NationStates Jolt Archive

I think the US deserves a little thanks for doing this. What do you think?



Hundreds to be released from Guantanamo war on terror base: report

Mon Jan 10,12:20 PM ET World - AFP



WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is preparing to release or transfer hundreds of prisoners from its controversial Guantanamo Bay war on terror detention camp in Cuba, according to a newspaper report.


AFP/HO/File Photo



Quoting a senior US defence official, the Financial Times newspaper said the releases would be part of a restructuring of the camp which will include the building of a new prison for long-term inmates.

There are about 550 inmates from more than 20 countries at the camp on the US naval base, many of whom have been held for three years without access to a lawyer or being told whether they would be charged.

The report said the long term prison, to be called Camp Six, would have room for about 200 inmates that the United States does not want to see released.

According to the official, those who are kept there will remain under detention as "enemy combatants". He said that an estimated 25 percent of those still at Guantanamo Bay were still considered of intelligence value.

The official said the new jail will have improved medical facilities, particularly for mental health problems.

Despite international criticism of the designation, the United States does not recognise accused militants captured in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and other countries since the September 11, 2001 attacks as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

The Financial Times report said that four Britons held at the camp would be among those transferred. Their cases have been a source of friction between Washington and London, the strongest US ally in the war on terror and in Iraq (news - web sites).

Oh, NOW they're letting some possibly actually innocent people go? How is this playign nice?

I don't think the US deeserves thanks for that action, as many of the inmates are most likely innocent bystanders, or at least should be held under the Geneva Convention.
Perhaps they should be thanking other Countries for not prosecuting the US government for holding their citizens without trial?

Finally doing the right thing? Well, it's about time the government stepped up and released some of those prisoners!

They deserve thanks? Is this gonna be another "you owe us" thing like the "we saved France" bs?

I think what we're seeing is the typical government reaction to when it has been revealed that a mistake has been made. To kind of shuffle the feet and fix the situation quietly.

Dear America
Thank you for ripping me from my home in the middle of the night and taking me blindfolded and confused to foreign soil. I appreciate not having contact with my family and fearing death on a daily basis. The marine guards were really fun, the games were strange but as long as I played along I was allowed to keep breathing. The bruises have now almost healed and my hair is growing back. The cold concrete cell was comfy enough and the food adequate to survive on, the cockroaches made a nice supliment. Can I keep the orange jumpsuit?

Dear America
Thank you for ripping me from my home in the middle of the night and taking me blindfolded and confused to foreign soil. I appreciate not having contact with my family and fearing death on a daily basis. The marine guards were really fun, the games were strange but as long as I played along I was allowed to keep breathing. The bruises have now almost healed and my hair is growing back. The cold concrete cell was comfy enough and the food adequate to survive on, the cockroaches made a nice supliment. Can I keep the orange jumpsuit?
:D :D :D :D :D :D

Well, it's a start.

Don't get me wrong: This is a good thing, but I don't know about "deserving thanks."

It's like expecting a medal when you stop beating your wife.

Dear America
Thank you for ripping me from my home in the middle of the night and taking me blindfolded and confused to foreign soil. I appreciate not having contact with my family and fearing death on a daily basis. The marine guards were really fun, the games were strange but as long as I played along I was allowed to keep breathing. The bruises have now almost healed and my hair is growing back. The cold concrete cell was comfy enough and the food adequate to survive on, the cockroaches made a nice supliment. Can I keep the orange jumpsuit?
Not that spewing random propaganda really makes for any discussion.

Don't get me wrong: This is a good thing, but I don't know about "deserving thanks."

It's like expecting a medal when you stop beating your wife.

That's an accurate way of putting it.

Dear America
Thank you for ripping me from my home in the middle of the night and taking me blindfolded and confused to foreign soil. I appreciate not having contact with my family and fearing death on a daily basis. The marine guards were really fun, the games were strange but as long as I played along I was allowed to keep breathing. The bruises have now almost healed and my hair is growing back. The cold concrete cell was comfy enough and the food adequate to survive on, the cockroaches made a nice supliment. Can I keep the orange jumpsuit?

Dear Persecuted Minorities:

Thank you for attending Guantanamo Bay Home for Wayward Boys. Your graduation from this institution follows in the footsteps of your previous training at the Al-Qaeda Camp For Adventurous Jihadis, located in Afghanistan. We congratulate you on your entrance qualifications, which included firing machineguns at US troops, setting explosives traps in caves, defending Tora Bora so that OBL could get away, and killing Americans in an attempt to break out of prison camp in Afghanistan.

We hope that your transfer to a facility in your country of birth will lead to a more liberal education in what it's really liked to be tortured.

For you more advanced students, you will be transferred either to Israel, or back to the prison in Afghanistan, where your former enemies will show you the meaning of pain.

I think the US deserves a little thanks for doing this. What do you think?



Hundreds to be released from Guantanamo war on terror base: report

Mon Jan 10,12:20 PM ET World - AFP



WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is preparing to release or transfer hundreds of prisoners from its controversial Guantanamo Bay war on terror detention camp in Cuba, according to a newspaper report.


AFP/HO/File Photo



Quoting a senior US defence official, the Financial Times newspaper said the releases would be part of a restructuring of the camp which will include the building of a new prison for long-term inmates.

There are about 550 inmates from more than 20 countries at the camp on the US naval base, many of whom have been held for three years without access to a lawyer or being told whether they would be charged.

The report said the long term prison, to be called Camp Six, would have room for about 200 inmates that the United States does not want to see released.

According to the official, those who are kept there will remain under detention as "enemy combatants". He said that an estimated 25 percent of those still at Guantanamo Bay were still considered of intelligence value.

The official said the new jail will have improved medical facilities, particularly for mental health problems.

Despite international criticism of the designation, the United States does not recognise accused militants captured in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and other countries since the September 11, 2001 attacks as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

The Financial Times report said that four Britons held at the camp would be among those transferred. Their cases have been a source of friction between Washington and London, the strongest US ally in the war on terror and in Iraq (news - web sites).

Depends on if you think that people should be thanked for NOT illegally seizing foregin citizens, imprisoning them, torturing them, etc.

Personally... I like to think most people favour some kind of 'human rights' ideal... but, "Well Done" to the US Regime... if you really think a regime NEEDS thanks for a slight glimpse of compassion.

Dear Persecuted Minorities:

Thank you for attending Guantanamo Bay Home for Wayward Boys. Your graduation from this institution follows in the footsteps of your previous training at the Al-Qaeda Camp For Adventurous Jihadis, located in Afghanistan. We congratulate you on your entrance qualifications, which included firing machineguns at US troops, setting explosives traps in caves, defending Tora Bora so that OBL could get away, and killing Americans in an attempt to break out of prison camp in Afghanistan.

We hope that your transfer to a facility in your country of birth will lead to a more liberal education in what it's really liked to be tortured.

For you more advanced students, you will be transferred either to Israel, or back to the prison in Afghanistan, where your former enemies will show you the meaning of pain.

Because, of course... everyone knows that all the 'attendees' were picked up totally legitimately, in the very act of attacking American troops or setting bombs?

Yes, we're terrible. I mean we kidnapped all these poor Arabs and decapitated them in... oh, wait. That's what the terrorsits do to Westerners they capture. Oops.

People love trashing America. Funny how they don't mind taking our cash or other forms of aid when they are in need.

Yes, we're terrible. I mean we kidnapped all these poor Arabs and decapitated them in... oh, wait. That's what the terrorsits do to Westerners they capture. Oops.

Here's the tar you ordered.

Don't worry about another brush - you can use the same one for all of them.

Yes, we're terrible. I mean we kidnapped all these poor Arabs and decapitated them in... oh, wait. That's what the terrorsits do to Westerners they capture. Oops.

Yay, we're not as bad as the terrorists.

People love trashing America. Funny how they don't mind taking our cash or other forms of aid when they are in need.

Amen. They spend all their time, 24/7, bitching about America, while pretending they're all perfect. :rolleyes:

Here's the tar you ordered.

Don't worry about another brush - you can use the same one for all of them.

None of it. While I'm not crazy about how GitMo was handled, I'm glad it WAS handled. I have small tolerence for people who want to kill me/us. Maybe it's because I work a block from the Empire State Building.

Yay, we're not as bad as the terrorists.

Let me ask you this:

Choice A: Some guys hold you down while they hack you with a sword
or
Choice B: Open air prison for a couple of years on a tropical island with 3 squares a day.

Call me crazy, but if I have the choice, hand me that orange jumpsuit!

None of it. While I'm not crazy about how GitMo was handled, I'm glad it WAS handled. I have small tolerence for people who want to kill me/us. Maybe it's because I work a block from the Empire State Building.

Which is full of terrorists?

I stand by my tar and brush evaluation.

SOME people have harmful intentions.

SOME of the people will harmful intentions had dark skin.

Therefore - it is okay to grab random dark-skinned people and imprison/torture them... becuase they MUST have harmful intentions.

The thing about Americans is that it's not so that people oppose destroying governments like Taleban and the Baath regime. It's that even though Americans have good intentions, they're not good at military intervention. Or with the rest of the world in general.

In Afghanistan for example, Americans just went asking people for "terrorists" and offered money in return. So, the corrupt locals just kidnapped people and sold them to the Americans. Americans were naive and believed the kidnappers.

In Iraq, Saddam imprisoned people on suspicion. Saddam's prisons were full of people for which there was no criminal records or anything. The Americans couldn't just release them, because there was the risk of releasing robbers and murderers. This means that there are people imprisoned by Saddam who have no hope of being set free from Saddam's prisons.

And so on. It's the naivete, unbelievably stupid blundering and flouting their own(!) constitution (Amendment VI, "In __all__ criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" to be exact).

I think Bush is illegally detaining these people because if they were brought to a trial, there could be the risk of proving some of them innocent. That would publicly embarrass Bush and his policies. So, he just sets some of them free.

Which is full of terrorists?

I stand by my tar and brush evaluation.
SOME people have harmful intentions.
SOME of the people will harmful intentions had dark skin.

Therefore - it is okay to grab random dark-skinned people and imprison/torture them... becuase they MUST have harmful intentions.

Show me how it was random, please.

Show me how it was random, please.

You are the one defending the current regime's policy of Geneva-illegal imprisonment... so YOU show how it was justified?

Which is full of terrorists?
Well, the ESB is filled with Americans. :p

You are the one defending the current regime's policy of Geneva-illegal imprisonment... so YOU show how it was justified?

Last time I checked, decapitation was against the Geneva Convention, too.

Further, you're the one saying it was random. Prove it.

Hey, I work just around the corner from Citicorp. You know, just to show that torture apologists don't have the lock-down on living in the blast radius.

The "decapitations are against Geneva" argument is hooey. Just cause we're fighting shitbags don't mean we're shitbags too.

Even if ALL the people in Guatanamo were terrorists - which is highly unlikely - do they not still deserve the basic human rights that you yourself would have if you were sent to jail? A trial? A lawyer? A phone call? Hell you wouldn't even be tortured as badly as some of these people are. You can't claim the moral high ground when you're torturing and denying basic rights to other people based on an ASSUMPTION that they're terrorists.

Last time I checked, decapitation was against the Geneva Convention, too.

Further, you're the one saying it was random. Prove it.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed... but the Iraq insurgents aren't actually covered by Geneva protocols, since they aren't an army, or a sovereign power.

On the other hand, the US IS bound to Geneva protocols, and thus, by their commission of acts contraveneiong Geneva protocols, they are acting illegally - according to the protocol terms.

And then, they complain that someone is mean to them in retaliation.

Double standard, perhaps?

The US shouldn't have taken those people captive in the first place.

I don't think the US deeserves thanks for that action, as many of the inmates are most likely innocent bystanders, or at least should be held under the Geneva Convention.
Perhaps they should be thanking other Countries for not prosecuting the US government for holding their citizens without trial?

And how, exactly, would other countries prosecute the US government?

If other countries went through a 9/11.. I would imagine they'd be as sensitive as we are to known terrorists or likely terrorists. If they know something, we need to know it so we can neutralize them more successfully... or otherwise bring them to justice (i mean free terrorists).

The US shouldn't have taken those people captive in the first place.
What you tallking about? That 12 year old was one of the most dangerous people on the planet

If other countries went through a 9/11.. I would imagine they'd be as sensitive as we are to known terrorists or likely terrorists. If they know something, we need to know it so we can hunt them.
Yeah! None of them, many of whom have experienced terrorist attacks that make 9/11 look like a walk in the park, and experience terrorist attacks far more often than us, could possibly understand what we have went through. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you this:

Choice A: Some guys hold you down while they hack you with a sword
or
Choice B: Open air prison for a couple of years on a tropical island with 3 squares a day.

Call me crazy, but if I have the choice, hand me that orange jumpsuit!

Simply because B is more preferable to most people than A doesn't make B a good thing.

You may as well try and argue Hitler wasn't that bad because he was as bad as Stalin
(NB: I am not equating the US or Bush to either Stalin or Hitler)

Yeah! None of them, many of whom have experienced terrorist attacks that make 9/11 look like a walk in the park, and experience terrorist attacks far more often than us, could possibly understand what we have went through. :rolleyes:

Well they don't seem to get it... war is hell. We are fighting the biggest war since WWII, a fight to keep the fanatics from attacking democracy. It's freedom against tyranny. Freedom has to win.

If other countries went through a 9/11.. I would imagine they'd be as sensitive as we are to known terrorists or likely terrorists. If they know something, we need to know it so we can hunt them

You make it sound like the US is the only country to have been a victim of terrorism.

Well they don't seem to get it... war is hell. We are fighting the biggest war since WWII, a fight to keep the fanatics from attacking democracy. It's freedom against tyranny. Freedom has to win.
Which side is the US on :p </jk>

The US started this btw. You do realise that don't you? And to stop fanatic from attacking Democracy(TM) you have to attack them. Wow, talk about the pot and kettle.

Let me ask you this:

Choice A: Some guys hold you down while they hack you with a sword
or
Choice B: Open air prison for a couple of years on a tropical island with 3 squares a day.

Call me crazy, but if I have the choice, hand me that orange jumpsuit!
What's that quote from Nietzsche again? Oh yeah.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. "

Even if ALL the people in Guatanamo were terrorists - which is highly unlikely - do they not still deserve the basic human rights that you yourself would have if you were sent to jail? A trial? A lawyer? A phone call? Hell you wouldn't even be tortured as badly as some of these people are. You can't claim the moral high ground when you're torturing and denying basic rights to other people based on an ASSUMPTION that they're terrorists.

As I said back in post #21:
"None of it. While I'm not crazy about how GitMo was handled, I'm glad it WAS handled. I have small tolerence for people who want to kill me/us. Maybe it's because I work a block from the Empire State Building."

...I'm not 100% pleased about how the inmates were treated. However, please read THIS: http://www.redcross.org.uk/education/section.asp?id=18992
Still sounds to me a heck of a lot more humane than HACKING SOMEONE'S HEAD OFF WITH A SWORD!

They were treated a lot better off than most people seem to think. I'm not saying it was the lap of luxury. But it is still better than having your head cut off. Has anyone noticed that after Gitmo, the number of attacks in Afghanistan went down. Hmm. No correlation there, I'm sure!

What "basic human rights"? The ones in Afghanistan under the Taleban? They are NOT citizens of the US and are NOT protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Torture? WHAT torture?
If it is, why does the Red Cross neither confirm nor deny the New York Times article? They said "that the indefinite imprisonment of suspects at Guantanamo amounts to torture."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6618051/

Two solid years of visits. No confirmation, ergo no torture.

Well they don't seem to get it... war is hell. We are fighting the biggest war since WWII, a fight to keep the fanatics from attacking democracy. It's freedom against tyranny. Freedom has to win.

Fanatics, oh, the people living their traditional lives in their way, in their country, using their rules. Ah but those rules do not include democaracy, so we have to use negatively laden terminology, stir up the media frenzy and impose upoin them, whether appropriate or not for the rest of their culture and social structure a system that simply gives power to whoever has the most effective media machine. All worship democracy. Hail to the new god. You shall have no god other than democracy.

OK. Democracy may, in principle, be one of the best forms of choosing your leaders, but in practice it is severely flawed, and no more just or FREE than almost any other method you care to name.

P.S. Thank you Uncle Sam for releasing some of the hostages you took without your demands being met.

Considering that most of the people that have been released up to now have been captured or killed fighting coalition troops or involved in terrorist acts I would say no thanks is called for. We're just letting them go so we can shoot them later without a lot of whining about poor abused people.

What's that quote from Nietzsche again? Oh yeah.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. "

That's the funny thing about security. When it works, no one notices.

" 'Cause we belong in a world that must be strong." - Van Halen, Dreams

Simply because B is more preferable to most people than A doesn't make B a good thing.

You may as well try and argue Hitler wasn't that bad because he was as bad as Stalin
(NB: I am not equating the US or Bush to either Stalin or Hitler)

You're absolutely right. But it isn't purgatory, either.

No, but I'd argue that Nixon wasn't as bad as Stalin.

They were treated a lot better off than most people seem to think. I'm not saying it was the lap of luxury. But it is still better than having your head cut off. Has anyone noticed that after Gitmo, the number of attacks in Afghanistan went down. Hmm. No correlation there, I'm sure!

When you say before gitmo do you mean before the US arrived?

And a correlation does equal a causal link between the two.

What "basic human rights"? The ones in Afghanistan under the Taleban? They are NOT citizens of the US and are NOT protected by the Constitution of the United States.


I will not enter the discussion on hacking heads off etc. but human rights apply to, guess what, humans. This does not mean US citizen, nor does it mean that the US can treat them as it wishes. Whether there are fundamental human rights or not is a different discussion, but if we assume that the US constitution does refer to the fundamental rights of man, which it does, then these alien detainees are equally as entitled to these rights as any US citizen on the basis that they are human, nothing more, nothing less.

If this is not the case then I would advise any non US citizen who is planning to visit the US for business or pleasure not to do so as they will have no legal status there higher than that of a roach.

When you say before gitmo do you mean before the US arrived?

And a correlation does equal a causal link between the two.

The US has had a base in GitMo, Cuba since after the Spanish American War, I believe.

Thanks.

The US has had a base in GitMo, Cuba since after the Spanish American War, I believe.

Thanks.
I'd forgotten about that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825317/

May 3 issue - The Bush administration's detention of hundreds of foreign fighters in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, got dissected last week by the Supreme Court, with some justices questioning the government's right to incarcerate aliens indefinitely without judicial review. But the court arguments may have obscured a potentially bigger embarrassment for the Pentagon: some of the more than 100 Gitmo prisoners who have been released have since turned up back in Afghanistan—fighting with Taliban forces against the U.S. military.

Yep. Obviously they were all innocent. :rolleyes:

Again, folks: I'm not pleased with GitMo. It could have been handled a bit better. BUT it is not like Aushwitz!

I will not enter the discussion on hacking heads off etc. but human rights apply to, guess what, humans. This does not mean US citizen, nor does it mean that the US can treat them as it wishes. Whether there are fundamental human rights or not is a different discussion, but if we assume that the US constitution does refer to the fundamental rights of man, which it does, then these alien detainees are equally as entitled to these rights as any US citizen on the basis that they are human, nothing more, nothing less.

If this is not the case then I would advise any non US citizen who is planning to visit the US for business or pleasure not to do so as they will have no legal status there higher than that of a roach.

My point was that while the situation in GitMo is not ideal, it's a whole lot better than it could have been.

Given the US is engaged with a fight that is against a non-national, no quarter giving enemy, I don't find GitMo to an unreasonable situation. Not an ideal one, but not an unreasonable one.

As for your last statement, that's a little silly. If you're coming here LEGALLY. If you're captured in Tora Bora near a stockpile of mortar rounds, it's another ball of wax.

Dear America
Thank you for ripping me from my home in the middle of the night and taking me blindfolded and confused to foreign soil. I appreciate not having contact with my family and fearing death on a daily basis. The marine guards were really fun, the games were strange but as long as I played along I was allowed to keep breathing. The bruises have now almost healed and my hair is growing back. The cold concrete cell was comfy enough and the food adequate to survive on, the cockroaches made a nice supliment. Can I keep the orange jumpsuit?
Not that spewing random propaganda really makes for any discussion.But it did illustrate the absurdity of the statement that the America is deserving thanks for it's recent actions.

Rather effectively I might add.

Well they don't seem to get it... war is hell. We are fighting the biggest war since WWII, a fight to keep the fanatics from attacking democracy. It's freedom against tyranny. Freedom has to win.

You do know that the US isn't a Democracy, don't you?

As for your last statement, that's a little silly. If you're coming here LEGALLY. If you're captured in Tora Bora near a stockpile of mortar rounds, it's another ball of wax.

How is it a little silly. If the US constitution does nothing to protect non US citizens against the abuse of executive power whilst on US controlled lands, then do not visit the USA if you are not a US citizen.

Either the constitution does apply or it does not. It can not be a case of the constitution only applies when we want it to if the constitution is to be worth having.

How is it a little silly. If the US constitution does nothing to protect non US citizens against the abuse of executive power whilst on US controlled lands, then do not visit the USA if you are not a US citizen.


Do you always equate people captured in a combat area to those coming in with a ticket and a passport? :rolleyes:


Either the constitution does apply or it does not. It can not be a case of the constitution only applies when we want it to if the constitution is to be worth having.

Right back at you: So was it wrong, then, for the Marines who raped the girls in Okinawa to be tried by Japan? How about the kid who was caned in Singapore? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

If you're a GUEST in a foreign nation, those laws do indeed protect you (and are you are subject to them, unless you are a diplomat). If you're a FOREIGN COMBATANT, different rules obviously apply.

I wanted to post something from a Chris Rock HBO special to highlight my point but he says "******" too much.

Instead I'll say this:

"Well, I take care of my kids."

"You're suppose to you dumb mother fucker!"

In short: Don't expect praise for shit you are supposed to do. Innocent people are supposed to be free, not in prison.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed... but the Iraq insurgents aren't actually covered by Geneva protocols, since they aren't an army, or a sovereign power.

On the other hand, the US IS bound to Geneva protocols, and thus, by their commission of acts contraveneiong Geneva protocols, they are acting illegally - according to the protocol terms.

And then, they complain that someone is mean to them in retaliation.

Double standard, perhaps?

No double standard needed, the Geneva Convention spells it out quite clearly

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers (terrorists ) in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties ( Occupational Forces ) thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power(terrorists) , if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

This seems to read that if the first Power, the terrorists , who are not part of the Geneva Convention, will "accept and applies the provisions thereof" ( of the Geneva Convention )" only then shall the occuping forces ( Occupational Forces ) be obligated to recognize the Convention in relation to these groups

To me that says that if the terrorists are not accepting and applying the provisions of the Geneva Convention ( ie LOAC, Hostages, Tourture, Endangering Civilian population, ectrera ectrera ) that the US has No Obligation under the Geneva Conventions in dealing with the terrorists.

Please let me know if you need more information from the Geneva Conventions. It spells out in detail, who is, and who is NOT protected by the Convention.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed... but the Iraq insurgents aren't actually covered by Geneva protocols, since they aren't an army, or a sovereign power.

On the other hand, the US IS bound to Geneva protocols, and thus, by their commission of acts contraveneiong Geneva protocols, they are acting illegally - according to the protocol terms.

And then, they complain that someone is mean to them in retaliation.

Double standard, perhaps?

Unfortunately, the bastards are included within the Geneva Conventions now, despite not being an army or part of a sovereign power.

Woops, didn't see the previous post. But there ya go. Heh.

But it did illustrate the absurdity of the statement that the America is deserving thanks for it's recent actions.

Rather effectively I might add.
It didn't illustrate anything.

It's entire point really is to inflame people with highly emotional claims and stuff. So. Yeah.

I'll agree that we don't deserve thanks, but, I mean, the statement is retarded.

No double standard needed, the Geneva Convention spells it out quite clearly

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers (terrorists ) in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties ( Occupational Forces ) thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power(terrorists) , if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

This seems to read that if the first Power, the terrorists , who are not part of the Geneva Convention, will "accept and applies the provisions thereof" ( of the Geneva Convention )" only then shall the occuping forces ( Occupational Forces ) be obligated to recognize the Convention in relation to these groups

To me that says that if the terrorists are not accepting and applying the provisions of the Geneva Convention ( ie LOAC, Hostages, Tourture, Endangering Civilian population, ectrera ectrera ) that the US has No Obligation under the Geneva Conventions in dealing with the terrorists.

Please let me know if you need more information from the Geneva Conventions. It spells out in detail, who is, and who is NOT protected by the Convention.

I'm not seeing it. The way I see it "the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations" is a categorical statement that GC ("Geneva Convention bound body", i.e. the US) is STILL bound by Geneva protocols - unless the occupied nation is in breach of Geneva protocols... whether or not it signed on to the Geneva convention.

Since the militants in Iraq are NOT the Iraqi army, and, in fact, cannot be truly determined (most of the time) to even be Iraqi nationals... Iraq has not breached Geneva protocols... and, as such, the US is STILL obliged to uphold Geneva protocols with regard to citizens of Iraq. (Since 'Iraq' as a sovereign nation, is accepting and applying the protocols... while some 'rebel' elements may not be).

I don't see how you can interpret it any other way.

What "basic human rights"? The ones in Afghanistan under the Taleban? They are NOT citizens of the US and are NOT protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Actually the better question to ask is,
In what declared war have detainees been given rights under the US Judicial System?

Prisoners of War are treated under the provisions of the Geneva Convention unless they are:
a.) Not a signee of the Geneva Convention ( terrorist are not )
AND
b.) Are Not "accepting and applying the provisions of the Geneva Convention"

Violations of the Geneva Convention such as:
Taking Hostages,
Tourturing Captives { I am pretty sure Beheading falls under this, wouldnt you agree?},
Using Hospitals/ Schools/ Sites of Historical and Cultural significance/ Religious facilities as weapons depots and military operation sites. Endangering the Civilian Population,
Not Bearing Arms Openly,
Not Displaying distinctive markings which distinguish combatants from the civilian population that can be recognized at a distance.

These actions invalidate their protections under the Geneva Convention and since there is no legal basis in the US Civilian Judicial system for treating them as US citizens the US Constitution does not apply to them

Now if your opponent wants to point out the which ammendment of the US Constitution states that unlawfull combantants ( per the definition of the Geneva Convention ) will be given the full protections of the Constitution I would be willing to conceed the point he is making, but that ammendment does not exist

Your opponent is trying to make a Moral point, what he doesnt seem to realize is that under the Geneva Convention it would have been perfectly acceptable from a LEGAL standpoint to hold a military tribunal on the field when we apprehended them, and if found guilty of acts that were intended to harm the occupational forces, damage property and facilities or harm personnel ( say like shooting at them ), shoot the "unlawfull combantants" dead where they stood.

I wonder if your opponent understood this.

Actually since there are no protections extended to forces that violate the Geneva Conventions, touturing them would not violate the Geneva Conventions would it?

The fact we have provided ANY protections means we have gone beyond the obligations imposed upon us by the Geneva Conventions


Torture? WHAT torture?
If it is, why does the Red Cross neither confirm nor deny the New York Times article? They said "that the indefinite imprisonment of suspects at Guantanamo amounts to torture."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6618051/

Two solid years of visits. No confirmation, ergo no torture.

Yeah, of course some people will cry at any excuse.

I wonder what Veitman vets who read that the prisoners at Gitmo are "mistreated" think when they compare the treatment at Gitmo to the treatment at the Hanoi Hilton,

I wonder if they laugh at the comparision or cry at the memories. :(

Actually the better question to ask is,
In what declared war have detainees been given rights under the US Judicial System?

Prisoners of War are treated under the provisions of the Geneva Convention unless they are:
a.) Not a signee of the Geneva Convention ( terrorist are not )
AND
b.) Are Not "accepting and applying the provisions of the Geneva Convention"

Violations of the Geneva Convention such as:
Taking Hostages,
Tourturing Captives { I am pretty sure Beheading falls under this, wouldnt you agree?},
Using Hospitals/ Schools/ Sites of Historical and Cultural significance/ Religious facilities as weapons depots and military operation sites. Endangering the Civilian Population,
Not Bearing Arms Openly,
Not Displaying distinctive markings which distinguish combatants from the civilian population that can be recognized at a distance.

These actions invalidate their protections under the Geneva Convention and since there is no legal basis in the US Civilian Judicial system for treating them as US citizens the US Constitution does not apply to them

Now if your opponent wants to point out the which ammendment of the US Constitution states that unlawfull combantants ( per the definition of the Geneva Convention ) will be given the full protections of the Constitution I would be willing to conceed the point he is making, but that ammendment does not exist

Your opponent is trying to make a Moral point, what he doesnt seem to realize is that under the Geneva Convention it would have been perfectly acceptable from a LEGAL standpoint to hold a military tribunal on the field when we apprehended them, and if found guilty of acts that were intended to harm the occupational forces, damage property and facilities or harm personnel ( say like shooting at them ), shoot the "unlawfull combantants" dead where they stood.

I wonder if your opponent understood this.

Actually since there are no protections extended to forces that violate the Geneva Conventions, touturing them would not violate the Geneva Conventions would it?

The fact we have provided ANY protections means we have gone beyond the obligations imposed upon us by the Geneva Conventions




Yeah, of course some people will cry at any excuse.

I wonder what Veitman vets who read that the prisoners at Gitmo are "mistreated" think when they compare the treatment at Gitmo to the treatment at the Hanoi Hilton,

I wonder if they laugh at the comparision or cry at the memories. :(

The problem, of course... is that you are applying the same "tar and brush" argument we saw earlier. Since many of the detainees were 'handed over' in exchange for bounties, how can anyone be sure that a) they were enemy combatants, b) they were, for example, carrying concealed weapons, c) they were contravening Geneva Protocols?

As you said - battle-field justice is one thing... you find a guy planting a bomb, and you shoot him... fait accompli, crime punished.

Conversely, you find a guy standing NEAR some guys that you think might be terrorists, and you don't like the look of him, so you bring him in - where is the justification, at all, for breaching Geneva convention?

I guess you could say, if he was carrying a concealed weapon... but, by that token, there are thousands of Americans walking around today breaching Geneva Conventions.


Incidentally - the Geneva Conventions would not be the SOLE instrument in the path of the US policy vis-a-vis 'detainees'. They are also bound by:

The 1899 Hague Convention on Laws and Customs of War on Land;
The 1907 Hague Convention on Laws and Customs of War on Land;
And substantial portions of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions as customary international law.

And, while we are at it:

The obligations of the Geneva Conventions do not depend on reciprocity

International humanitarian law was crafted to balance considerations of humanity against military necessity, and does not depend on reciprocity. The obligations of the Geneva Conventions are absolute, and a nation is not justified in disregarding them just because its opponent violates them. All parties to the current conflict are bound by international humanitarian law, but even if one party disregards its obligations, that does not excuse its adversaries from compliance. The United States has considered itself bound by the Geneva Conventions and other humanitarian laws in previous wars despite violations of the law of war by its enemies, including Iraq, Vietnam, and North Korea, and should continue to do so in this war.


http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/iraq/iraq_02.htm#L5

I'm not seeing it. The way I see it "the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations" is a categorical statement that GC ("Geneva Convention bound body", i.e. the US) is STILL bound by Geneva protocols - unless the occupied nation is in breach of Geneva protocols... whether or not it signed on to the Geneva convention.

Since the militants in Iraq are NOT the Iraqi army, and, in fact, cannot be truly determined (most of the time) to even be Iraqi nationals... Iraq has not breached Geneva protocols... and, as such, the US is STILL obliged to uphold Geneva protocols with regard to citizens of Iraq. (Since 'Iraq' as a sovereign nation, is accepting and applying the protocols... while some 'rebel' elements may not be).

I don't see how you can interpret it any other way.

As you say they are not the Iraqi Army, in fact they do not represent the Iraqi government in any way do they? They are in your own words "rebel elements"

This is particullary well illustrated when they attack Iraqi installations such as recruiting offices and Police stations wouldn't you agree Grave and Idle?

So what does the Geneva Conventions say about Citizens of a party of the Geneva Convention?

Shall we look?

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm

Article 4

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


( I read that to mean Iraqi or other Nationals in the hands of the Occupational Forces, do you agree Grave and Idle? )

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

( Does the US and the Iraqi Provisional Government enjoy normal diplomatic relations? If so, the citizens of Iraq are not "Protected Persons" since their government has the access of diplomatic relations to appeal for release of their citizens )

Nationals of a neutral state who find themselves in the territory of a beligerant state shall not be regaurded as protected persons ( under the Geneva Conventions) while thier states have normal diplomatic representation in the state in whose hands they are.

Which middle eastern countries do not have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US?

Citizens of these nations would be considered protected.

However if the confined persons nation does have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US then they are not "Protected Persons" under the Geneva Convention

Please provide the list of the countries that do not have normal diplomatic relations with the US and the number of detainies of their nationality. Only these pesons are given "Protected" status under the Geneva Convention

Now as to their Prisoner of War Status, do you want to delve into that can of worms? Think the word Perfidy

Be well

AAhhzz

To me that says that if the terrorists are not accepting and applying the provisions of the Geneva Convention ( ie LOAC, Hostages, Tourture, Endangering Civilian population, ectrera ectrera ) that the US has No Obligation under the Geneva Conventions in dealing with the terrorists.

Please let me know if you need more information from the Geneva Conventions. It spells out in detail, who is, and who is NOT protected by the Convention.[/QUOTE]

Personally I have a moral issue with our treatment of the prisoners, and the fact that we are ignoring international law, but to look beyond thos issues:

Should we follow the letter of the law or the spirit of the law? Obviously the spirit of this law is that human beings have certain rights which should be given to them.

The problem is that America claims to be a beacon of freedom, democracy, human rights, and law and order. If America wants to claim that it is a beacon of light on a hill, fine, but it must hold itself to the highest moral standards. This is not what is happening in Guantanamo. If america wants to hold prisoners without charge, and hold them in very bad if not torturous conditions, fine, but America will have to stop acting like the morally superior force in the world.

On behalf of all Americans, I would like to apologize for this thread. I think we're mostly decent people. I think the stupid people are a minority, but they just like to talk more than the average American, so all anyone ever hears from are people who go around posting retarded threads like this. It seems to me that at least 1/2 of the threads posted here have something to do with the U.S., which always end up looking like:

Heil_Bush24:oh yea?!?! America can kick everyone's ass!!!1

CheGuevaraIsCool:maybe you could with your RETARD powers!. Because Americans are stupid!!hahahah I am so much smarter than you because I'm from Europe

TrustifarianDildo: yea, america sucks. I bet that the tsunami was made by nuclear bombs that you were blowing up just so big corporations could make money

MopeyBitch:why does everybody hate us?Nobody likes America. waaaaaaaaaaah I'm going to go start a new thread and ask everyone why they hate me

I'm sick of seeing the same thing every day

As you say they are not the Iraqi Army, in fact they do not represent the Iraqi government in any way do they? They are in your own words "rebel elements"

This is particullary well illustrated when they attack Iraqi installations such as recruiting offices and Police stations wouldn't you agree Grave and Idle?

So what does the Geneva Conventions say about Citizens of a party of the Geneva Convention?

Shall we look?

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm

Article 4

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


( I read that to mean Iraqi or other Nationals in the hands of the Occupational Forces, do you agree Grave and Idle? )

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

( Does the US and the Iraqi Provisional Government enjoy normal diplomatic relations? If so, the citizens of Iraq are not "Protected Persons" since their government has the access of diplomatic relations to appeal for release of their citizens )

Nationals of a neutral state who find themselves in the territory of a beligerant state shall not be regaurded as protected persons ( under the Geneva Conventions) while thier states have normal diplomatic representation in the state in whose hands they are.

Which middle eastern countries do not have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US?

Citizens of these nations would be considered protected.

However if the confined persons nation does have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US then they are not "Protected Persons" under the Geneva Convention

Please provide the list of the countries that do not have normal diplomatic relations with the US and the number of detainies of their nationality. Only these pesons are given "Protected" status under the Geneva Convention

Now as to their Prisoner of War Status, do you want to delve into that can of worms? Think the word Perfidy

Be well

AAhhzz

So, which point are you arguing?

Both Iraq and the US are signatories of the four Geneva Conventions. If the suspected militants are claimed to be part of the Iraqi sovereign force - then they are covered by Geneva conventions, because both sides are signatories.

Or, are you claiming that the detainees were members of the Pre-Invasion Iraq (somehow, thus, mitigated by Saddam's OWN abuses of Geneva protocol)? If so - those persons would be considered not to have been represented by 'normal diplomatic relations'.

Or, are you claiming that they were foreign nationals, and thus not protected by Iraqi membership to the Geneva protocol 'circle'? In which case - each individual who IS NOT an Iraqi citizen must be assessed individually, as to their status - which clearly didn't happen.

And, you still seem to be neglecting the fact that the 'detainees' were not uniformly found identifying themselves with terrorist organisations, or firing on US troops (for example).

Not continuing on the current topic and responding to the original thread -
To be frank, this is quite scary. Now you have a nation showing off their power on keeping prisoners the government would not like to see released. And then to top it, it would be called "Camp Six"?
It sounds like the path of a future police state forming there.

The problem, of course... is that you are applying the same "tar and brush" argument we saw earlier. Since many of the detainees were 'handed over' in exchange for bounties, how can anyone be sure that a) they were enemy combatants, b) they were, for example, carrying concealed weapons, c) they were contravening Geneva Protocols?

:)

Excellent points!

Lets address them shall we?

The Hague said it best I think,
"Animated by the desire to serve, even in this extreme case, the interests of humanity and the ever progressive needs of civilization; Thinking it important, with this object, to revise the general laws and customs of war, either with a view to defining them with greater precision or to confining them within such limits as would mitigate their severity as far as possible;

A basic reason for the Hague and the Geneva Convention is to mitigate the effects of War on the Civilian population.

However when your opponent violates the Hague and Geneva Convention by not declaring themselves by the wearing of a uniform or the displaying of signage which is recognizable at a distance, it is hard to distinguish between the civilians and the unlawfull combatants is it not?

So do you apprehend persons acting in a suspicious manner or let them go?

If you let them go and they later kill someone, are you not as the officer in charge, responsible for the death of that person? Morally if not legally?

So how do you make the distinction? From what I can see the officer at the point of contact would have to make that determination wouldnt they??

Then of course they would hand them to their superiours who would try and verify the detainees story as to home town and occupation. If the detainees story is verified I would think it likely that the occupational forces would release the person being held and keep a record, after all, you find someone over and over again in supicious circumstances,

I could not find the exact blog but that is basically what happened in
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
He and his Father were apprehended cruising near US military checkpoints with a digital camera taking pictures. The soldeirs apprehended them and verified their identities and released them once their story checked out.

So just, how many people have been detained in a simular manner? 12? 200? Several thousand over the past 3 years? Of these how many were sent to GITMO??

To make an accurate evaluation of weather or not the soldeirs on the ground are using a measure of discretion and reasonable judgement I think you would have to know how many have been detained for an hour or more while their story was checked out and compare that to the total number being held.

Wouldnt you consider that to be a reasonable conjecture Grave And Idle?

If a detainee is carrying a concealed weapon when apprehend are they not in violation of that provision of the Hague and Geneva Convention ?

If so well, basically the soldeirs on the ground are not going to just shoot them, again they are going to hand them upward along the chain of command and let the officers in charge make the desicions, after all thats what they are paid the big bucks for isnt it?

Not sure if the Afganistan constitution provides the right to bear arms. Do you know Grave?

And if the person is carring an RPG its pretty certain he isnt out to gather berries.

And if they are carring maps, mortors and vials of Sarin gas?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1277362/posts
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm <--- Picture #2

More likely than not the slodiers will not shoot them but rather hand them upward for questioning and detainment, maybe in Gitmo.

As you said - battle-field justice is one thing... you find a guy planting a bomb, and you shoot him... fait accompli, crime punished.

Conversely, you find a guy standing NEAR some guys that you think might be terrorists, and you don't like the look of him, so you bring him in - where is the justification, at all, for breaching Geneva convention?

This is where you have to find out how many have been detained in a short term manner while their stories were checked out dont you think Grave And Idle?

If several thousand have been detained for a few hours and a few hundred have been held long term dont you think this would show that the soldeirs in the field might be using reasonable judgement in holding persons who stories do not check out?

Say they state they come from City A, street B house # 1, but when their story is checked there is no such address, or no one in the area recognize their names nor do they recognize a description / picture of the person.

Would you think in this case that there is resonable suspicion for holding this person further ?

How many persons do you think are being held for No Reason at all Grave and Idle?

Do you have any basis for this number?

Do you know of any particular case where the Occupational Forces have held a detainee for more than say 3 days without any justification?


I guess you could say, if he was carrying a concealed weapon... but, by that token, there are thousands of Americans walking around today breaching Geneva Conventions.

Fortunately our Constitution Allows us the Right to Bear Arms, and we dont have an occupational force here in the US taking that right from us do we?


Also if your carrying a Concealed weapon and do not have a lisence for it you are liable to go to jail arent you?


Incidentally - the Geneva Conventions would not be the SOLE instrument in the path of the US policy vis-a-vis 'detainees'. They are also bound by:

The 1899 Hague Convention on Laws and Customs of War on Land;
The 1907 Hague Convention on Laws and Customs of War on Land;
And substantial portions of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions as customary international law.

And, while we are at it:
Originally Posted by Human Rights First
The obligations of the Geneva Conventions do not depend on reciprocity

International humanitarian law was crafted to balance considerations of humanity against military necessity, and does not depend on reciprocity. The obligations of the Geneva Conventions are absolute, and a nation is not justified in disregarding them just because its opponent violates them. All parties to the current conflict are bound by international humanitarian law, but even if one party disregards its obligations, that does not excuse its adversaries from compliance. The United States has considered itself bound by the Geneva Conventions and other humanitarian laws in previous wars despite violations of the law of war by its enemies, including Iraq, Vietnam, and North Korea, and should continue to do so in this war.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/iraq/iraq_02.htm#L5

Yeap, Should is the word, not Will, not Must, but Should

I thought the footnote in this paragraph were more interesting than the quote

6 See article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions (“The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.”). The first three articles of all four Geneva Conventions are identical, and are often referred to as the “common” articles, e.g. “Common Article 1.”

Respecting the Conventions also means to Enforce the conventions. After all Mercy without Justice is not Justice at all is it?.

Violations of the conventions MUST have consequences if you are going to Ensure Respect for the Conventions

And the next paragraph was instructional was it not?
Originally Posted by Human Rights First
3. Civilian casualties should be avoided

In any armed conflict, the right of the parties to chose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.8 International humanitarian law requires that parties to a conflict “shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” 9 Civilians are to be protected from military operations.10 The civilian population as such, as well as individual citizens, may not be the target of an attack.11 Indiscriminate attacks, i.e. attacks which are not directed at a specific military objective, those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at specific military objective, or those which employ a method or means of warfare the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law, are prohibited.12 Attacks that can be expected to cause incidental harm to civilians or civilian objects or a combination of the two that would be “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” are forbidden. 13Precautions must be taken to protect civilians from collateral damage.14 Parties are forbidden from using civilians as “human shields” to protect military targets; even if one party violates this rule, the other party is not excused from their legal obligations to take precautionary measures to protect those civilians.15

Which side of this conflict is targetting civilian concentrations??

The Occupational Forces or the Terrorists?

And ( just a Joke ) Human Rights First? "The New Name of Lawyers Committee for Human Rights" ?!?!?!

LAWYERS? I thought Terrorists were bad enough.....this is just LOW Grave And Idle ( Hope your not a lawyer )

Hope you have a wonderful day/night Grave and Idle

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Fortunately, I am not a lawyer - although I wouldn't mind what they get paid.

That, however - touches on what I consider to be the heart of this situation. Morality aside, the detainees are being deprived of fundamental human rights, and, possibly (we still debate) their rights for protections under Geneva Conventions.

So - what is the response? A moral outcry from the military? A hard-line by the current regime?

Not really - what we DO get, is secret notes among political figures, detailing if it's 'okay' to use torture, and a 'legal' response, justifying why it's alright to hold prisoners on no charge, with no evidence presented, and without representation.

Rather than deal with Geneva protocol, the current Regime seems to have set the lawyers on it, like they were trying to find loopholes in a service contract.


I'm going to axe your post here (but, I'll aim to keep enough information in that you can tell what I replied to).

"However when your opponent violates the Hague and Geneva Convention by not declaring themselves by the wearing of a uniform or the displaying of signage which is recognizable at a distance, it is hard to distinguish between the civilians and the unlawfull combatants is it not?"


See, this is central. The US isn't at war with Iraq. Iraq is following Geneva conventions, and the current government is an ally to the US. What you have is US troops fighting against CIVILIANS... they HAVE no uniform, they HAVE no signage. They are, to all intents and purposes, civilian.

Now, it can be argued that they are armed civilians... even CRIMINAL civilians... but they are still civilians, and they exist in a Geneva Convention nation. Thus - not only are they protected by Geneva Conventions, but also - the US troops are ACTUALLY policing, not at war... so a military response, like internment in Cuba, is utterly inappropriate.

Those elements should be turned over to Iraqi authorites, and only presented to US forces for further processing IF terrorist activity/links are verified... as opposed to a civil unrest.

"I would think it likely that the occupational forces would release the person being held and keep a record, after all, you find someone over and over again in supicious circumstances"


Fallujah bears false witness to your argument. It seems the US army cannot find a 'terror suspect' that they were initially certain was within city limits. How, then, are they expected to track down one 'potential risk' in an entire country?

"If a detainee is carrying a concealed weapon when apprehend are they not in violation of that provision of the Hague and Geneva Convention?"


Perhaps - if Iraq and the US were at war. But, the US isn't fighting a war... except in current Regime rhetoric of 'a War on Terror'. That is the problem for men of conscience - there is no legal war, here. Party politics have somehow been allowed to replace both Geneva Conventions, and military accountability.


"Not sure if the Afganistan constitution provides the right to bear arms. Do you know Grave?"

Irrelevent. An individual not allowed to carry a gun is breaking a law. That is NOT the same thing as being a terrorist, an insurgent, or a member of a military faction. Thus, there is no justification for that 'gun-bearing' to be cause for extradition and imprisonment without representation or trial.

"Fortunately our Constitution Allows us the Right to Bear Arms, and we dont have an occupational force here in the US taking that right from us do we?

No - but if there were an occupying force, and that force disarmed the populace - I am willing to bet that there are many individuals who would NOT ONLY resist disarmament, but would also take civil rebellion to the occupier.

"Which side of this conflict is targetting civilian concentrations?"

Both sides are targetting civilians.

Peace, friend.

So, which point are you arguing?

Both Iraq and the US are signatories of the four Geneva Conventions. If the suspected militants are claimed to be part of the Iraqi sovereign force - then they are covered by Geneva conventions, because both sides are signatories.

There you go, Both countries are signatories and both Governments have "Normal Diplomatic Relations" Thus the Government of Iraq has access to appeal for its citizens freedom through normal diplomatic channels and the Iraqi detainees are thus not considered Protected persons by the Geneva Convention

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

Same holds true for every other Middle Eastern Country, if the nation has "Normal Diplomatic Relations" with the US then the Geneva Convention os not applicable since the Nation has the option of using diplomatic means of securing thier citizens freedom.

Or, are you claiming that the detainees were members of the Pre-Invasion Iraq (somehow, thus, mitigated by Saddam's OWN abuses of Geneva protocol)? If so - those persons would be considered not to have been represented by 'normal diplomatic relations'.

No, Iraqi citizens would be Iraqi Citizens, They would not be covered by the Geneva Convention since Normal Diplomatic Relations exist between the US and Iraq

Or, are you claiming that they were foreign nationals, and thus not protected by Iraqi membership to the Geneva protocol 'circle'? In which case - each individual who IS NOT an Iraqi citizen must be assessed individually, as to their status - which clearly didn't happen.

If they are Foreign Nationals the odds of them being terrorists do go up a bit dont they?

But be that as it may, if their Nation has "Normal Diplomatic Relations" with the US the Geneva Convention does not consider them to be Protected Persons. If their home Nation is not a signatory of the Geneva Conventions then

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."

So which Middle Eastern Country is both a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and does NOT have Normal Diplomatic Relations with the US?

Persons for these countries would be considered "Protected Persons"

And, you still seem to be neglecting the fact that the 'detainees' were not uniformly found identifying themselves with terrorist organisations, or firing on US troops (for example).

They would have to be extreemly ignorant to declare themselves terrorists wouldnt they?
Do you think the terrorists are that dumb?
Or carry Al Qaeda membership cards?

And this is true, not all were found firing on troops, but how many were found with suicide bomber vests? Or Mortars? or RPGs?

What would it take in to be a reasonable cause for holding someone?

And truthfully I am not pleased with the detainee situation, however I dont think I could have come up with a better solution that would have
"Mitigated the severity" of warfare either.

Someone stated that former detainees were found to be fighting with the insurgents.

I would think that the US forces would not have released a detainee they felt they had solid evidence on, So if these early released detainees went to fight for the terrorists, it suggests to me that the ones still being held are much more likely to have been a terrorists or to join up with the terrorists at their first opportunity

So do you have a number of detainees that were not caught firing on Occupational Forces troops or with materials / weapons that would imply they are terrorists?

Well, to start - it is eminently possible for a detainee to have been picked up in a Geneva Convention nation, and not have 'normal diplomatic relations' - since that is the MOST LIKELY state for a detainee to have been picked up in either Iraq or Afghanistan... both of which have had extenuated circumstances vis-a-vis 'normal diplomatic relations' for quite some time... and which have had very 'interrupted' diplomatic relations before that.

For example - Iraq, just before occupation... or even after occupation, but before the assumption of a legitimate interim governing body.

Also - I don't think the ability to appeal (which is an after-the-fact action) was designed to REPLACE Geneva conventions on-the-ground.

What I mean is, even if conventional diplomacy exists, that 'appeal' route isn't supposed to legitimise non-Geneva-protocol activity in theatre.

I don't think Geneva protocols were designed to protect civilians ONLY in the event of Declared War. I think the 'spirit' of the thing is to protect innocents even when carrying out 'operations'.


Someone stated that former detainees were found to be fighting with the insurgents.


Which simply means that the US is manufacturing terrorists (if that rumour is true). Detainees (who may or may not have been utterly innocent) flocking to join 'terror groups' would (if true) imply that persons considered their treatment so bad/unfair that they were driven to violently oppose it on release.

Add to that, prison psychology of the lesser-ranks learning from the hardened pros - by incarcerating innocents alongside hardened militants, the US is effectively building a terror-training-program, on Cuban soil.

Actually the better question to ask is,
In what declared war have detainees been given rights under the US Judicial System?

I'd call slamming 3 buildings with airplanes and one into a field, bombing embassies and ships to be declarations of war.
(PS: I've snipped a bit out of your post for brevity.)


Your opponent is trying to make a Moral point, what he doesnt seem to realize is that under the Geneva Convention it would have been perfectly acceptable from a LEGAL standpoint to hold a military tribunal on the field when we apprehended them, and if found guilty of acts that were intended to harm the occupational forces, damage property and facilities or harm personnel ( say like shooting at them ), shoot the "unlawfull combantants" dead where they stood.

I wonder if your opponent understood this.

Probably not, but then that's the way our debates seem to go. It's not the first time we've discussed things like this. :)


Actually since there are no protections extended to forces that violate the Geneva Conventions, touturing them would not violate the Geneva Conventions would it?

The fact we have provided ANY protections means we have gone beyond the obligations imposed upon us by the Geneva Conventions.

True.


Yeah, of course some people will cry at any excuse.

I wonder what Veitnam vets who read that the prisoners at Gitmo are "mistreated" think when they compare the treatment at Gitmo to the treatment at the Hanoi Hilton,

I wonder if they laugh at the comparision or cry at the memories. :(

Good question. But I still believe that just because we're better than the North Vietnamese were it doesn't mean it couldn't have been handled better. I give the handling a C+.

Do you always equate people captured in a combat area to those coming in with a ticket and a passport? :rolleyes:



Right back at you: So was it wrong, then, for the Marines who raped the girls in Okinawa to be tried by Japan? How about the kid who was caned in Singapore? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

If you're a GUEST in a foreign nation, those laws do indeed protect you (and are you are subject to them, unless you are a diplomat). If you're a FOREIGN COMBATANT, different rules obviously apply.

No I do not equate POWs, people captured in a combat zone, with those entering with a ticket and a passport, but this is not the point. You said that as these people, who are now in US controlled lands, are not US citizens, the US constitution does not apply to them. Of course it does. If not, then they are genuine POWs and the Geneva convention applies. Take your choice.

No. It was not wrong for the US marines who raped the girls in Okinawa to be tried under Japanese law as the offence occured on Japanese controlled territory and there they are subject to Japanese law. the same applies to caning in Singapore, Stoning in the Sudan etc. Know the law of where you are. You are subject to it. By this token the prisoners in GitMo are subject to US law. However they are not, and never have been, given the protection of that law.

No I do not equate POWs, people captured in a combat zone, with those entering with a ticket and a passport, but this is not the point. You said that as these people, who are now in US controlled lands, are not US citizens, the US constitution does not apply to them. Of course it does. If not, then they are genuine POWs and the Geneva convention applies. Take your choice.

No. It was not wrong for the US marines who raped the girls in Okinawa to be tried under Japanese law as the offence occured on Japanese controlled territory and there they are subject to Japanese law. the same applies to caning in Singapore, Stoning in the Sudan etc. Know the law of where you are. You are subject to it. By this token the prisoners in GitMo are subject to US law. However they are not, and never have been, given the protection of that law.
Small point of order: GitMo is on Cuban soil. I don't even think it can be classified as US soil (like an embassy is). Therefore, shouldn't the Cuban laws be the norm?

And how, exactly, would other countries prosecute the US government?

If other countries went through a 9/11.. I would imagine they'd be as sensitive as we are to known terrorists or likely terrorists. If they know something, we need to know it so we can neutralize them more successfully... or otherwise bring them to justice (i mean free terrorists).
Other countires could prosecute the US government for the illegal imprisonment of their citizens, without charges being brought or access to legal aid.
If they are likely terrorists, it means that they may not be terrorists, thusly should they be held without any legal recourse?
Also, the more people you hold the more likely you are to stir up others to fight against you.

Small point of order: GitMo is on Cuban soil. I don't even think it can be classified as US soil (like an embassy is). Therefore, shouldn't the Cuban laws be the norm?

On cuban soil but as a military base, subject to US law. Just like an embassy.

On cuban soil but as a military base, subject to US law. Just like an embassy.
Are you sure about that? Last time I asked I was given the opposite answer.

I'd call slamming 3 buildings with airplanes and one into a field, bombing embassies and ships to be declarations of war.
If you wish you could call it that. Or call it a felt-pen or a swimming pool. But terrorist are not able to utter a declaration of war. Al-Queda is not a souvereign nation. And only souvereign nations can declare war. Its a pure formality, but nonetheless, a terrorist attack can be considered a call for attention in the form of heavy firepower, but no declaration of war.
What really makes me wonder is how many people consider the Taliban terrorists. Yes, they are a nasty lot, and Afghanistan is better off without them and yes, they violated a lot of human rights. But on the other hand, they were the de facto government of Afghanistan, even if they lack a clear structure. The average Taliban soldier/militia man/ideologically misinformed guncarrier might not have worn a uniform, answer to a military command structure (seeing that most leaders were religious teachers instead of officers) or even grasp the concept of a international recognized government or Geneva conventions (not that he heard of them before). What he does understand is that foreign people invade his country, violate what he sees as right and good and break Allahs laws as he understands them. Of course he calls up some buddies, grabs his AK and tries to blast them right to Djehenna. How does that make him a terrorist or even illegal combatant? After all, he is defending his homeland and is doing Allahs will.
What is the point of this? Not excusing the Taliban and their terror regime as such. But trying to bring over that most of these guys are nothing but uneducated simpletons who got told what to do by Quran teachers of the most extremist sort, who see nothing wrong with defending their way of life and their country. 90+% of those Taliban warriors would have never thought of attacking the US via any means. We may see them as despicable, but that doesnt mean that they would have actively taken up arms against the US if the US didnt show up on their doorstep.
Someone still remember Red Dawn? All those heroic teenagers defending the US are illegal combatants. ;)

If you wish you could call it that. Or call it a felt-pen or a swimming pool. But terrorist are not able to utter a declaration of war. Al-Queda is not a souvereign nation. And only souvereign nations can declare war. Its a pure formality, but nonetheless, a terrorist attack can be considered a call for attention in the form of heavy firepower, but no declaration of war.

Wanna bet?
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=jihad
Al Qaeda's full name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda

We *are* at war. We've been at war for over 20 years and didn't realize it!


What really makes me wonder is how many people consider the Taliban terrorists. Yes, they are a nasty lot, and Afghanistan is better off without them and yes, they violated a lot of human rights. But on the other hand, they were the de facto government of Afghanistan, even if they lack a clear structure.

So would it have been okay to leave the Nazis in power? Aghanistan was working to spread radical Islam no less than Germany and Italy were working to spread Fascism.


The average Taliban soldier/militia man/ideologically misinformed guncarrier might not have worn a uniform, answer to a military command structure (seeing that most leaders were religious teachers instead of officers) or even grasp the concept of a international recognized government or Geneva conventions (not that he heard of them before).

Yet he wants to kill you and anything the West stands for. Do not underestimate the "common man".


What he does understand is that foreign people invade his country, violate what he sees as right and good and break Allahs laws as he understands them. Of course he calls up some buddies, grabs his AK and tries to blast them right to Djehenna. How does that make him a terrorist or even illegal combatant? After all, he is defending his homeland and is doing Allahs will.
What is the point of this? Not excusing the Taliban and their terror regime as such. But trying to bring over that most of these guys are nothing but uneducated simpletons who got told what to do by Quran teachers of the most extremist sort, who see nothing wrong with defending their way of life and their country. 90+% of those Taliban warriors would have never thought of attacking the US via any means. We may see them as despicable, but that doesnt mean that they would have actively taken up arms against the US if the US didnt show up on their doorstep.

And these simpletons are the ones protecting the terrorist leaders we want to caputure so they stop attacking us.

THEY DID take up arms! 9/11. The Cole. The African Embassy Bombings. Flight 800. There have been HUNDREDS of terrorist attacks since the rise of Arab nationalism in the late 50s.


Someone still remember Red Dawn? All those heroic teenagers defending the US are illegal combatants. ;)

Yeah, I recall that film. Big differences:
1) The Soviets wanted to control America. In the war on terror, the US just wants to wipe out the terrorists and have peace. Afghanistan is in no danger of becoming a state.
2) The governement of the US is legally elected. The Taleban was not, it siezed power after the Soviet-backed puppet state crumbled in 1992.
3) The US in Afghanistan does not go out and take reprisals on civilians.

And as for being illegal combatants, please note that the Soviets in the film made absolutely no attempt to capture them alive. No, they had a truck drop food in the middle of the road and sent THREE gunships to kill them.

Are you sure about that? Last time I asked I was given the opposite answer.

The US has a lease on the land.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay.htm

"U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay is the oldest U.S. base overseas and the only one in a Communist country. Located on the southeast corner of Cuba, in the Oriente Province, the base is about 400 air miles from Miami, Florida."

"In December 1903, the United States leased the 45 square miles of land and water for use as a coaling station. A treaty reaffirmed the lease in 1934 granting Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, payment of $2,000 in gold per year, equating to $4,085 today, and a requirement that both the U.S. and Cuba must mutually consent to terminate the lease."

No I do not equate POWs, people captured in a combat zone, with those entering with a ticket and a passport, but this is not the point. You said that as these people, who are now in US controlled lands, are not US citizens, the US constitution does not apply to them. Of course it does. If not, then they are genuine POWs and the Geneva convention applies. Take your choice.

Good to hear that.
And what, pray tell, is going on it Gitmo that is against the Geneva Convention specifically?
What choice? My point was that they were not protected by the Constitution. I also believe that the Geneva convention was upheld since there has been no proof to the contrary.


No. It was not wrong for the US marines who raped the girls in Okinawa to be tried under Japanese law as the offence occured on Japanese controlled territory and there they are subject to Japanese law. the same applies to caning in Singapore, Stoning in the Sudan etc. Know the law of where you are. You are subject to it. By this token the prisoners in GitMo are subject to US law. However they are not, and never have been, given the protection of that law.

Exactly. And the kid will never hold office in Singapore, nor enjoy any of THEIR protections, all he got was a caning for his crimes. As is just, as he was a VISITOR to that nation. At no time did he align himself with an anti-Government organization.

The guys in GitMo are getting what the Geneva Convention accords. And that does not include a trial.

Fortunately, I am not a lawyer - although I wouldn't mind what they get paid.

:) Cant blame you there...*thinking of the bloodsucking monster that was MY lawyer in the divorce proceedings, If you have to deal with sharks make sure you hire the Bigger Shark*

That, however - touches on what I consider to be the heart of this situation. Morality aside, the detainees are being deprived of fundamental human rights, and, possibly (we still debate) their rights for protections under Geneva Conventions.

Now this I will grant you, the Non Terrorist detainees are indeed being deprived of some basic Human Rights.

However, I feel that Terrorists have by their actions forfeited thier rights Because how do you treat with someone who feels that the highest goal his life can have is to kill you and your family?

How do you reason with someone who feels you have no right to live? Who would be delighted to see you and your family slaughtered?

A recurring theme with the terrorists is the destruction of Isreal, so do you sacrifice several muillion people to appease them so that MAYBE they will not continue to try to kill you and yours?

So - what is the response? A moral outcry from the military? A hard-line by the current regime?

Not really - what we DO get, is secret notes among political figures, detailing if it's 'okay' to use torture, and a 'legal' response, justifying why it's alright to hold prisoners on no charge, with no evidence presented, and without representation.

Rather than deal with Geneva protocol, the current Regime seems to have set the lawyers on it, like they were trying to find loopholes in a service contract.

Well, we will address this with some of your own words.

You state that
" But, the US isn't fighting a war... except in current Regime rhetoric of 'a War on Terror'. That is the problem for men of conscience - there is no legal war, here.

If there is no "state of War" why would the Geneva Conventions be invoked anyway?

And if there is no state of War and as you say further that the US forces are engaged in Policing, Since when did the US gain the right to impose the US constitution on citizens of another country?

I'm going to axe your post here (but, I'll aim to keep enough information in that you can tell what I replied to).

:cool: No problem, I do realize that I tend to be, (uhmmm) verbose.

See, this is central. The US isn't at war with Iraq. Iraq is following Geneva conventions, and the current government is an ally to the US. What you have is US troops fighting against CIVILIANS... they HAVE no uniform, they HAVE no signage. They are, to all intents and purposes, civilian.

Now, it can be argued that they are armed civilians... even CRIMINAL civilians... but they are still civilians, and they exist in a Geneva Convention nation. Thus - not only are they protected by Geneva Conventions, but also - the US troops are ACTUALLY policing, not at war... so a military response, like internment in Cuba, is utterly inappropriate.

Those elements should be turned over to Iraqi authorites, and only presented to US forces for further processing IF terrorist activity/links are verified... as opposed to a civil unrest.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040204-051623-5923r

So there are 650 detainees in Gitmo, not very many but I do agree that the ones that are innocent of wrong doing should be freed.

However, because there is no way of identifying a person as terrorist or non terrorist how would you go about determining who to release?

And by the listing of countries in the above hyperlink and considering the interrogation tactics used by other middle eastern countries are you SURE that we would be doing right by these people to return them to their home countries?

It could be argued that turning them over to their home countries would be the WORST thing we could do to these people.

Countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, Yemen, Saudi, and Iran are not what you would call Civil rights paradises.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/after_911/PDF/Guantanamo%20Detainees.pdf

Fallujah bears false witness to your argument. It seems the US army cannot find a 'terror suspect' that they were initially certain was within city limits. How, then, are they expected to track down one 'potential risk' in an entire country?

I think you read that wrong,

We detain a person, check out his identity and everything checks out clean. We keep a record of the incident that includes his identity and since this person is NOT a terrorist he is not likely to "go underground" to avoid furture contact with US forces.

If you find the same person over and over again in suspicious circumstances but nothing overt you evenutally will have to make a determination of weather there is a likely link between this person the terrorists.

And truthfully, if it was easy to capture a people that wanted to stay hidden we wouldnt need to have an FBI and a Ten Most Wanted List would we?

Perhaps - if Iraq and the US were at war. But, the US isn't fighting a war... except in current Regime rhetoric of 'a War on Terror'. That is the problem for men of conscience - there is no legal war, here. Party politics have somehow been allowed to replace both Geneva Conventions, and military accountability.

*nods* Your right there, but thats also the sticking point, we are "engaged in a struggle for survival" with an enemy that is organized, but does not recognize boarders or nationalities. An enemy that recognizes no laws save their own and those laws allow them to murder without consequences, in fact rewards those that die killing the infidels

If they were a sovereign nation it would be easier to subdue them. If they were an army we could meet them in the field of battle, ( and to be honest and not modest here ) and defeat them.

But they are not as you point out a Nation, and thus the Geneva Conventions are irrelivant in this situation.

Since they are foreign nationals apprehended outside of the jurisdiction of the US there is no basis in US Law for imposing the US constitution upon them.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111404D.shtml

It looks like the administration is considering the use of Military Court Martials. Somehow I doubt that this will console the civil rights advocates.

Truthfully I would let them go, all of them, but once I had done that I would no longer take any prisoners at all.

Anyone found or caught attempting to harm Occupation forces or the interm government in any manner would be killed.

I am fairly certain that would not sit well with the civil rights folks

Irrelevent. An individual not allowed to carry a gun is breaking a law. That is NOT the same thing as being a terrorist, an insurgent, or a member of a military faction. Thus, there is no justification for that 'gun-bearing' to be cause for extradition and imprisonment without representation or trial.

What about RPG's? Mortars? Sarin Gas?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm <--- Picture #2

Would the possession of a WMD be enough?

No - but if there were an occupying force, and that force disarmed the populace - I am willing to bet that there are many individuals who would NOT ONLY resist disarmament, but would also take civil rebellion to the occupier.

Yup, Your right there, However, flip the arguement back over now, your an occupier and you are attempting to subdue a nation full of civilians armed and hostile to your forces.

What would YOU do to maintain control?

And from everything I have read it appears that many households in Iraq and Afganistan have their own arsenal.

So if the population REALLY wanted us out of there dont you think they could accomplish it fairly quickly?

Both sides are targetting civilians.

Only if you consider terrorists civilians.

I spent 22 years in the military, we had it drummed in over and over again how we were supposed to protect the civilian population and to avoid endangering them.

Do you think the terrorists try to limit the civilian casualties?? Or to maximize them?

Peace, friend.

Be well

AAhhzz
*who is NOT staying up till 2am again no matter how enjoyable the debate gets*

Well, to start - it is eminently possible for a detainee to have been picked up in a Geneva Convention nation, and not have 'normal diplomatic relations' - since that is the MOST LIKELY state for a detainee to have been picked up in either Iraq or Afghanistan... both of which have had extenuated circumstances vis-a-vis 'normal diplomatic relations' for quite some time... and which have had very 'interrupted' diplomatic relations before that.

For example - Iraq, just before occupation... or even after occupation, but before the assumption of a legitimate interim governing body.

Yes but the point is that the Geneva Conventions do not extend themselves into the peacetime relationships between soverign nations. They are designed to reduce the suffering caused by war for both the civilian population and for the military personnel that are captured.

Since there is no middle east nation ( other than Iran ) that I am aware of does not have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US the Geneva Conventions are not applicable.

It is irrelevent what the condition of the diplomatic Was, the Geneva Convention clearly is talking about what the state of diplomatic relations ARE currently.

Also - I don't think the ability to appeal (which is an after-the-fact action) was designed to REPLACE Geneva conventions on-the-ground.

What I mean is, even if conventional diplomacy exists, that 'appeal' route isn't supposed to legitimise non-Geneva-protocol activity in theatre.

But if as you stated in another post "that there is no War...other than the US regimes declared War on Terrorism" then by your definition the Geneva Conventions are not applicable.

The detainees nations have the recourse of diplomatic appeals to gain the release of their citizens, and didnt this thread start with the US starting to do just that?

I will pray for the ones going to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Morrocco.

I don't think Geneva protocols were designed to protect civilians ONLY in the event of Declared War. I think the 'spirit' of the thing is to protect innocents even when carrying out 'operations'.

In spirit I would agree with you, but as pointed out there are many reasons why the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

Normal Diplomatic relations is just one of them, the unlawful actions of the terrorists are another which would invalidate their status as a POW or a Protected Person.

Either looking at it from the national perspective or the lone terrorist in the field the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

Which simply means that the US is manufacturing terrorists (if that rumour is true). Detainees (who may or may not have been utterly innocent) flocking to join 'terror groups' would (if true) imply that persons considered their treatment so bad/unfair that they were driven to violently oppose it on release.

Add to that, prison psychology of the lesser-ranks learning from the hardened pros - by incarcerating innocents alongside hardened militants, the US is effectively building a terror-training-program, on Cuban soil.

We will see, the article that started this thread stated that Hundreds would be released

Lets sit back and see how many are recaptured before we deem that the US has added to the terrorists ranks

Be well

AAhhzz

Yup, Your right there, However, flip the arguement back over now, your an occupier and you are attempting to subdue a nation full of civilians armed and hostile to your forces.


Just a minor point. I thought that the justification behind the intervention in Iraq was to liberate these civilians from an oppressive and dangerous regime. How then do these civilians, being granted their heartt's desire, become "armed and hostile to your forces"

If they do take this line, is it not a clear indication that the intervention was unwanted and it is time to say sorry, pull out and leave them to their own sovreignty. This of course is more than a little difficult to actually do.

Just a minor point. I thought that the justification behind the intervention in Iraq was to liberate these civilians from an oppressive and dangerous regime. How then do these civilians, being granted their heartt's desire, become "armed and hostile to your forces"

If they do take this line, is it not a clear indication that the intervention was unwanted and it is time to say sorry, pull out and leave them to their own sovreignty. This of course is more than a little difficult to actually do.

Actually the point being made was that if someone invaded the US and tried to disarm the civilian population they would quickly have an armed insurection on their hands. A very true statement I would think.

However it also supports my last statement in that paragraph.

If the Populations of Iraq and Afganistan wanted the US forces out of there how long would it take for the 20 some million in Afganistan to toss out the 15,000 troops in Afganistan, or the 24 some million in Iraq to expel the US forces from Iraq?

Not more than a couple of days I would think, cause no matter how brave and determined the US forces are being outnumbered about 200 to 1 makes for a short confrontation.

And who knows, in a few weeks an Election will take place in Iraq and it may be that the new government will say something like

"Thanks, now dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

If they do can you imagine the US trying to seize control of the country?? I certainly can not.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Wanna bet?
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=jihad

We *are* at war. We've been at war for over 20 years and didn't realize it!

THEY DID take up arms! 9/11. The Cole. The African Embassy Bombings. Flight 800. There have been HUNDREDS of terrorist attacks since the rise of Arab nationalism in the late 50s.


No - we are not at war. Just because you use the word 'war' or 'conflict', doesn't mean that War has been declared. A more appropriate translation of Jihad might be 'conflict' - and the CHIEF meaning of it is taken to be the conflict every person makes every day, with their own adversity.

Oh - by the way... if the US is conducting a true war on terror, why did they ARM the IRA against british occupation of Northern Ireland? Why are they not putting US troops in Northern Ireland right now?

'Terrorists' cannot declare war, as they have no sovereignty - all you are doing is connecting together terrorist attacks, to construct a 'shadow' state of 'terror'.


1) The Soviets wanted to control America. In the war on terror, the US just wants to wipe out the terrorists and have peace. Afghanistan is in no danger of becoming a state.
2) The governement of the US is legally elected. The Taleban was not, it siezed power after the Soviet-backed puppet state crumbled in 1992.
3) The US in Afghanistan does not go out and take reprisals on civilians.

And as for being illegal combatants, please note that the Soviets in the film made absolutely no attempt to capture them alive. No, they had a truck drop food in the middle of the road and sent THREE gunships to kill them.

Yes. The US just want peace. Hence, they occupied Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terror attacks.

Hence they warred on the Taliban (which WAS a legitimate government, whether elected or not), rather than attack Al-Qaeda.

Actually the point being made was that if someone invaded the US and tried to disarm the civilian population they would quickly have an armed insurection on their hands. A very true statement I would think.

However it also supports my last statement in that paragraph.

If the Populations of Iraq and Afganistan wanted the US forces out of there how long would it take for the 20 some million in Afganistan to toss out the 15,000 troops in Afganistan, or the 24 some million in Iraq to expel the US forces from Iraq?

Not more than a couple of days I would think, cause no matter how brave and determined the US forces are being outnumbered about 200 to 1 makes for a short confrontation.

And who knows, in a few weeks an Election will take place in Iraq and it may be that the new government will say something like

"Thanks, now dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

If they do can you imagine the US trying to seize control of the country?? I certainly can not.

Respectfully

AAhhzz


I would that I could have the same faith in altruism that you seem to be showing. Looking at the whole Iraq thing from the outside (I live in Brazil which is not exactly involved in the dispute on either side) it is very difficult not to be cynical about the motivation for the US/British/Spanish intervention. There is too much oil involved.

Given this cynicism it is diificult to imagine the US, in particular, simply saying
"OK then, good luck"
and leaving on hearing
"Thanks, now don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

If the Iraqis do this then I can imagine the US trying to seize control of the country.

I also think you attribute too much political passion to the vast majority of people. if the most of the 20 million wanted to throw the US out and could also be bothered to get off their asses and do something about it, then the US would be in problems there. However most people are much more concerned with their day to day survival in Afghanistan than in taking up arms against a foreign force that is present in their country. The same applies to the 24 million in Iraq.

your humble servant

Alien Born

No - we are not at war. Just because you use the word 'war' or 'conflict', doesn't mean that War has been declared. A more appropriate translation of Jihad might be 'conflict' - and the CHIEF meaning of it is taken to be the conflict every person makes every day, with their own adversity.

War hasn't been declared? :confused:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/11/terror/main540168.shtml

"The 27-minute tape quoted extensively from the Muslim holy book, the Quran, and said jihad, or holy war, was the "only solution to all the problems."

Please, please please tell me you can understand that these people would be happy to tread on all of our collective ashes?


Oh - by the way... if the US is conducting a true war on terror, why did they ARM the IRA against british occupation of Northern Ireland? Why are they not putting US troops in Northern Ireland right now?

C'mon man. You've got to better than that. Give me a LINK. You never do... I'm beginning to think you don't love me any more. ;)

As for the second question, that's easy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4082133.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3560989.stm

...just like Libya, they're trying to work with us.


'Terrorists' cannot declare war, as they have no sovereignty - all you are doing is connecting together terrorist attacks, to construct a 'shadow' state of 'terror'.

Neither has any armed radical group. The Cubans under Che and Castro certainly had no soverignty. To say nothing of the Founding Fathers. DeGaulle certainly had none -- Petain did. Yet they all declared war for their aims. Sorry, it seems pretty obvious to me.


Yes. The US just want peace. Hence, they occupied Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terror attacks.

:rolleyes: If you'll notice, the US hasn't occupied about 15 other Arabic nations. Gee, I wonder WHY? I mean, the UAE and Kuwait would've have been alot easier. Yes, the US is a big mean warmonger. Please.


Hence they warred on the Taliban (which WAS a legitimate government, whether elected or not), rather than attack Al-Qaeda.

So lemme get this straight: any gov't is legitimate as long as it's in power?
If so, all that complaining about the 2000 election was/is seriously misplaced!! :D

Seriously: The fact that the Al-Qaeda was invited to use Afghanistan as a base of operations doesn't even register on your radar?
Where the heck do you fight them, if not in the nations that SHELTER them?!?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/23/binladen.internet/

No - we are not at war. Just because you use the word 'war' or 'conflict', doesn't mean that War has been declared. A more appropriate translation of Jihad might be 'conflict' - and the CHIEF meaning of it is taken to be the conflict every person makes every day, with their own adversity.

Oh - by the way... if the US is conducting a true war on terror, why did they ARM the IRA against british occupation of Northern Ireland? Why are they not putting US troops in Northern Ireland right now?

Granted that the more approprate definition of Jihad, however thats not how it is being used by the terrorists is it?

They are using it to urge their fellow musilums to wage a religious war upon western civilization are they not?

So do you stick with the definition in the dictionary ( which includes a religiously sanctioned war in which if you die you receive eternal rewards ) Or do you acknowledge how the word is being used by the terrorists? Which is a religiously sanction Holy War against the infidels?

As for IRA I dont know enough to comment rationally on it, but was that the US Government arming them or was it US Citizens?

Could you clarify that point Grave?


'Terrorists' cannot declare war, as they have no sovereignty - all you are doing is connecting together terrorist attacks, to construct a 'shadow' state of 'terror'.

Well lets see, we have Al Qaeda, that contains anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 trained terrorists that have stated that thier goal is the utter destruction of Isreal and Western civilization in general.

Who claim justification for this by citing the expulsion of the Musilum Caphilate ( spelling? ) from Spain in the 1190's (date is a guess I am whooped) as addequate cause to wage war upon the west.

Is it just me or does that seem a tab bit irrational? :confused:

So, as I was saying, you have a large organization that has stated their purpose is to wage war upon Isreal and Western Civilization in general. You have a few options

1.) Ignore them,

We pretty much did that for 20 years or so and it culminated in 9/11 because they thought we were weak and would not exert our power to confront them. BIG mistake

2.) Retaliate in a non confrontational way by lobbing a few cruise missles at their training camps.

That did not seem to work well either did it? Certainly didnt do any lasting harm to the organization

3.) Appease them

This would mean withdrawl from the Middle East and abandonment of Isreal, at a minimum. Is allowing the death of a few million Isreali's something we should even consider? I didnt think so either

4.) Fight back

Unfortunately since they are as you stated not a soveriegn nation that means we are going to be invading someone elses country to get at the terrorists.

Now in Afganistan it was pretty clear cut that the Taliban was supporting the Al Qaeda group, and I dont seem to recall a huge international outcry against the use of force there to go after the terrorists. The Taliban were just an obstacle in our path, so they were pushed out of the way.

I do recall the media harping on how it would be a quagemire over and over again, right up till the day it was over in fact.

Oddly enough the Afganistan people seemed to be very HAPPY to see the Taliban go, or at least thats what I would infer by outcome of the Afganistan elections since they didnt vote them back into power. Well that and the widespread celibrations :)

In Iraq things were not so clear cut, but we had a government that was openly hostile to the US and had ties with terrorist organizations,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

and according to the best information available either had, or could quickly reconstitute both biological and chemical weapons programs

http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf page 15 first paragraph

And oh my, whats that in picture #2

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphi..._fury/flash.htm

Care to make a comment on it Grave??

And we were being warned by other countries that Saddam was planning attacks on US soil and overseas facilities

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/index.html

Yes. The US just want peace. Hence, they occupied Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terror attacks.

See the hyperlink just above your words, they may not have had anything to do with 9/11, ( and with the facilities in Salman Pak I wonder about that, what better place to practice hijacking a plane than in the body of a plane? ) but they certainly were not innocent of planning terrorist attacks of their own

Hence they warred on the Taliban (which WAS a legitimate government, whether elected or not), rather than attack Al-Qaeda.

So to be a legitimate government all you have to do is oppress the people enough to keep them in their place?

What about that whole "government derives its power from the consent of the people" thing?

And if they were a "legitimate government" because they were the strongest group in the country and could thus force their will upon the people.

Then it was totally legitimate for us to move in and oust them since once we were there we were the stongest group in the country

And anyway, it seems the Afgani people liked the election they recently had, and oddly enough voted for the interm governments president in overwealming numbers while the reminants of the Taliban fumed helplessly in thier caves.

Besides that there is that whole "Al Qaeda is not a sovereign nation thing", they had to be SOMEWHERE afterall. The Taliban just made the same mistake Al Qaeda did when they thought we were weak and timid and wouldnt risk taking any casualties.

Hope you had a good night Grave and Idle, I am headed for bed

Respectfully

AAhhzz

I would that I could have the same faith in altruism that you seem to be showing. Looking at the whole Iraq thing from the outside (I live in Brazil which is not exactly involved in the dispute on either side) it is very difficult not to be cynical about the motivation for the US/British/Spanish intervention. There is too much oil involved.

:)

Well isnt that the same thing that was said about Kuwait? Oil for Blood?

And how much Oil do you think is being sold to the US at under market prices by the Kuwaiti government?

Last time I checked oil was near $50 a barrel, not exactly cheap anymore is it?

Given this cynicism it is diificult to imagine the US, in particular, simply saying
"OK then, good luck"
and leaving on hearing
"Thanks, now don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

If the Iraqis do this then I can imagine the US trying to seize control of the country.

As I said I can not, for one thing if the Iraqi government make a public statement that they want the US out of there I can not see us even trying to stay, if nothing else the average soldier will start packing up and getting ready to head out immediately, they dont want to be there anyway,

Sort of like the Phillipines in 1991. When they asked for more money to allow the US to maintain the bases there we were MORE than happy to leave

I also think you attribute too much political passion to the vast majority of people. if the most of the 20 million wanted to throw the US out and could also be bothered to get off their asses and do something about it, then the US would be in problems there. However most people are much more concerned with their day to day survival in Afghanistan than in taking up arms against a foreign force that is present in their country. The same applies to the 24 million in Iraq.

*nods*..You may very well be correct there Alien Born.

But from all I have seen in Afganistan it seems we are overwealmingly welcomed there.

In Iraq it is more of a split, most want us out but do not want us to leave before they have achieved a bit more stability.

your humble servant

Alien Born

Hope your having a restful night Alien Born

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Yes but the point is that the Geneva Conventions do not extend themselves into the peacetime relationships between soverign nations. They are designed to reduce the suffering caused by war for both the civilian population and for the military personnel that are captured.

Since there is no middle east nation ( other than Iran ) that I am aware of does not have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US the Geneva Conventions are not applicable.

It is irrelevent what the condition of the diplomatic Was, the Geneva Convention clearly is talking about what the state of diplomatic relations ARE currently.



But if as you stated in another post "that there is no War...other than the US regimes declared War on Terrorism" then by your definition the Geneva Conventions are not applicable.

The detainees nations have the recourse of diplomatic appeals to gain the release of their citizens, and didnt this thread start with the US starting to do just that?

I will pray for the ones going to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Morrocco.



In spirit I would agree with you, but as pointed out there are many reasons why the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

Normal Diplomatic relations is just one of them, the unlawful actions of the terrorists are another which would invalidate their status as a POW or a Protected Person.

Either looking at it from the national perspective or the lone terrorist in the field the Geneva Conventions do not apply.



We will see, the article that started this thread stated that Hundreds would be released

Lets sit back and see how many are recaptured before we deem that the US has added to the terrorists ranks

Be well

AAhhzz

The fundamental thing is, though: if there IS no war - what is the US doing in Iraq? What are they doing running round the globe collecting people?

If it IS war - there are conventions, which have been breached.

If it ISN'T War, then the US is carrying out some pretty questionable actions by snatching foreign nationals at gunpoint.

Regarding 'Was' versus 'are' in terms of Diplomatic status... 'was' is important in terms of WHEN the detainees were detained. If they were detained prior to, during, or in the transition from: the occupation - then the civilians captured belonged to a sovereign nation that did NOT have normal diplomatic relations.

Regarding 'unlawful actions' of terrorists.... this is a two pronged issue:

1) Not all of the detainees are clearly terrorists. There is debate, thus there is doubt, thus they are innocent - until proven otherwise.

2) The illegal actions of individual 'terrorists', even if verified - wouldn't affect the status of Iraq, vis-a-vis Geneva status... and thus, if protection IS offered to Iraqi civilians, any SUSPECTED terrorist MUST also come under the aegis of Protected status.

Actually the point being made was that if someone invaded the US and tried to disarm the civilian population they would quickly have an armed insurection on their hands. A very true statement I would think.

However it also supports my last statement in that paragraph.

If the Populations of Iraq and Afganistan wanted the US forces out of there how long would it take for the 20 some million in Afganistan to toss out the 15,000 troops in Afganistan, or the 24 some million in Iraq to expel the US forces from Iraq?

Not more than a couple of days I would think, cause no matter how brave and determined the US forces are being outnumbered about 200 to 1 makes for a short confrontation.

And who knows, in a few weeks an Election will take place in Iraq and it may be that the new government will say something like

"Thanks, now dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

If they do can you imagine the US trying to seize control of the country?? I certainly can not.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Although - there is reason to believe that - since the US is the ONLY nation to have used a Nuclear Weapon of Mass Destruction on civilians - people in Iraq or Afghanistan might be afraid of mounting a full resistance, because they could be concerned about Mr Bush's itchy trigger finger.

Especially in light of some of the rhetoric that I hear in my locality. Perhaps it is just a Georgia thing, but I hear - on an almost daily basis - how we should 'pull the troops out' and 'just nuke Iraq, and Iran'...

War hasn't been declared? :confused:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/11/terror/main540168.shtml

"The 27-minute tape quoted extensively from the Muslim holy book, the Quran, and said jihad, or holy war, was the "only solution to all the problems."

Please, please please tell me you can understand that these people would be happy to tread on all of our collective ashes?


27 minute audiotape... don't forget that... and they can't even verify that ibn Ladin was the voice on the tape.

Aside from which - since the word 'jihad' was apparently used on the tape, 'holy war' must be the translation that CBS is tendering... and they are perhaps guilty of some bias in their product placement.

All of which is irrelevent, of course... since Al Qaeda is not some rebel army, partisan force or uprising, in it's current incarnation - and is certainly not a sovereign power.. so how is one man's view an official statement? I suggest that ibn Ladin is being taken as a 'spokesman' for terror... purely because it makes it easier for media to rally feeling against a clearly identified foe.


As for the second question, that's easy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4082133.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3560989.stm

...just like Libya, they're trying to work with us.


As was Iraq - probably... Weapons inspectors implied that Iraq was effectively decommisioned, and petitioned more time to confirm. My suspicion is that this clashed with Bush's desperate desire to invade, so the US invaded ahead of that confirmation - and, have consequently found pretty much nothing.


:rolleyes: If you'll notice, the US hasn't occupied about 15 other Arabic nations. Gee, I wonder WHY? I mean, the UAE and Kuwait would've have been alot easier. Yes, the US is a big mean warmonger. Please.


Iraq and Afghanistan already, and I certainly expect Iran to be fairly soon considered a 'problem' that Bush will 'resolve' in his own special way.


So lemme get this straight: any gov't is legitimate as long as it's in power?
If so, all that complaining about the 2000 election was/is seriously misplaced!! :D


Different kettle of fish... both the Democrats and Republicans cling to the two-party Republic model - and that model was conflicted in 2000, and again in 2004. Both adhere to the system, despite it's flaws - and it is the flawed SYSTEM that is the source of complaint.

But, yes. Even non-elected governments can be 'legitimate', if that is the political model.


Seriously: The fact that the Al-Qaeda was invited to use Afghanistan as a base of operations doesn't even register on your radar?
Where the heck do you fight them, if not in the nations that SHELTER them?!?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/23/binladen.internet/

Does not alter the fact that Taliban and Al Qaeda are NOT synonymous... yet the two seem to be used interchangably.

Granted that the more approprate definition of Jihad, however thats not how it is being used by the terrorists is it?

They are using it to urge their fellow musilums to wage a religious war upon western civilization are they not?

So do you stick with the definition in the dictionary ( which includes a religiously sanctioned war in which if you die you receive eternal rewards ) Or do you acknowledge how the word is being used by the terrorists? Which is a religiously sanction Holy War against the infidels?

As for IRA I dont know enough to comment rationally on it, but was that the US Government arming them or was it US Citizens?

Could you clarify that point Grave?




Well lets see, we have Al Qaeda, that contains anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 trained terrorists that have stated that thier goal is the utter destruction of Isreal and Western civilization in general.

Who claim justification for this by citing the expulsion of the Musilum Caphilate ( spelling? ) from Spain in the 1190's (date is a guess I am whooped) as addequate cause to wage war upon the west.

Is it just me or does that seem a tab bit irrational? :confused:

So, as I was saying, you have a large organization that has stated their purpose is to wage war upon Isreal and Western Civilization in general. You have a few options

1.) Ignore them,

We pretty much did that for 20 years or so and it culminated in 9/11 because they thought we were weak and would not exert our power to confront them. BIG mistake

2.) Retaliate in a non confrontational way by lobbing a few cruise missles at their training camps.

That did not seem to work well either did it? Certainly didnt do any lasting harm to the organization

3.) Appease them

This would mean withdrawl from the Middle East and abandonment of Isreal, at a minimum. Is allowing the death of a few million Isreali's something we should even consider? I didnt think so either

4.) Fight back

Unfortunately since they are as you stated not a soveriegn nation that means we are going to be invading someone elses country to get at the terrorists.

Now in Afganistan it was pretty clear cut that the Taliban was supporting the Al Qaeda group, and I dont seem to recall a huge international outcry against the use of force there to go after the terrorists. The Taliban were just an obstacle in our path, so they were pushed out of the way.

I do recall the media harping on how it would be a quagemire over and over again, right up till the day it was over in fact.

Oddly enough the Afganistan people seemed to be very HAPPY to see the Taliban go, or at least thats what I would infer by outcome of the Afganistan elections since they didnt vote them back into power. Well that and the widespread celibrations :)

In Iraq things were not so clear cut, but we had a government that was openly hostile to the US and had ties with terrorist organizations,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

and according to the best information available either had, or could quickly reconstitute both biological and chemical weapons programs

http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf page 15 first paragraph

And oh my, whats that in picture #2

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphi..._fury/flash.htm

Care to make a comment on it Grave??

And we were being warned by other countries that Saddam was planning attacks on US soil and overseas facilities

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/index.html



See the hyperlink just above your words, they may not have had anything to do with 9/11, ( and with the facilities in Salman Pak I wonder about that, what better place to practice hijacking a plane than in the body of a plane? ) but they certainly were not innocent of planning terrorist attacks of their own



So to be a legitimate government all you have to do is oppress the people enough to keep them in their place?

What about that whole "government derives its power from the consent of the people" thing?

And if they were a "legitimate government" because they were the strongest group in the country and could thus force their will upon the people.

Then it was totally legitimate for us to move in and oust them since once we were there we were the stongest group in the country

And anyway, it seems the Afgani people liked the election they recently had, and oddly enough voted for the interm governments president in overwealming numbers while the reminants of the Taliban fumed helplessly in thier caves.

Besides that there is that whole "Al Qaeda is not a sovereign nation thing", they had to be SOMEWHERE afterall. The Taliban just made the same mistake Al Qaeda did when they thought we were weak and timid and wouldnt risk taking any casualties.

Hope you had a good night Grave and Idle, I am headed for bed

Respectfully

AAhhzz

Regarding definitions... I had a fair number of Moslem friends, back in the mother country, and they always explained Jihad the same way to me. That it is conflict... usually of a deeply personal nature... like facing your own demons... and that SOME people are currently abusing the term, and giving all of Islam a bad name because of that.

The source you posted about Iraq and terrorism... I read it, and I think it is propaganda, nothing more. All the supposed information is obtained from 'defectors'... sounds like a paid witness to me... and, despite repeated assertions of Biological Weaponry work at the location, there is no evidence found... nor of the purported aircraft shell... and the nearest that they get to a hard fact, is that the room may have been big enough to house bio-weapon equipment.

Personally - I don't see why the 'appease them' option shouldn't be taken... although I don't think it is necessary to sacrifice lives to do that. There are other options - ranging from repatriating the Jewish Israeli population, to simply nullifying the state, and letting the various ethnicities discover their equilibrium. It is the State of Israel that is the problem, and the encroachment and 'ownership' of a SHARED holy place.

Perhaps the Taliban seized power... that doesn't invalidate their government... and perhaps the Taliban WOULD have been 'elected (given a choice) by less than the required portion of the population... that also doesn't invalidate the government... since that is not the 'model' that was used for government.

Is the US claiming that the Chinese government is 'invalid'? The Saudi government?

The US doesn't have any more legitimacy in place of the Taliban... and, being an 'invader' could easily be argued as having LESS legitimacy.

If you wish you could call it that. Or call it a felt-pen or a swimming pool. But terrorist are not able to utter a declaration of war. Al-Queda is not a souvereign nation. And only souvereign nations can declare war. Its a pure formality, but nonetheless, a terrorist attack can be considered a call for attention in the form of heavy firepower, but no declaration of war.
What really makes me wonder is how many people consider the Taliban terrorists. Yes, they are a nasty lot, and Afghanistan is better off without them and yes, they violated a lot of human rights. But on the other hand, they were the de facto government of Afghanistan, even if they lack a clear structure. The average Taliban soldier/militia man/ideologically misinformed guncarrier might not have worn a uniform, answer to a military command structure (seeing that most leaders were religious teachers instead of officers) or even grasp the concept of a international recognized government or Geneva conventions (not that he heard of them before). What he does understand is that foreign people invade his country, violate what he sees as right and good and break Allahs laws as he understands them. Of course he calls up some buddies, grabs his AK and tries to blast them right to Djehenna. How does that make him a terrorist or even illegal combatant? After all, he is defending his homeland and is doing Allahs will.
What is the point of this? Not excusing the Taliban and their terror regime as such. But trying to bring over that most of these guys are nothing but uneducated simpletons who got told what to do by Quran teachers of the most extremist sort, who see nothing wrong with defending their way of life and their country. 90+% of those Taliban warriors would have never thought of attacking the US via any means. We may see them as despicable, but that doesnt mean that they would have actively taken up arms against the US if the US didnt show up on their doorstep.
Someone still remember Red Dawn? All those heroic teenagers defending the US are illegal combatants. ;)

At least someone is pushing for understanding from there side. Muslims in that region are fiercly patriotic and fiercely devoted to their cause as well as religiously fanatical as well. To give a better picture of who were facing I suggest you read "Imperial Hubris" Anyway, they've lived their whole lives one way and then comes another country, destroying their government, and installing their own puppet goverment which serves the needs of the occupying country and not their own. Any charity imparted by the government to the people is viewed more as an attempt to buy their favor than actually being charitable("Win the hearts and minds" campaign saying I heard so much when I was deployed in Iraq).

I can't speak on the behalf of everyone else but if we were invaded, I would take up arms as well against the puppet government. Better to die for something you believe in than die of something.

27 minute audiotape... don't forget that... and they can't even verify that ibn Ladin was the voice on the tape.

Aside from which - since the word 'jihad' was apparently used on the tape, 'holy war' must be the translation that CBS is tendering... and they are perhaps guilty of some bias in their product placement.

*sigh*
Fine. How about this VIDEO one?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/terror.tape.main/
By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."

I'm simply in awe that you're either unaware of this, or don't take it seriously. And that's not a slam -- it just isn't comprehensible to me.


All of which is irrelevent, of course... since Al Qaeda is not some rebel army, partisan force or uprising, in it's current incarnation - and is certainly not a sovereign power.. so how is one man's view an official statement? I suggest that ibn Ladin is being taken as a 'spokesman' for terror... purely because it makes it easier for media to rally feeling against a clearly identified foe.

Al Qaeda IS a rebel army. Their battle is religious: to destroy the infidel.

Huh? THE MAN RECRUITS, TRAINS AND RAISES FUNDS FOR FIGHTERS to attack the West. What is an official statement? He's clearly in charge of a group that has a set of goals. Easier for the media? How about he's actually the problem??


As was Iraq - probably... Weapons inspectors implied that Iraq was effectively decommisioned, and petitioned more time to confirm. My suspicion is that this clashed with Bush's desperate desire to invade, so the US invaded ahead of that confirmation - and, have consequently found pretty much nothing.

Saddam flat out denied open inspections until a week before the invasion. He had 11 years. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565237/Saddam_Hussein.html
Please note the last two paragraphs. This is only a 10,000 foot view, tho...


Iraq and Afghanistan already, and I certainly expect Iran to be fairly soon considered a 'problem' that Bush will 'resolve' in his own special way.

Not likely. If we did, North Korea would have too easy a time.
No, I expect Iran will be undermined from within, as with Poland in the early 80s.


Different kettle of fish... both the Democrats and Republicans cling to the two-party Republic model - and that model was conflicted in 2000, and again in 2004. Both adhere to the system, despite it's flaws - and it is the flawed SYSTEM that is the source of complaint.

But, yes. Even non-elected governments can be 'legitimate', if that is the political model.

It's *no* different. You just said whomever is in power is legitimate. Which means you're basically saying Democracy is optional.

Actually, most of the people I find that complain do so about Bush, not the system. New York and Connecticut are blue states.


Does not alter the fact that Taliban and Al Qaeda are NOT synonymous... yet the two seem to be used interchangably.

Please post where I've said that they are. All I've been saying that the Taleban gave a safe haven to Al Qaeda.

The fundamental thing is, though: if there IS no war - what is the US doing in Iraq? What are they doing running round the globe collecting people?

If it IS war - there are conventions, which have been breached.

If it ISN'T War, then the US is carrying out some pretty questionable actions by snatching foreign nationals at gunpoint.

Regarding 'Was' versus 'are' in terms of Diplomatic status... 'was' is important in terms of WHEN the detainees were detained. If they were detained prior to, during, or in the transition from: the occupation - then the civilians captured belonged to a sovereign nation that did NOT have normal diplomatic relations.

Regarding 'unlawful actions' of terrorists.... this is a two pronged issue:

1) Not all of the detainees are clearly terrorists. There is debate, thus there is doubt, thus they are innocent - until proven otherwise.

2) The illegal actions of individual 'terrorists', even if verified - wouldn't affect the status of Iraq, vis-a-vis Geneva status... and thus, if protection IS offered to Iraqi civilians, any SUSPECTED terrorist MUST also come under the aegis of Protected status.

I am begining to believe your being purposefully obtuse to the reality of the situation.

There was a war there, remember? Or does your memory fail you?

The Iraq has Normal Diplomatic Relations with the Occupational Forces, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions the detainees are not Protected Persons. Period.

The fact that the detainees were captured while there was a state of War between Iraq and the Occupational forces is irrelevent since that condition no longer applies.

The detainees in Gitmo appear to be a collection of Middle Eastern citizens.

Have Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran or Yemen declared war yet?

No? Well then they must be Neutrals

What do the Geneva Conventions say about Neutral Countries citizens apprehended in an Occupied Country again?

Oh Yes, they are NOT Protected persons.

How about you point out where a material breach of the Geneva Conventions has occured.

Use a neutral parties declaration, I would be willing to accept the Red Cross as a Neutral party since they are referenced as such in the Geneva Conventions.

Has the Red Cross made a declaration that the US is in material breach of the Geneva Conventions?

No? Then it appears that your arguements lack weight

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm

It appears that the US has been releasing detainees from Gitmo since May 2003. Odd how you never mentioned this. Could it be that the US is processing these people as fast as they can?

No of course not, they arent doing it fast enough for you

Perhaps you could explain how you would determine if a person was a terrorist or not. Do you have a list of every terrorists name along with their fingerprints? Or are you just advocating releasing everyone without regaurd to the circumstances of their capture?

And by the way, since you bring up the point that "not all the detainees are clearly terrorists" Perhaps you could prove that point.

How about a detailed report on a single detainee who is clearly Not a terrorist.

After all do you think a terrorists would hesitate to lie to gain their freedom?

So a report detailing the detainees name, occupation, home address, associations, education, family history, date of birth, marital status, number of children, travel visas issued to them in the past say 5 years, financial records, tax records ( to show residency in their homes ), utility bills, things like that.

After all I can show you one of the terrorists we did capture and substancial evidence of his guilt

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

And what about if we capture Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Would you still argue that we must release him since we didnt prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

After all we have not found the blade used to cut the hostages heads off with his bloody fingerprints on it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta-pics.htm

And oh how horrible the conditions are.

Did you know the Red Cross had passed over 10,000 messages between the Gitmo prisoners and their families?

Sounds like the Red Cross is just locked out of Gitmo doesnt it?


Back to the Geneva Conventions

If there is a state of War who is it with?? If there is no Enemy state then the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

If you want to invoke the Geneva Conventions then you must invoke the ENTIRE Geneva Conventions.

So if you invoke them then answer this Who is in charge of the enemy forces ?

What do you mean there is no clear chain of command?

Why they are in Material Breach of The Thrid Geneva Convention Article 4 A 2 (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates

That being the case then they have forfeited their rights under the Geneva Convention thus the Conventions do not apply

Ever get the feeling I believe the Geneva Conventions do not apply and since I can cite references to back up that belief you had best come out with some references of your own

Regarding definitions... I had a fair number of Moslem friends, back in the mother country, and they always explained Jihad the same way to me. That it is conflict... usually of a deeply personal nature... like facing your own demons... and that SOME people are currently abusing the term, and giving all of Islam a bad name because of that.

*sighs*

Your really one heck of a peice of work arent you Grave?

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

Now that its established that the definition of Jihad encompasses the term Holy War it appears that SOME People are just using the term to mean just that. Not abusing it just using it in its proper context.

Or do you think Wikipedia.org is just part of a right wing consperacy

The source you posted about Iraq and terrorism... I read it, and I think it is propaganda, nothing more. All the supposed information is obtained from 'defectors'... sounds like a paid witness to me... and, despite repeated assertions of Biological Weaponry work at the location, there is no evidence found... nor of the purported aircraft shell... and the nearest that they get to a hard fact, is that the room may have been big enough to house bio-weapon equipment.


Oh yeah, CNN is a Republican party tool, yeah right.

Twenty tons of chemicals, 70 chemical agents, poison gas, expected death toll in the range of 80,000

Where did these chemicals come from Grave? Oh but wait this is probably propaganda too.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131424&page=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm ( Oh is the BBC is a Republican party propaganda tool now Grave? )
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/27/content_326599.htm ( Maybe China is too )
http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2004/apr/28/wnw_1-1.htm
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1518112,00.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040427/2004042714.html
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/jordan/?id=12159

Personally - I don't see why the 'appease them' option shouldn't be taken... although I don't think it is necessary to sacrifice lives to do that. There are other options - ranging from repatriating the Jewish Israeli population, to simply nullifying the state, and letting the various ethnicities discover their equilibrium. It is the State of Israel that is the problem, and the encroachment and 'ownership' of a SHARED holy place.

So your advocating either
a.) Uproot the Israeli citizens, most of whom have lived their entire lives there and many whose families have been there for centuries
or
b.) Let the 4 or 5 million Isreali's "discover their equilibrium" with the 100 million arab neighbors, the arab governments have been in a state of declared war with Israel since 1949, where terrorist groups that advocate the destruction of Israel have been harbored for decades.

Oh yeah thats nice of you Graves. Sounds like a death sentence to me

Other than Egypt and now Iraq do you know of another Arab country that has formally recognized Israel's right to exist?

No you dont, because they dont exist. Heck you dont even recognize their right to exist do you Graves?

And appearently two wrongs ( forcably move the current inhabitants of Israel out of their homes or withdrawl US support so that the neighboring Arab states can attack without fear an of overwealming US counter attack ) make a right in your eyes. its good to know that Grave I will remeber that in future

Perhaps the Taliban seized power... that doesn't invalidate their government... and perhaps the Taliban WOULD have been 'elected (given a choice) by less than the required portion of the population... that also doesn't invalidate the government... since that is not the 'model' that was used for government.

*shrughs*
We seized power from them, so our action was no less legitimate than theirs was.

Difference is we went and and handed power back to the citizens. The civilian population could have voted the Taliban back in, since they didnt it appears the Afghanii people are not all that fond of the Taliban.

Maybe it was the beheadings and mutilations in the stadiums. How odd they wouldnt rush to embrace the Taliban again.

Is the US claiming that the Chinese government is 'invalid'? The Saudi government?

The US doesn't have any more legitimacy in place of the Taliban... and, being an 'invader' could easily be argued as having LESS legitimacy.

China's communist government had the support of a huge segment of the population did they not? I would call that "power derived from the people"

Saudi Arabia? Not certain, did the Saudi Royal family have the support of the people? It appears at least enough of the population supported them so they ended up in charge. Or has there just been a silent revelution against the Suadi's for the past 50 years or so?

And one small difference about the US, once we controlled the country we didnt retain that power did we?

No, we handed it back and even assisted in setting up free elections. Elections that the UN monitored.

Are you saying the current Afghani government is illegitimate becuase we ousted the previous one?

Perhaps you had best ask the 10 million or so Afghani's that voted. Perhaps they have a different opinion