government might have to make them uncomfortable to extract information. This is a war.

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly people are giving me some flak about pointing out a bias against the United States.

 

There are so many other humanitarian causes that people can get behind yet they want to tackle this one. This goes out to Amnesty Intl. who seems to treat Gitmo as some type of gulag WHEN IT CLEARLY ISN'T!

 

Toms had a good point that Britain was trying to 'fix' the good guys, though I don't think we need more fixing.

 

I don't think we need a more sensitive military. I think we need a more sensitive foreign policy and I'll take this opportunity to reveal my criticsm of America's foreign policy....*gasp*

 

I hate what we did with Venezuela...now they hate us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and thanks for the replys guys, sorry if I didn't get to all of you but I've been busy these days and I hate it!

 

 

I'll leave you with a quote from Jakob Kellenberger, President of the Red Cross.

 

 

"There is a certain subcategory of individuals who have forfeited their protections under the Geneva Conventions and there is not an obligation to allow access to those individuals."

 

though he also says

 

 

"No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person's whereabouts or to deny that he or she is being detained,"

 

 

 

I disagree with Jakob. If you're not a POW you don't have any rights and that sounds pretty cold but for me, with my family background and the people I know in harms way...it's pretty hard to feel sorry for them.

 

 

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_red_cross_detainees

[TK-8252]

Now 'humane' is different to different people. I accept that my government might have to make them uncomfortable to extract information. This is a war.

 

As I said, that doesn't work. If you put a prisoner in a situation where they have a motive to lie, such as to get out of an "uncomfortable" position, the interrogator is going to hear what he wants to. Not what is the truth. It's much easier for your cause to just make something up and you get the same result at the end. The interrogator thinks he has "extracted information," and yet he has nothing but bull.

 

This is what McCain has been trying to say. And he's not exactly "liberal."

 

Plus, going by your thinking, our government should be able to make crime suspects "uncomfortable" to extract information out of them. There is a "War on Drugs" still going on as well isn't there? Hey, it's a war!