NationStates Jolt Archive


What is the point of Guantanamo Bay?

Demented Hamsters
15-03-2005, 14:35
I noticed this on the BBC site today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4349461.stm

Can't find Bin Laden, etc etc. Usual stuff. Except this bit right at the end:

President Musharraf said he was sure Pakistan's most wanted militant, Abdullah Mehsud, was killed in North Waziristan several days ago.
The death has yet to be confirmed, he said, adding that the militant's death would reduce resistance to the army's presence.
Mehsud - whose real name is Noor Alam - is a Pashtun, the same ethnic group as the Taleban.
In December, Pakistani authorities offered a five million rupee ($84,000; £44,000) reward for help in the arrest of Mehsud.
The one-legged Mehsud, a former prisoner at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...

So what is the point of Guantanamo Bay?
They've kept ppl who have they've done nothing wrong there for years now, interrogating them daily before finally admitting they've innocent. And at the same token they've let others go free that are a real threat!
Obviously their tactics and their intelligence aren't working. So there isn't any point to keeping it running. If after a couple of years of interrogation and intelligence gathering the US still can't distinguish between an innocent person and a terrorist, then surely they've failed.
Domici
15-03-2005, 16:55
I noticed this on the BBC site today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4349461.stm

Can't find Bin Laden, etc etc. Usual stuff. Except this bit right at the end:



So what is the point of Guantanamo Bay?
They've kept ppl who have they've done nothing wrong there for years now, interrogating them daily before finally admitting they've innocent. And at the same token they've let others go free that are a real threat!
Obviously their tactics and their intelligence aren't working. So there isn't any point to keeping it running. If after a couple of years of interrogation and intelligence gathering the US still can't distinguish between an innocent person and a terrorist, then surely they've failed.

I think it's more about seeing how much they can get away with. The Supreme Court consented to some pretty severe erosions of our civil liberties before finally saying that people in Guantanamo can't be held indefinitly without access to a lawyer. But even at that it never said that if they don't have evidence then they have to be let go and it never said that they need to cite any actual law, so a lawyer won't be much help.

It's sort of like the gay Spongebob thing. They know Spongebob isn't gay, but if they keep excersising their supporters stupidity muscle it will keep getting stronger until eventually their stupidity is strong enough to pick up the whole nation and topple it.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 17:44
It takes time to figure out (after everyone answers a round of questioning) whether anyone knows anything or not.

You'll notice that the majority are still there, unreleased.

I think they've released all the uninteresting ones.

The rest know something, or they wouldn't still be there. Barring that, the remaining ones are actually members of al-Q, and therefore are going to be prisoners for the duration of the war.

Which just happens to be forever.
Virutania
15-03-2005, 17:48
It takes time to figure out (after everyone answers a round of questioning) whether anyone knows anything or not.

You'll notice that the majority are still there, unreleased.

I think they've released all the uninteresting ones.

The rest know something, or they wouldn't still be there. Barring that, the remaining ones are actually members of al-Q, and therefore are going to be prisoners for the duration of the war.

Which just happens to be forever.



So the fact that they are still there is the only proof that they deserve to be there?? lol
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 17:52
So the fact that they are still there is the only proof that they deserve to be there?? lol

I think you're misinformed.

Think back to WW II.

British soldiers taken prisoner by Germans.

British soldiers go to POW camp.

Some are interrogated.

They never get a trial or hearing to see if they're really British soldiers.

They stay there until the war is over.

That's the way it works in a war.

Being the enemy is not a criminal matter - it is a military matter.

According to the "rules", if you're the enemy, we can detain you until the war is over - that is, until we win and the enemy surrenders (impossible, in the war on terror), or we lose and you are liberated by al-Qaeda (highly unlikely).

So, you're staying forever. At least we're being nice, and holding some hearings to determine if it is necessary to detain some of them.

As for the rest, they are enemy combatants, and under the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions, they may be held until the end of the war.
Nadkor
15-03-2005, 17:52
If you want to learn anything from Northern Ireland...try learning that internment without trial generally doesnt work, and just drives up recruitment numbers...
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 17:58
If you want to learn anything from Northern Ireland...try learning that internment without trial generally doesnt work, and just drives up recruitment numbers...

There is talk that in the future, if you surround suspected al-Qaeda members, and they attempt to flee or fight (instead of quietly surrendering unprompted), that there won't be any prisoners.

This has apparently been done several times already. You'll notice the claim that the US has captured or killed the majority of the upper al-Q leadership - most of that is "killed".

Can't have a news story if someone is killed in a clandestine manner. He won't get a phone call to Amnesty International. Even his own friends will take two weeks to find out he's gone missing - and then they'll have no idea where he went.

And, you can't torture a dead man. Or illegally detain him.

Recruitment is hard to come by when people get whacked like that.

It would be legal, as it would be considered combat against an enemy combatant. Death in combat is not considered assassination - it's perfectly legal.
Demented Hamsters
15-03-2005, 18:42
It takes time to figure out (after everyone answers a round of questioning) whether anyone knows anything or not.

You'll notice that the majority are still there, unreleased.

I think they've released all the uninteresting ones.

The rest know something, or they wouldn't still be there. Barring that, the remaining ones are actually members of al-Q, and therefore are going to be prisoners for the duration of the war.

Which just happens to be forever.
You're missing my point, there. They haven't just released the 'uninteresting' ones. They kept those Britons for over 2 years before finally accepting that they had nothing to do with terrorist activities.
Yet they released this guy - Abdullah Mehsud - some time last year, who soon after returning to Pakistan becomes their most wanted militant.
Now either:
1. He was a nice guy before being captured but decided to become a terrorist after he was released; or
2. He was already a militant before being captured.
If it was 1, then I think we can point the finger at Guantanamo Bay and the way it treats it's prisoners as having created, rather than stopped, terrorists.
If it's 2, then US intelligence failed miserably if they had no idea that this guy was a dangerous militant.
Either way, Guantanamo Bay is a failure.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 18:44
I suppose that the way the Germans ran their POW camps in WW II caused some British subjects to enlist.
New Granada
15-03-2005, 19:13
What was the point of the Gulags? of the german camps?

Wickedness and evil find easy justification in the minds of wicked people.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:15
What was the point of the Gulags? of the german camps?

Wickedness and evil find easy justification in the minds of wicked people.

If you capture people who are ostensibly with the enemy at the time you capture them, what do you propose we do?

Or are you saying that the Geneva and Hague Conventions are no good...

If you say that, then Rumsfeld can resume torturing people.

If not, then we can imprison them forever...
New Granada
15-03-2005, 19:17
If you capture people who are ostensibly with the enemy at the time you capture them, what do you propose we do?

Or are you saying that the Geneva and Hague Conventions are no good...

If you say that, then Rumsfeld can resume torturing people.

If not, then we can imprison them forever...


We have perfectly good conventions and laws governing the treatment of prisoners of war and criminals.

There is no legal or moral justification for guantanamo or the atrocities we commit there and elsewhere.
Whittier-
15-03-2005, 19:18
Guantanamo exists so we can have place to put the terrorists, spies, and other anti american activists we capture from around the world.
Drunk commies
15-03-2005, 19:23
The people held at Guantanamo bay weren't just kidnapped from their homes. They were caught helping the taliban and the Iraqi insurgents. Many of them were just playing mujahadin and have learned their lesson about what happens when you take on the USA, but many others are commited Islamist terrorists. The problem is figuring out which is which. The ones who are no longer a threat are being released. Unfortunately one of the bad ones got out too. Luckily Pakistan took his ass out.
New Granada
15-03-2005, 19:25
Guantanamo exists so we can have place to put the terrorists, spies, and other anti american activists we capture from around the world.


Sort of like what stalin did to the terrorists and spies and other anti soviet activists in his country?
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:26
We have perfectly good conventions and laws governing the treatment of prisoners of war and criminals.

There is no legal or moral justification for guantanamo or the atrocities we commit there and elsewhere.

Read Geneva Conventions, Convention I, Article 2.

You will notice that al-Qaeda is not a signatory to the Conventions, nor has it publicly expressed a willingness to abide by the Conventions.

Therefore, any of its members are not subject to the protections of the Conventions.

If you want to say otherwise, then you're making something up.

Go ahead. Read it and weep.
Ubiqtorate
15-03-2005, 19:26
If you capture people who are ostensibly with the enemy at the time you capture them, what do you propose we do?

Or are you saying that the Geneva and Hague Conventions are no good...

If you say that, then Rumsfeld can resume torturing people.

If not, then we can imprison them forever...

The Geneva Convention only applies to open war between states or occupation by a state of another state- in this case, it only applies to active soldiers, militia or other opposing forces from the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. All other prisoners cannot be considered POW's, but rather criminals under US law, and thus entitled to the protections of US law.
As for the Iraqi and Afghani wars, they're over.
Article 118, Geneva Convention: Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
Source: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Thus, they should be released under international law, unless I'm missing something.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:28
The Geneva Convention only applies to open war between states or occupation by a state of another state- in this case, it only applies to active soldiers, militia or other opposing forces from the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. All other prisoners cannot be considered POW's, but rather criminals under US law, and thus entitled to the protections of US law.
As for the Iraqi and Afghani wars, they're over.
Article 118, Geneva Convention: Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
Source: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Thus, they should be released under international law, unless I'm missing something.

We're at war with al-Qaeda. They are considered "enemy combatants" as they belong to the other side, but are not wearing uniforms. They are not criminals, nor is it a criminal matter.

Additionally, as al-Qaeda is not a signatory, and not planning on adhering to the Conventions, they are explicitly denied the protection of the Conventions by the Conventions themselves.
Markreich
15-03-2005, 19:29
So what is the point of Guantanamo Bay?
They've kept ppl who have they've done nothing wrong there for years now, interrogating them daily before finally admitting they've innocent. And at the same token they've let others go free that are a real threat!
Obviously their tactics and their intelligence aren't working. So there isn't any point to keeping it running. If after a couple of years of interrogation and intelligence gathering the US still can't distinguish between an innocent person and a terrorist, then surely they've failed.

Really. You *know* that every single person there has done nothing wrong?

Impressive. :rolleyes:
Ubiqtorate
15-03-2005, 19:29
We're at war with al-Qaeda. They are considered "enemy combatants" as they belong to the other side, but are not wearing uniforms. They are not criminals, nor is it a criminal matter.

Additionally, as al-Qaeda is not a signatory, and not planning on adhering to the Conventions, they are explicitly denied the protection of the Conventions by the Conventions themselves.

I was referring to any members of the organized army of Iraq, or of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are not considered enemy combatants, but as actual soldiers.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:30
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The powers that are parties thereto (to the present Convention) shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. That doesn't mean al-Qaeda.

"if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof".

al-Qaeda has explicitly rejected the Geneva Conventions, and has executed prisoners consistently (including making a point of executing their first prisoner).

So they don't get the protections. Read it again.
Markreich
15-03-2005, 19:32
I was referring to any members of the organized army of Iraq, or of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are not considered enemy combatants, but as actual soldiers.

The Taleban were *also* not signatories to the Geneva Convention.
Ubiqtorate
15-03-2005, 19:32
The powers that are parties thereto (to the present Convention) shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. That doesn't mean al-Qaeda.

"if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof".

al-Qaeda has explicitly rejected the Geneva Conventions, and has executed prisoners consistently (including making a point of executing their first prisoner).

So they don't get the protections. Read it again.

Whoops.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:33
I was referring to any members of the organized army of Iraq, or of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are not considered enemy combatants, but as actual soldiers.

Iraqi soldiers or insurgents imprisoned prior to the establishment of the new Iraqi government have been turned over to the Iraqis - their disposition is their problem - but we still run the prisons on their behalf.

Enemy combatants in Iraq are still considered POWs - and are treated as such - except that they are now part of a war that will never end.

Enemy combatants in Afghanistan, if Taliban, are turned over to the Afghans for imprisonment. A local criminal matter that usually results in death. If al-Qaeda, they go to Guantanamo. Forever. Not a criminal matter, but a military one.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:37
One thing that was hammered into my head in the Army.

1. Wear the official uniform.
2. Have your dog tags and ID card in order.

If you don't, war is especially hard on people who cannot be identified with the official army of a signatory. It's hard enough on a regular POW. But ANYONE can legally fuck with someone who is caught:

1. Not in uniform, or without an official symbol
2. Without your ID card identifying you as a member of the armed forces of a signatory.

You can shoot them instead of taking them prisoner. Legally.

It's been done so much in the 20th century - and no one is ever held accountable for it.

Many members of the UK SOE were killed in France - shot on the spot after hideous torture - because they were not in uniform and had no ID. It was legal - and no German was ever held accountable for the executions.
Ubiqtorate
15-03-2005, 19:37
Iraqi soldiers or insurgents imprisoned prior to the establishment of the new Iraqi government have been turned over to the Iraqis - their disposition is their problem - but we still run the prisons on their behalf.

Enemy combatants in Iraq are still considered POWs - and are treated as such - except that they are now part of a war that will never end.

Enemy combatants in Afghanistan, if Taliban, are turned over to the Afghans for imprisonment. A local criminal matter that usually results in death. If al-Qaeda, they go to Guantanamo. Forever. Not a criminal matter, but a military one.

So essentially, the US uses a loophole in the Geneva Conventions (by calling the fight against terrorism a "war") to allow them to imprison indefinitely anyone that they feel they can accuse of terrorism?*
*I'm not saying that people imprisoned there are innocent, but rather that it is theoretically possible for an innocent person accused of terrorism to be held indefinitely, simply by virtue of the accusation.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:40
So essentially, the US uses a loophole in the Geneva Conventions (by calling the fight against terrorism a "war") to allow them to imprison indefinitely anyone that they feel they can accuse of terrorism?*
*I'm not saying that people imprisoned there are innocent, but rather that it is theoretically possible for an innocent person accused of terrorism to be held indefinitely, simply by virtue of the accusation.

No, they use the loophole to torture the ones at Guantanamo (unfortunately, someone missed the message that it doesn't allow torture anywhere else).

But, since al-Qaeda are essentially prisoners of war, they can be held indefinitely.

Did you ever hear of a British soldier in WW II demanding a trial from his German captors so that he could have a hearing to determine his status? After 4 years in POW camp?

It doesn't happen. They aren't charged with a crime. They are non-state fighters who happen to belong to a non-signatory.

One of the things that people really did to fuck the idea of insurgency was the addition of the Protocols to deal with insurgents. Unfortunately, it puts them into the same state (nearly) as state combatants - with the same responsibilities and less protections.
Iztatepopotla
15-03-2005, 19:41
The powers that are parties thereto (to the present Convention) shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. That doesn't mean al-Qaeda.

al Qaeda is not a power, it's not a state, it's not bound by the Geneva or other conventions. On the other hand, the US is a power, it's a state, and it's bound by coventions to respect rules of war, international law, and human rights.

The US is not at war with al Qaeda, because war can only be waged between states, and that when there's a declaration of war. The US is in a persecution of al Qaeda to get them to pay for their terrorist practices, but that doesn't mean that the US is free to act outside the boundaries of applicable US and international law.

Guantanamo prisoners deserve a fair and speedy trial if they are to remain there. Why? Because US law, and international human rights conventions that the US has signed demand it. If they're not prisoners of war and if a trial hasn't determined their criminality then they should be released.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:43
al Qaeda is not a power, it's not a state, it's not bound by the Geneva or other conventions. On the other hand, the US is a power, it's a state, and it's bound by coventions to respect rules of war, international law, and human rights.

The US is not at war with al Qaeda, because war can only be waged between states, and that when there's a declaration of war. The US is in a persecution of al Qaeda to get them to pay for their terrorist practices, but that doesn't mean that the US is free to act outside the boundaries of applicable US and international law.

Guantanamo prisoners deserve a fair and speedy trial if they are to remain there. Why? Because US law, and international human rights conventions that the US has signed demand it. If they're not prisoners of war and if a trial hasn't determined their criminality then they should be released.

You should read the Conventions that you purport to interpret.

They are "enemy combatants", as are the members of the Taliban. It doesn't say that "war can only be waged between states". In fact, the addition of the last two Protocols of the Conventions recognizes this as a Fact. People captured as "enemy combatants" are not entitled to a trial under international law - there is no such law.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in particular are exempted from all protections by Convention I, Part 2.

So we can throw them from cliffs if we want to. For fun. On national TV. Without a trial.
Iztatepopotla
15-03-2005, 19:52
The Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in particular are exempted from all protections by Convention I, Part 2.

So we can throw them from cliffs if we want to. For fun. On national TV. Without a trial.
Nope. Some of them may be civilians who took arms spontaneously, or members of a guerilla, which would grant them some status. Others may not be and you can throw those off a cliff, but until a trial is held to determine who is who, you may not do such thing.

And the human rights convention, that protects them all, demands a speedy and fair trial.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 19:56
Nope. Some of them may be civilians who took arms spontaneously, or members of a guerilla, which would grant them some status. Others may not be and you can throw those off a cliff, but until a trial is held to determine who is who, you may not do such thing.

And the human rights convention, that protects them all, demands a speedy and fair trial.

No, Geneva Convention I, Article 2.

They're fucked. If they don't have a weapon, they need a recognizable common emblem or badge.

No badge, you can be shot on the spot if caught with arms. By the rules man, by the rules. No trial, just a bullet in the head.
Iztatepopotla
15-03-2005, 20:11
No badge, you can be shot on the spot if caught with arms. By the rules man, by the rules. No trial, just a bullet in the head.
On the spot, on the spot. Sure, a guy comes racing towards the barricade, and you shoot. No problem. Like last week with the Italian reporter. But you can't just hold them forever, especially when they can be citizens who take arms spontaneously. The point is, once you have captured them, it's not as easy to determine.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 20:14
On the spot, on the spot. Sure, a guy comes racing towards the barricade, and you shoot. No problem. Like last week with the Italian reporter. But you can't just hold them forever, especially when they can be citizens who take arms spontaneously. The point is, once you have captured them, it's not as easy to determine.

You can hold them until the war is over. No trial is required.

Last I heard, though, all of them had a military tribunal to determine their status. Lucky to get that. Which is why some of them went home.

When will the war with al-Qaeda be over? Probably forever. You can hold prisoners that long - and prisoners don't get a trial to determine their status.

It's likely that the remainder are officially, and by the words of their own mouths, Taliban or al-Qaeda, or both. That would screw them.

We could charge them with war crimes under the Hague Convention IV, for fighting without being in uniform. Then we could have a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.
Whittier-
15-03-2005, 20:20
Sort of like what stalin did to the terrorists and spies and other anti soviet activists in his country?
you sir are too ignorant in your anti american views to deserve a proper response.
Iztatepopotla
15-03-2005, 20:27
Last I heard, though, all of them had a military tribunal to determine their status. Lucky to get that. Which is why some of them went home.

Yup. The Supreme Court determined that they could fight their holding.


When will the war with al-Qaeda be over? Probably forever. You can hold prisoners that long - and prisoners don't get a trial to determine their status.

I don't know, at some point someone is going to start wondering whether there really is a war going on and if Congress authorized it and all that.


It's likely that the remainder are officially, and by the words of their own mouths, Taliban or al-Qaeda, or both. That would screw them.

It would still have to be determined how high in the structure they were and how much involvement they had. But it wouldn't be good.


We could charge them with war crimes under the Hague Convention IV, for fighting without being in uniform. Then we could have a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.
Yup.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 20:30
Since WW II, the US has not declared war.

Ever hear of the War Powers Act?

Besides, you don't have to fight in a declared war to be using the Hague or Geneva Conventions. You can be throwing spitballs in the street, and still claim the rules.
Karas
15-03-2005, 20:40
Read Geneva Conventions, Convention I, Article 2.

You will notice that al-Qaeda is not a signatory to the Conventions, nor has it publicly expressed a willingness to abide by the Conventions.

Therefore, any of its members are not subject to the protections of the Conventions.

If you want to say otherwise, then you're making something up.

Go ahead. Read it and weep.

al-Qaeda is also not a country. By treating it as such you set a precident that would allow any criminal orginization to obtain immunity from law enforcemnt by declaring itself at war. That it abslutly and utterly stupid. Privatly sponsered terrorism is a criminal act according to international convention and national laws. It is foolish to blur the line between military actions and law enforcement just as it is foolish to blur the line between military actions and criminal actions. Doing so naturally causes the errosion of civil rights and liberities and will eventualy create a state of war between the government and its own citizens. The inevatable but avoidable result of which is either revolution or self-genocide.

The military exists to kill people. Law enforcement exists to arrest criminals. The twain should never meet and certainly should not share or exchange duties.
Whispering Legs
15-03-2005, 20:42
al-Qaeda is also not a country. By treating it as such you set a precident that would allow any criminal orginization to obtain immunity from law enforcemnt by declaring itself at war. That it abslutly and utterly stupid. Privatly sponsered terrorism is a criminal act according to international convention and national laws. It is foolish to blur the line between military actions and law enforcement just as it is foolish to blur the line between military actions and criminal actions. Doing so naturally causes the errosion of civil rights and liberities and will eventualy create a state of war between the government and its own citizens. The inevatable but avoidable result of which is either revolution or self-genocide.

The military exists to kill people. Law enforcement exists to arrest criminals. The twain should never meet and certainly should not share or exchange duties.


The change in status for non-state resistance organizations occured in the 1970s, and was given status largely by the European nations who conceived of the two Protocols that were added to the Geneva Conventions.

Not the US. We knew you were opening Pandora's box - don't come back now and say we were the ones who opened the door.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
15-03-2005, 21:33
Ah Guantanamo Bay... another location for some dumb Americans to defend their immoral country from the criticism of the world. Simply put - Guantanamo Bay is illegal. Period.
Markreich
15-03-2005, 22:34
Since WW II, the US has not declared war.

Ever hear of the War Powers Act?

Besides, you don't have to fight in a declared war to be using the Hague or Geneva Conventions. You can be throwing spitballs in the street, and still claim the rules.

To be fair, the US didn't declare war from V.J. day 1945-26 Dec 1991 in order to keep the planet from a less one sided nuclear confrontation than the US-Japanese nuclear exchange of 1945...

(This in keeping with the detail that the Soviets were a nuclear power and the Japanese are not...)
Markreich
15-03-2005, 22:34
Ein Deutscher']Ah Guantanamo Bay... another location for some dumb Americans to defend their immoral country from the criticism of the world. Simply put - Guantanamo Bay is illegal. Period.

Simply put, the US pays Cuba yearly for GitMo. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay
Niccolo Medici
16-03-2005, 13:18
Simply put, the US pays Cuba yearly for GitMo. :p

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

Oh gods that's sick...Talk about losing faith in your own. The more I hear about this, the more I find my citizenship here as a hollow thing. Devoid of substance. I'm having a real crisis of faith in my own country, the one I swore to protect with my life.

Tell me, do military shrinks have programs for people who've heard and seen too many bad things that their nation has condoned? I'm curious. How do other people reconcile what we do and what we stand for? Because I just don't know anymore. Why fight for THIS?
Whispering Legs
16-03-2005, 13:46
Oh gods that's sick...Talk about losing faith in your own. The more I hear about this, the more I find my citizenship here as a hollow thing. Devoid of substance. I'm having a real crisis of faith in my own country, the one I swore to protect with my life.

Tell me, do military shrinks have programs for people who've heard and seen too many bad things that their nation has condoned? I'm curious. How do other people reconcile what we do and what we stand for? Because I just don't know anymore. Why fight for THIS?

It's not as if we pay Cuba to run the place. We pay them for the land. It's like a lease.

But, you might interpret this as Cuba condoning what we do there. You know, that paragon of socialist nations...

Considering what they do to their dissidents, what we do there is child's play.
Markreich
16-03-2005, 14:16
Oh gods that's sick...Talk about losing faith in your own. The more I hear about this, the more I find my citizenship here as a hollow thing. Devoid of substance. I'm having a real crisis of faith in my own country, the one I swore to protect with my life.

Tell me, do military shrinks have programs for people who've heard and seen too many bad things that their nation has condoned? I'm curious. How do other people reconcile what we do and what we stand for? Because I just don't know anymore. Why fight for THIS?

I'm sorry, but I don't see what's sick about it.

However, THIS is sick!
http://www.cas43.com/

Never forget.
Demented Hamsters
16-03-2005, 15:57
It's not as if we pay Cuba to run the place. We pay them for the land. It's like a lease.

But, you might interpret this as Cuba condoning what we do there. You know, that paragon of socialist nations...

Considering what they do to their dissidents, what we do there is child's play.
You really should do more research before launching into yet another diatribe against the USA's favourite kicking boy, Castro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay
Since coming to power, Fidel Castro has only cashed one rent cheque, while steadfastly refusing to cash the others because he views the base as illegitimate.
So if he views it as illegitimate, how can one interpret this as Cuba condoning what is being done there?
Whispering Legs
16-03-2005, 15:58
You really should do more research before launching into yet another diatribe against the USA's favourite kicking boy, Castro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay
Since coming to power, Fidel Castro has only cashed one rent cheque, while steadfastly refusing to cash the others because he views the base as illegitimate.
So if he views it as illegitimate, how can one interpret this as Cuba condoning what is being done there?

I'm not saying he's condoning it - apparently one previous poster thought that because we were leasing it from him, that somehow he was in on the torture.

If he thought it was illegitimate, he should take it back. It's not that large of a place.
Cadillac-Gage
16-03-2005, 16:08
Ein Deutscher']Ah Guantanamo Bay... another location for some dumb Americans to defend their immoral country from the criticism of the world. Simply put - Guantanamo Bay is illegal. Period.


Have you actually READ the Geneva Conventions? Are you familiar with the term "Lawful Combatant" and the rights of a Prisoner of War?

The internees at Guantanamo Bay were taken captive as a result of using weapons in a combat zone. under the MERE Geneva Conventions, they have NO RIGHTS-most of them, to a trial, in fact, under Geneva, the Americans had every right to kill them right there (Summary Execution) rather than spending money and keeping them alive.

They're being treated as Prisoners of WAR in spite of the fact that most were not lawful combatants. (incidentally: Mercenaries don't have any of the limited protections indigenous resistance groups do. Non-Afghani Taliban fall under the catagory, legally, of Mercenaries/Soldiers of Fortune. They have NO LEGAL RIGHTS that the U.S. military didn't give them when they were captured-NONE.)

The fact that they are being held-even long term, indicates an attempt to reconcile american Squeamishness with practical necessity-letting a hostile go back and regroup after capture makes zero-sense, but executing everyone you capture is monstrous, and encourages enemies to fight to their last breath-which is a bad thing.
Whispering Legs
16-03-2005, 16:27
Cadillac, most of the people on this forum don't want to read the Conventions because they might find out that the guys at Guantanamo are screwed.

They would rather wave the generic concept of "the conventions" and "international law" and assert that their view of the world exists in those documents - when it does not.
Ninja Zombie Dinosaurs
16-03-2005, 17:04
When will the war with al-Qaeda be over? Probably forever. You can hold prisoners that long - and prisoners don't get a trial to determine their status.
I'm not sure "we can hold whoever we want as long as we want under whatever conditions we want as long as we maintain an indefinite state of war" is a healthy notion for a democratic state.
San haiti
16-03-2005, 17:07
I'm not saying he's condoning it - apparently one previous poster thought that because we were leasing it from him, that somehow he was in on the torture.

If he thought it was illegitimate, he should take it back. It's not that large of a place.

Just take it back? Right, should he just hang a little eviction notice on their door and expect them to leave all on their own? The US wont move out of Cuba because it doesnt want to. And there's nothing Castro can do about it.
Invidentia
16-03-2005, 17:21
You're missing my point, there. They haven't just released the 'uninteresting' ones. They kept those Britons for over 2 years before finally accepting that they had nothing to do with terrorist activities.
Yet they released this guy - Abdullah Mehsud - some time last year, who soon after returning to Pakistan becomes their most wanted militant.
Now either:
1. He was a nice guy before being captured but decided to become a terrorist after he was released; or
2. He was already a militant before being captured.
If it was 1, then I think we can point the finger at Guantanamo Bay and the way it treats it's prisoners as having created, rather than stopped, terrorists.
If it's 2, then US intelligence failed miserably if they had no idea that this guy was a dangerous militant.
Either way, Guantanamo Bay is a failure.

just STOP misrepresenting the nature of Guantanamo bay.. the imprisionment of the people is not to dertermine if they are militants.. they were ALL obivously millitants since they were caught or captured activily resisting and fighting US military forces. Those british citizens who were returned were not returned after being found to have no connection to terrorism, in fact when they were released they highly urged the British government to continue holding them because they were still suspect. They released them because no clear evidence could be found and they had no meaningful intelegence to divulge though large suspicions still existed... this does not mean to say they were not in some way connected to terrorist activities.

As for this fellow released.. just because he was a militant does not mean he had significant ties to terrorism, and just because he poses a threat to Pakistani military forces does not mean he was an alqueda member.. The people from Guantanimo are simply not released into the streets, and Im very interested to know how he got from Guantanimo to the Pakistani mountain ranges.

Since WW II, the US has not declared war.

Ever hear of the War Powers Act?

Besides, you don't have to fight in a declared war to be using the Hague or Geneva Conventions. You can be throwing spitballs in the street, and still claim the rules.

And just like any rules, there are specific things which help us recognized the application of those rules.. since these detainees in no way meet the requirements to be considered POWs the rules there forth Do Not Apply !
Invidentia
16-03-2005, 17:26
Have you actually READ the Geneva Conventions? Are you familiar with the term "Lawful Combatant" and the rights of a Prisoner of War?

The internees at Guantanamo Bay were taken captive as a result of using weapons in a combat zone. under the MERE Geneva Conventions, they have NO RIGHTS-most of them, to a trial, in fact, under Geneva, the Americans had every right to kill them right there (Summary Execution) rather than spending money and keeping them alive.

They're being treated as Prisoners of WAR in spite of the fact that most were not lawful combatants. (incidentally: Mercenaries don't have any of the limited protections indigenous resistance groups do. Non-Afghani Taliban fall under the catagory, legally, of Mercenaries/Soldiers of Fortune. They have NO LEGAL RIGHTS that the U.S. military didn't give them when they were captured-NONE.)

The fact that they are being held-even long term, indicates an attempt to reconcile american Squeamishness with practical necessity-letting a hostile go back and regroup after capture makes zero-sense, but executing everyone you capture is monstrous, and encourages enemies to fight to their last breath-which is a bad thing.

WELL.. atleast SOMEONE actually knows the law instead of spreading ignorance
Iztatepopotla
16-03-2005, 17:34
But, you might interpret this as Cuba condoning what we do there. You know, that paragon of socialist nations...

Fidel has never taken the money (which is not a significant amount anyway) and has asked in multiple ocassions that the US give back the land and leave Cuba.

So, the US really isn't paying a thing, they just make a pantomime, based on an old document from before the revolution.
Whispering Legs
16-03-2005, 17:35
WELL.. atleast SOMEONE actually knows the law instead of spreading ignorance

I don't know how many times I've posted Convention I, Article 2, that shows the al-Q guys aren't protected.

But a lot of people would rather not read the truth - they would rather assert that the Geneva Conventions protect al-Q.
Cadillac-Gage
16-03-2005, 18:14
I'm not sure "we can hold whoever we want as long as we want under whatever conditions we want as long as we maintain an indefinite state of war" is a healthy notion for a democratic state.

That comes down to American internal politics and culture, not international policy. Under international Law, those guys are screwed. Under the conditions of American Electoral Politics, those guys may not be, but odds are good they're STILL screwed-unless the President and the Congress change the rules. One of the funny things about it, is that since they're on a MILITARY reservation, outside the United States, they don't have CIVILIAN rights-their rights are those defined by the National Command Authority, (the President) and Military Regulations (which are controlled by Congress), via the base administration (which is controlled by the Post Commander through the Camp Commandant, overseen by the Adjutant General's office).

Effectively, if GW wanted to go on down to Gitmo, with his .22 pistol, and start double-tapping Prisoners, as Commander in Chief, and without a specific regulation against it being enacted by Congress, he has the LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO-because the prisoners at Gitmo aren't covered under the Geneva Conventions-they're unlawful combatants and therefore de-jure guilty of war crimes, crimes punishable by summary execution (since he is the Commander in Chief, he has the legal right to carry out said summary executions, being the ranking officer present).

This would, of course, be political suicide, but it illustrates the actual situation-the Guantanamo bay facility might not be up to the standards of, say, Walla-Walla state penitentiary here in Washington State, but it's much more humane than merely following the minimum of what the law would grant.
Markreich
16-03-2005, 18:28
If you think that the US is "torturing" anybody in GitMo... how would you like THIS for a justice system?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4353449.stm
Cadillac-Gage
16-03-2005, 18:30
I don't know how many times I've posted Convention I, Article 2, that shows the al-Q guys aren't protected.

But a lot of people would rather not read the truth - they would rather assert that the Geneva Conventions protect al-Q.

Most folk don't know what a "Legal Combatant" is, or understand what a lot of those phrases mean. It's kind of like the guy who insists that having a a car and driving it (even without a license) is his "Constitutional Right". You can show him the Constitution, you can explain it, but he doesn't necessarily have to comprehend it, or understand that his position is incorrect.
Everyone bandies about their "Rights" but remarkably few people understand what those rights are, and what they are not. (yes, a business owner CAN kick you off their private property for wearing that tee-shirt.)

With the Geneva Conventions, it gets worse-because nine out of ten people who bother to read them, do so because those conventions apply directly to what they are currently doing for a living.
Figure maybe .5% of Military Personnel are actually conversant with the Geneva Conventions-that's one guy out of ever two Companies in a battalion (not including the officers), which is a slightly lower rate than is conversant with the actual Regulations.
This is still (probably) higher than the number of Congresscritters likely to know what the Geneva Conventions say, and vastly greater number than the number of Journalists who've read the document, forget understanding it!

Most people when confronted by difficult language, that is presented as counter-evidence in an argument, will go 'glazed eyes' and discount it as either bullshit, or 'you edited that!'

When pressed to read the source, they will tend to refuse, or claim to have read it, then demonstrate that they have not, in fact, read it.

This is what is wrong with trying to change people's minds over the Internet, or any other mass-media-interactive system (Talk radio, for instance). You can only argue and present evidence for the benefit of those who may have an open mind, and be willing to either listen, or fact-check. In other words, people who haven't already made up their minds based on irrelevancies like which political party is in the white house, or what their social-justice prof told them.
Whispering Legs
16-03-2005, 18:36
Figure maybe .5% of Military Personnel are actually conversant with the Geneva Conventions-that's one guy out of ever two Companies in a battalion (not including the officers), which is a slightly lower rate than is conversant with the actual Regulations.


When I was an E-4 in the Infantry (US Army), not a JAG person, I had Convention I, Article 2 read to me by my platoon sergeant.

I had asked why it was so important that I always have my ID card, dog tags, and why should my uniform be "just so".

He pointed out the language in the section and said, "You don't have to worry about the US Army punishing you in wartime. If the enemy catches you out of uniform, without proper ID, they'll buttfuck you and shoot you when they're tired of having fun. And it will be perfectly legal."

So, I said, "Point taken."
Markreich
16-03-2005, 18:43
That's what I like about organizations like the military: they don't have to be politically correct. Not only is the point gotten, it's remembered.
Custodes Rana
16-03-2005, 18:50
When I was an E-4 in the Infantry (US Army), not a JAG person, I had Convention I, Article 2 read to me by my platoon sergeant.

I had asked why it was so important that I always have my ID card, dog tags, and why should my uniform be "just so".

He pointed out the language in the section and said, "You don't have to worry about the US Army punishing you in wartime. If the enemy catches you out of uniform, without proper ID, they'll buttfuck you and shoot you when they're tired of having fun. And it will be perfectly legal."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but without a uniform, proper ID, and dog tags, you could be labeled a spy and shot outright?
Whispering Legs
16-03-2005, 19:00
Correct me if I'm wrong, but without a uniform, proper ID, and dog tags, you could be labeled a spy and shot outright?

Not just that.

Technically, to be subject to the protections, you have to be:
a) an official member of an armed force from a state that is a signatory ("High Contracting Party"), or
b) an official member of an armed force from a state that has indicated its willingness to go along with the Conventions.

The later Protocols added in the 1970s muddy the waters by making insurgencies the de facto equivalent of states within the context of the Conventions.

If you are not a member of an official armed force, and are "just picking up a rifle to defend the homeland", you still need an official emblem which you must wear. If you are a member of an organization (you didn't just pick up the rifle, you've had it for a while) like al-Qaeda, you are an "enemy combatant". Under the conventions, your non-state group has the responsibilities of a state (in having to agree to the conventions or be a signatory), if they want to receive the benefits.

So, if you're not Afghan, and you travel there to join the Taliban, there's a few problems.

1. The Taliban are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
2. They had no announced intentions to follow the conventions.
3. They made a point of violating them from day one (shooting prisoners).
4. Al-Qaeda is not a signatory to the conventions.
5. They announced no intention to follow the conventions.
6. None of them wore a uniform.
7. None of them wore an official emblem.

Therefore, they are not, under any circumstances, subject to the protections of the Conventions. You could call them spy, mercenary, or anything you like - and then shoot them into a ditch without a trial - and it would be LEGAL.

The fact that we've captured them is astonishing - we had no legal obligation to do so. We could have pulled their testicles off on the spot to get answers, and then chopped their heads off - legally.

Not saying it's moral - just saying it's legal to do so. Which is probably why we captured them instead.
Swimmingpool
16-03-2005, 19:18
It's sort of like the gay Spongebob thing. They know Spongebob isn't gay, but if they keep excersising their supporters stupidity muscle it will keep getting stronger until eventually their stupidity is strong enough to pick up the whole nation and topple it.
The "spongebob is gay" people want to topple the nation?

I suppose that the way the Germans ran their POW camps in WW II caused some British subjects to enlist.
Yes, fighting such Nazi tyranny was a pretty good reason to fight them.

The people held at Guantanamo bay weren't just kidnapped from their homes.
Yes, but the Kabul taxi driver who was taken in just for asking at a US base where his friend (who was brought to Camp X-ray himself) was close enough.
Swimmingpool
16-03-2005, 19:19
Really. You *know* that every single person there has done nothing wrong?

Impressive. :rolleyes:
You troll, he never said that everyone there was innocent. He said that a few are, which is true. Most are probably guilty.
Whispering Legs
16-03-2005, 19:21
As I recall, the majority of Allied POWs were not abused by the Germans in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Certainly not in the sense that the Japanese abused Allied prisoners. The Japanese had an explicit disregard for the Conventions.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
16-03-2005, 22:30
I guess, if all these people who were rounded up under whatever circumstances, are indeed "terrorists" and "unlawful enemy combatants", then the jews who died in WW2 were the same.

It's quite frightening how some radical elements in the USA think they can redefine the status of prisoners of war. I did in fact read the Geneva Conventions. Maybe you should aswell? Fact is, prisoners, regardless of their status, cannot be summarily executed. If a nation makes prisoners during war, then it needs to care for them properly and respect their human rights plus several other rights i.e. right to trial, determination of status by a neutral tribunal (court). In the case of Gitmo, those prisoners were determined terrorists by military tribunals - which is illegal, since military tribunals are not neutral.

In fact, the US Supreme Court has already ruled, that prisoners in Gitmo enjoy the rights guaranteed every US citizen by the US constitution. It is however interesting to see, how some Americans think, their Supreme Court or constitution mean nothing at all and can safely be disregarded in this case.

Guantanamo Bay is illegal because it exists in Cuba, where it is not welcome (the land where it is situated has been "annexed" by the US - in defiance of International Law). The treatment of the prisoners in Gitmo is akin to the Concentration Camps the Nazis had here in Germany - against International Law. Although the prisoners are not being cremated right away, the various forms of torture they need to endure there are not something to excuse either.

With the illegal Iraq war and the illegal treatment of prisoners (not just in Gitmo btw), the US has made a grave mistake. It has lost it's last bit of morality (edited due to post below), which enabled it so far, to claim to be the beacon of democracy and freedom. With the advent of the neo-cons in power, reaching out for the oil of the world, human rights are being eroded left and right by the US. This is a most dangerous development and the US should not act surprised, if their soldiers are being treated similarly to how they treat foreign citizens, in the future. In fact, I'd really welcome if those who are responsible for these atrocities, i.e. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, Cheney, Powell, etc. were held responsible for their wrong decisions as every other country is held responsible. The majority of the Bush administration deserves a trial in front of the war crimes tribunal of the Hague, in my opinion.

:mad:
Markreich
17-03-2005, 02:41
You troll, he never said that everyone there was innocent. He said that a few are, which is true. Most are probably guilty.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8443465&postcount=1

So what is the point of Guantanamo Bay?
They've kept ppl who have they've done nothing wrong there for years now, interrogating them daily before finally admitting they've innocent. And at the same token they've let others go free that are a real threat!
Obviously their tactics and their intelligence aren't working. So there isn't any point to keeping it running. If after a couple of years of interrogation and intelligence gathering the US still can't distinguish between an innocent person and a terrorist, then surely they've failed.

My reply:
Really. You *know* that every single person there has done nothing wrong?
Impressive. :rolleyes:

So... what part of my statement makes me a troll?
DH is stating that people are being kept there that are innocent and that some people whom were dangerous were let go. There was no statement about all the ones that are dangerous that are being held, nor of the innocents that have been let go.
Nonconformitism
17-03-2005, 02:45
the point of guantanamo(however you spell it) is so america can get around that whole "right to a quick trial" and "no cruel and unusual punishment" stuff.
The Cat-Tribe
17-03-2005, 06:20
I’m sorry, but the arguments here are perfect example of the Orwellian logic behind the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo.

On the one hand, the Geneva Conventions is pointed to as the legal basis for the detentions.

According to the "rules", if you're the enemy, we can detain you until the war is over - that is, until we win and the enemy surrenders (impossible, in the war on terror), or we lose and you are liberated by al-Qaeda (highly unlikely).

[snip]

As for the rest, they are enemy combatants, and under the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions, they may be held until the end of the war.

If you capture people who are ostensibly with the enemy at the time you capture them, what do you propose we do?

Or are you saying that the Geneva and Hague Conventions are no good...

If you say that, then Rumsfeld can resume torturing people.

If not, then we can imprison them forever...

On the other hand, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the detainees …

Read Geneva Conventions, Convention I, Article 2.

You will notice that al-Qaeda is not a signatory to the Conventions, nor has it publicly expressed a willingness to abide by the Conventions.

Therefore, any of its members are not subject to the protections of the Conventions.

If you want to say otherwise, then you're making something up.

Go ahead. Read it and weep.

Better yet, a full explanation of the Catch-22 …

Not just that.

Technically, to be subject to the protections, you have to be:
a) an official member of an armed force from a state that is a signatory ("High Contracting Party"), or
b) an official member of an armed force from a state that has indicated its willingness to go along with the Conventions.

The later Protocols added in the 1970s muddy the waters by making insurgencies the de facto equivalent of states within the context of the Conventions.

If you are not a member of an official armed force, and are "just picking up a rifle to defend the homeland", you still need an official emblem which you must wear. If you are a member of an organization (you didn't just pick up the rifle, you've had it for a while) like al-Qaeda, you are an "enemy combatant". Under the conventions, your non-state group has the responsibilities of a state (in having to agree to the conventions or be a signatory), if they want to receive the benefits.

So, if you're not Afghan, and you travel there to join the Taliban, there's a few problems.

1. The Taliban are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
2. They had no announced intentions to follow the conventions.
3. They made a point of violating them from day one (shooting prisoners).
4. Al-Qaeda is not a signatory to the conventions.
5. They announced no intention to follow the conventions.
6. None of them wore a uniform.
7. None of them wore an official emblem.

Therefore, they are not, under any circumstances, subject to the protections of the Conventions. You could call them spy, mercenary, or anything you like - and then shoot them into a ditch without a trial - and it would be LEGAL. [snip]

In other words, because we are not fighting a state or an army, so whoever we decide is an enemy is not (and could not no matter what they do) be protected by the Geneva Conventions. This supposedly gives the US carte blanche to detain anyone anywhere for however long we like, because the US government says they are an "enemy combatant."

There is, of course, no such thing as "enemy combatants" under the Geneva Conventions. They never use such a term. Nor does any other instrument of international law. It is a term the Bush administration invented in an attempt to create a loophole under international law.

The fact of the matter is that the detainees are either combatants (lawful or unlawful) or non-combatants. Either way they have rights under the Geneva Conventions. Six United Nations Human Rights Experts have repeatedly expressed concerns (http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2005/hr4812.html) about the status of the Guantanamo Bay detainees under the Geneva Conventions. The International Red Cross has been clear in its opinion that at least one of the Geneva Conventions applies to the detainees:
International humanitarian law and terrorism: questions and answers (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/0F32B7E3BB38DD26C1256E8A0055F83E)
"War" doesn't justify Guantanamo (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList124/42BCD4D3BEB459ABC1256E51003EAF49)
US detention related to the events of 11 September 2001 and its aftermath - the role of the ICRC (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList265/593709C3D0B1296DC1256F430044235D)
Protected persons and property and international humanitarian law (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/9AF95564C96E76CAC1256B670036AE19)


Regardless of the application of the Geneva Conventions, it is not true that the detainees are without rights. Other provisions of international law apply. For example,

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html )
(resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly, including the U.S.A., in 1948)

Article 5 guarantees the right to be free from torture or cruel punishment

Article 10 guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent tribunal

Article 11 guarantees the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty at public trial with all guarantees necessary for defense

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.html)
(ratified by the U.S.A in 1992 (see p.11 of the link)) (http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf )

Article 2(1) demands all individuals within a state's territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights of the ICCPR regardless of nationality or citizenship.

Article 9(4) states “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.“ (The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has stated that this right is non-negotiable, even in states of emergency).

For those who are interested, these are some compelling articles about the plight of those at Guantanamo (from a lefty, progressive source), which among other things explain that those there are not necessarily terrorists, Al Qaeda operatives, combatants, etc:

Searching for Khalid (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/03/searching_gitmo.html)
Waiting for Gitmo (http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/01/12_400.html)

Here also is an Amnesty International report on the Guantanamo detentions (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510022005). Note that among those being held at Guantanamo are children.
Invidentia
17-03-2005, 06:52
Ein Deutscher']

With the illegal Iraq war and the illegal treatment of prisoners (not just in Gitmo btw), the US has made a grave mistake. It has lost all moral highground, which enabled it so far, to claim to be the beacon of democracy and freedom. With the advent of the neo-cons in power, reaching out for the oil of the world, human rights are being eroded left and right by the US. This is a most dangerous development and the US should not act surprised, if their soldiers are being treated similarly to how they treat foreign citizens, in the future.

:mad:

so Im just wondering... what gave us this moral high ground.. and why didn't our past histories.. which are far more aggreous then our current actions ever seem to effect this "moral high ground" ... Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ? .. surely the atoms bombs being detinated.. killing more then 200,000 innocent civilians destroyed the moral high ground you claim we had up until Iraq ? or the carpet bombing in Vietnam, or the carpet bombing in German cities.. No.. but aparently Guantinmo.. holding 200 prisionsers who activily worked against our forces (who were largely treated humainly until the end of the war... "war on terror") so outweighs our past offenses of human rights ( ::cough:: Slavery ::cough:: ) we ahve suddenly lost.. this moral high ground we had for so long. The reality is the so called loss of the moral high ground you claim never actually happend.. we have this high ground because we champion human rights while others disreguard them, and if there are systemic problems in our system... our system corrects it self via the Supreme court. The rest of the offenses you point to are isolated incidents which are not relfective of a larger systemic problem. And the court of international opinion has a largely short memory (probably because everyones hands are dirtier then their neigbors) and guantanimo won't even be a memory in 4 years.

By the way... i yearn to see the day the UN officially charges the US for illegally invading Iraq (especially considering the conditions and language of resolution 441 and the fact that the main opposition being france was influenced by corruption in the oil for food program)
The Winter Alliance
17-03-2005, 07:11
I think, upon reflection of the last few posts, that the U.S has never actually had a collective moral "high ground."

Rather there have been a lot of not so pretty instances conglomerated into a young nation which is slowly growing into a mature one.

But that does not mean we cannot be a good example just because our country isn't perfect... if absolute perfection was required, what country could ever question another?
[NS]Ein Deutscher
17-03-2005, 08:34
so Im just wondering... what gave us this moral high ground.. and why didn't our past histories.. which are far more aggreous then our current actions ever seem to effect this "moral high ground" ... Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ? .. surely the atoms bombs being detinated.. killing more then 200,000 innocent civilians destroyed the moral high ground you claim we had up until Iraq ? or the carpet bombing in Vietnam, or the carpet bombing in German cities.. No.. but aparently Guantinmo.. holding 200 prisionsers who activily worked against our forces (who were largely treated humainly until the end of the war... "war on terror") so outweighs our past offenses of human rights ( ::cough:: Slavery ::cough:: ) we ahve suddenly lost.. this moral high ground we had for so long. The reality is the so called loss of the moral high ground you claim never actually happend.. we have this high ground because we champion human rights while others disreguard them, and if there are systemic problems in our system... our system corrects it self via the Supreme court. The rest of the offenses you point to are isolated incidents which are not relfective of a larger systemic problem. And the court of international opinion has a largely short memory (probably because everyones hands are dirtier then their neigbors) and guantanimo won't even be a memory in 4 years.

By the way... i yearn to see the day the UN officially charges the US for illegally invading Iraq (especially considering the conditions and language of resolution 441 and the fact that the main opposition being france was influenced by corruption in the oil for food program)
Since you so nicely pointed out how the US never had a moral highground, I hereby retract that statement. The US is just as cruel and inhumane a country as most others. The US disregard human rights and international law as they please - because they think they can. The consequences during the next decades, are not yet foreseeable. I for one do not welcome an imperial and hostile US.
Invidentia
17-03-2005, 08:42
Ein Deutscher']Since you so nicely pointed out how the US never had a moral highground, I hereby retract that statement. The US is just as cruel and inhumane a country as most others. The US disregard human rights and international law as they please - because they think they can. The consequences during the next decades, are not yet foreseeable. I for one do not welcome an imperial and hostile US.

even though never having a moral high ground.. the US has been and in my opinion still is the model for which countries should and are striving to build human rights/civil rights. My whole rant was to show our recent actions are no more ( but rather significantly less) dramatic and outragous then our past actions.. and as such have a far less effect on our precieved position in the world. Most of the so called human rights violations as I stated are isolated incidents which are not reflective of a greater systemic problem, as such the corrolation between the US (the government) and human rights violations in those occurances is a best misrepresented. However, those undeniable occurances such as Guantanimo which are supported by the Government are far less dramatic then most make them out to be and is simply another cost for security and freedom in this new day and age (a cost which traidtional human rights cannot reconcile in their current frame work).
[NS]Ein Deutscher
17-03-2005, 08:56
even though never having a moral high ground.. the US has been and in my opinion still is the model for which countries should and are striving to build human rights/civil rights. My whole rant was to show our recent actions are no more ( but rather significantly less) dramatic and outragous then our past actions.. and as such have a far less effect on our precieved position in the world. Most of the so called human rights violations as I stated are isolated incidents which are not reflective of a greater systemic problem, as such the corrolation between the US (the government) and human rights violations in those occurances is a best misrepresented. However, those undeniable occurances such as Guantanimo which are supported by the Government are far less dramatic then most make them out to be and is simply another cost for security and freedom in this new day and age (a cost which traidtional human rights cannot reconcile in their current frame work).
Human Rights are unchangeable and no US concentration camp can be used to negate them. The egocentric aim for safety while torturing people or illegally depriving people of their freedom, is detestable at best.

The US is not the model after which other countries should form themselves. In fact, I'd hate if more countries became as self-centered and arrogant as the US are in this day and age. Neo-imperialism and disregarding the rule of law, the most basic concept on which democracy is built on, are tainting the image of the US ever more with each new atrocity rearing it's ugly head.

The tortures in Iraq/Afghanistan/Gitmo are of a systemic nature, since all of them were authorized by the highest departments and their respective leaders. Your new General Attorney was the man who gave his boss the "legal" advise that these activities are ok under any law. Rumsfeld & Co. knew about and sanctioned the torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If countries should look to other countries then pretty much any European country (except the UK due to complicity in the illegal Iraq war) is nowadays more of a good example than the US are. Hell, even Canada is a better country than the US in regards to human rights/civil rights. Take Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. etc. - all of them are better examples than the US today.

This is a stunning and dramatic development, which took only 4 years of Bush & Cronies in power. It is scary for many Europeans, due to our past. We know where this leads and we do not want to go there again.
Helioterra
17-03-2005, 09:12
just STOP misrepresenting the nature of Guantanamo bay.. the imprisionment of the people is not to dertermine if they are militants.. they were ALL obivously millitants since they were caught or captured activily resisting and fighting US military forces.
Most of them were NOT caught fighting against US military forces. US military paid for every prisoner Afghanis brought for them . They did not ask where the prisoners were found or what they had done. They just trust their Afghani friends, paid them and sent the prisoners to Guantanamo Bay.
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 13:27
In other words, because we are not fighting a state or an army, so whoever we decide is an enemy is not (and could not no matter what they do) be protected by the Geneva Conventions. This supposedly gives the US carte blanche to detain anyone anywhere for however long we like, because the US government says they are an "enemy combatant."


Indeed, it's the direction that the Europeans took the Conventions in the 1970s when they added two additional Protocols that muddied the waters as regards people who are detained who are not in the official military. It treats them as though they are authentic, official fighting forces.

As for the right to trial, you could extend that to mean also any member of an official armed force - that means that if you caught 1 million prisoners, you would have to hole 1 million trials.

Haven't seen a single nation in a single conflict since 1948 (the date of the first document you mentioned) do that for any military prisoners of war - other than the occasional Soviet show trial of certain individuals.

The difference is being caught by law enforcement and caught by military forces.

The military forces are not the police.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
17-03-2005, 14:55
The right to trial before an independent tribunal is a Universal Human Right. Funny how such fundamental laws are suddenly inconvenient when the US might be restrained by them and cannot exert it's full monstrous power on the helpless detainess as it pleases.
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 14:59
Ein Deutscher']The right to trial before an independent tribunal is a Universal Human Right. Funny how such fundamental laws are suddenly inconvenient when the US might be restrained by them and cannot exert it's full monstrous power on the helpless detainess as it pleases.

I'll make a deal then. When the rest of the world has tracked down the members of al-Qaeda, and puts them on trial at the Hague for committing 9-11, and conspiring to attack the US without justification, and sentences them all to life sentences, we'll send the Guantanamo detainees to the Hague for an independent tribunal.

It's not just that the US has some monstrous power. It's that the rest of the world is so indifferent to anyone's abuse of human rights that they do absolutely nothing about it. To complain about the abuse of human rights ONLY when the US does it, and to not enforce it at all in the vast majority of other cases, speaks volumes to the duplicity and complicity of those accusers in every abuse event.
Cromotar
17-03-2005, 15:00
I'll make a deal then. When the rest of the world has tracked down the members of al-Qaeda, and puts them on trial at the Hague for committing 9-11, and conspiring to attack the US without justification, and sentences them all to life sentences, we'll send the Guantanamo detainees to the Hague for an independent tribunal.

It's not just that the US has some monstrous power. It's that the rest of the world is so indifferent to anyone's abuse of human rights that they do absolutely nothing about it. To complain about the abuse of human rights ONLY when the US does it, and to not enforce it at all in the vast majority of other cases, speaks volumes to the duplicity and complicity of those accusers in every abuse event.

Except that the US refuses to acknowledge the Hague...
Unified Sith
17-03-2005, 15:02
US Mission statement regaridng the Naval base.



Naval Base Guantanamo Bay is on the front lines of the battle for regional security and protection from drug trafficking and terrorism, and protection for those who attempt to make their way through regional seas in un-seaworthy craft.

The base protects the ability of US Navy and Coast Guard ships to operate in the Caribbean operating area with supplies and support for their operational commitments. During the past year Naval Base Guantanamo Bay has become the host to the Detainee Mission of the War on Terrorism following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The base has a unique posture in the Western Hemisphere in that it is the oldest US base outside the continental U.S. and the only one in a country that does not enjoy an open political relationship with the United States.
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 15:03
Except that the US refuses to acknowledge the Hague...

No, it doesn't. Just like any European nation, people are only dragged before the Hague when it's politically convenient. Not for all cases where it would be just.

Remember the Serbs? Some of them were kidnapped from Serbia and Kosovo by American SEAL teams and brought to the Hague. Or kidnapped by UK SAS. No one else seemed to be willing to do the work. Nations like France were content just to "demand" that the Serbs turn themselves in.

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. They are only as consistent as their enforcement. It's been apparent to most Americans for a long time that the Hague is a political court, not a fair or consistent one.
Cromotar
17-03-2005, 15:06
No, it doesn't. Just like any European nation, people are only dragged before the Hague when it's politically convenient. Not for all cases where it would be just.

Remember the Serbs? Some of them were kidnapped from Serbia and Kosovo by American SEAL teams and brought to the Hague. Or kidnapped by UK SAS. No one else seemed to be willing to do the work. Nations like France were content just to "demand" that the Serbs turn themselves in.

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. They are only as consistent as their enforcement. It's been apparent to most Americans for a long time that the Hague is a political court, not a fair or consistent one.

Then why did you even mention it if you don't believe in it?
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 15:08
Then why did you even mention it if you don't believe in it?
Oh, I believe it's a political court. So, if we play the game politically, the Europeans will play along.

Go now. Collect the members of al-Qaeda and bring them to justice at the Hague. We'll be right along with the Guantanamo detainees.

Aside from the UK, no Europeans seem willing to do the work to bring ANYONE to justice. The criminals either have to walk to the Hague by their own will, or the US and UK have to send special forces teams to arrest them.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
17-03-2005, 15:13
No, it doesn't. Just like any European nation, people are only dragged before the Hague when it's politically convenient. Not for all cases where it would be just.

Remember the Serbs? Some of them were kidnapped from Serbia and Kosovo by American SEAL teams and brought to the Hague. Or kidnapped by UK SAS. No one else seemed to be willing to do the work. Nations like France were content just to "demand" that the Serbs turn themselves in.

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. They are only as consistent as their enforcement. It's been apparent to most Americans for a long time that the Hague is a political court, not a fair or consistent one.
Who would you like to enforce the International Law (i.e. UN Charter) when countries such as the US or Israel violate it? How do you think can the international community hold US politicians accountable for their war crimes and crimes against humanity? The US has the privilege of having the strongest military and unprecedented economic power in the world. This makes the US somewhat invincible politically - sadly.

The problem is, that the US has no right to disregard human rights or international law as it pleases. Even if terrorists do not follow such laws, the US as a nation, deserves condemnation for their erosion of all human rights standards as we know them. As founding member and member of the UN security council, this is of even greater importance to the perception of law and order by other countries, who can now point to the US as example for not obeying the laws that the US have broken and thus effectively proven impotent. While the UN might not be perfect, it is the best thing we have right now to prevent things like WW1 and WW2 from happening again. Back then, the US was the "good guy" in the negotiations during the founding of the UN. Nowadays this image is completely gone.

If the former strongest protector of human rights and the UN charter, throws it's ideals out of the window so quickly, how do you think other leaders are going to react in the future? The US has lost a great deal of political capital and trust from all people of the world. This is not a help in this arbitrary "war on terror" or to promote democracy and freedom if these same ideals are being dragged through the mud at home (or in "out-of-country" military bases).
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 15:18
Ein Deutscher']Who would you like to enforce the International Law (i.e. UN Charter) when countries such as the US or Israel violate it? How do you think can the international community hold US politicians accountable for their war crimes and crimes against humanity? The US has the privilege of having the strongest military and unprecedented economic power in the world. This makes the US somewhat invincible politically - sadly.

The problem is, that the US has no right to disregard human rights or international law as it pleases. Even if terrorists do not follow such laws, the US as a nation, deserves condemnation for their erosion of all human rights standards as we know them. As founding member and member of the UN security council, this is of even greater importance to the perception of law and order by other countries, who can now point to the US as example for not obeying the laws that the US have broken and thus effectively proven impotent. While the UN might not be perfect, it is the best thing we have right now to prevent things like WW1 and WW2 from happening again. Back then, the US was the "good guy" in the negotiations during the founding of the UN. Nowadays this image is completely gone.

If the former strongest protector of human rights and the UN charter, throws it's ideals out of the window so quickly, how do you think other leaders are going to react in the future? The US has lost a great deal of political capital and trust from all people of the world. This is not a help in this arbitrary "war on terror" or to promote democracy and freedom if these same ideals are being dragged through the mud at home (or in "out-of-country" military bases).


You aren't even enforcing it against countries that are NOT the US and Israel.

Are you? Does the US have to be your military arm because you're too wimpy to leave Europe and your vacations and beer? Should we go enforce your will in Rwanda because you're too spineless to enforce your own declarations?

Hey, newsflash. We've spent the last 100 years cleaning up after Europe - whether it's on the continent, after you've exhausted each other fighting (yes, we waited until you all were exhausted with being stupid), or the result of colonialism (hey, Vietnam was a nice mess, thanks France), or the result of damn map drawing by Europeans (the whole Middle East).

Want to know what we're going to clean up? Only what interests us. If you're not going to help, if you're not going to be proactive in cleaning up the world, if you're not going to do anything except lob criticism from your holiday camp while you swill pilsner and eat sausages, then we're not going to listen.

We're tired of listening to nations who do NOTHING.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
17-03-2005, 15:34
You aren't even enforcing it against countries that are NOT the US and Israel.

Are you? Does the US have to be your military arm because you're too wimpy to leave Europe and your vacations and beer? Should we go enforce your will in Rwanda because you're too spineless to enforce your own declarations?

Hey, newsflash. We've spent the last 100 years cleaning up after Europe - whether it's on the continent, after you've exhausted each other fighting (yes, we waited until you all were exhausted with being stupid), or the result of colonialism (hey, Vietnam was a nice mess, thanks France), or the result of damn map drawing by Europeans (the whole Middle East).

Want to know what we're going to clean up? Only what interests us. If you're not going to help, if you're not going to be proactive in cleaning up the world, if you're not going to do anything except lob criticism from your holiday camp while you swill pilsner and eat sausages, then we're not going to listen.

We're tired of listening to nations who do NOTHING.
The US is by far not the only nation who does things militarily. Ever heard of the UN "blue helmets"? How about UNESCO? UNICEF? The Red Cross? The German "Technisches Hilfswerk"? Did you know that our Bundeswehr is mostly used for humanitarian aid and currently provides the largest non-US contingent of peace keepers in Kosovo and a great deal of soldiers in Afghanistan during ISAF and operation "Enduring Freedom"?

Your view that the US is the only country in the world which does anything about the bad situations in the world, is completely ignorant of reality. Even Canada provides more soldiers for longterm UN peace keeping missions than the US. Contrary to the USA, most other countries do not waltz through the world, dropping their latest weaponry toys on the heads of civilians. At least since the end of WW2, this has been greatly reduced and the US has it's own share of wars it has started, participated in for personal gain or other messing around in the affairs of other nations, such as overthrowing democracies where they were inconvenient.

Simply put - you are full of bullshit.
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 15:38
Ein Deutscher']The US is by far not the only nation who does things militarily. Ever heard of the UN "blue helmets"? How about UNESCO? UNICEF? The Red Cross? The German "Technisches Hilfswerk"? Did you know that our Bundeswehr is mostly used for humanitarian aid and currently provides the largest non-US contingent of peace keepers in Kosovo and a great deal of soldiers in Afghanistan during ISAF and operation "Enduring Freedom"?

Your view that the US is the only country in the world which does anything about the bad situations in the world, is completely ignorant of reality. Even Canada provides more soldiers for longterm UN peace keeping missions than the US. Contrary to the USA, most other countries do not waltz through the world, dropping their latest weaponry toys on the heads of civilians. At least since the end of WW2, this has been greatly reduced and the US has it's own share of wars it has started, participated in for personal gain or other messing around in the affairs of other nations, such as overthrowing democracies where they were inconvenient.

Simply put - you are full of bullshit.


I don't see any of you dragging anyone to the Hague. As for the blue hats, I've met many a Third World citizen who thinks that the United Nations is another way of saying "ethnic cleansing" or "total genocide". And that "blue helmet" means "casual observer".

You aren't doing anything to bring anyone to justice. No one. Anywhere. At any time.

The last time a German had balls in an international incident was when the head of your GSG9 executed captured terrorists in Sudan. And then the Germans talked of prosecuting him. It's clear that Europe won't prosecute ANYONE - they would rather give terrorists a few billion dollars the way they did with Arafat - oh please, don't attack us or give us any trouble, and we'll give you some pocket money to buy villas in Italy...
[NS]Ein Deutscher
17-03-2005, 15:43
But the grand US do fix everything, right? Nonsense. Hussein was a US puppet. Osama was a US puppet. Currently the "dictator" of Pakistan is a US puppet. I could go on and on, but you ignore the facts anyway, so I'll just stop now before I waste any more time debating with you. Get some *intelligence* (the real kind) before you return.
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 15:49
Ein Deutscher']But the grand US do fix everything, right? Nonsense. Hussein was a US puppet. Osama was a US puppet. Currently the "dictator" of Pakistan is a US puppet. I could go on and on, but you ignore the facts anyway, so I'll just stop now before I waste any more time debating with you. Get some *intelligence* (the real kind) before you return.

No, we're not fixing everything. And we're cleaning up our own messes. Hussein was our mess, so we're cleaning it up. Osama was our mess (as was Afghanistan) so we're cleaning it up.

I see that Europe was unwilling to clean up the whole Serbian mess unless the US stepped in...

Were the Serbian war criminals kidnapped by Germans? French? No, they were kidnapped by US and UK forces and brought to the Hague. The French were adamant in their refusal.
Lusitaniah
17-03-2005, 15:54
I believe the US need to be remembered of many things.

First of all when Hitler rose to power he didnt do so by saying he was a nazi. He just said how unfair the treaty of versailles was and that some groups in germany were in league with the enemy.

At the beginning people just didnt trust gipsys, slavs, communists and jews. Hitler accused them of economic terrorism and blamed them for the economic problems Germany faced.

As long as the war raged on the hatred for those cultures just went up until it culminated in the final solution.

Probably a lot of people dont share the following point of view but I find a lot of similarities between America today and Germany just before the ww.

In Germany there was no free press
In America all of the press is held in big information corporations with tentacles in almost every bit of business available.

In Germany there was only one party.
In America there are only two that share the same point of view in key issues. The Democrats could be easily classified as Republicans Light ( all the flavor for half the money )

In Germany people had no religious freedom.
In America people may choose between every religion that shares the Old Testament.

In Germany they were considering atacking Poland "because" they were "terrorists" atacking Germans that lived there and seizing their land.
In America people launched an invasion against a country because "they were supporting terrorists". Both of this attacks without internatinal support or real proofs.

I would also recommend every American to read European newspapers even if it is on the Internet. If you know french I would recommend Le Monde and if you know british I would recommend the Guardian. this is also a good independent news channel www.euronews.net/
Snetchistan
17-03-2005, 16:03
It's that the rest of the world is so indifferent to anyone's abuse of human rights that they do absolutely nothing about it. To complain about the abuse of human rights ONLY when the US does it, and to not enforce it at all in the vast majority of other cases, speaks volumes to the duplicity and complicity of those accusers in every abuse event.
I think much of the world does in fact condemn humans rights abuses in other countries too. If you are somehow suggesting that the rest of the world is hypocritical in that they don't automatically rally round the US's attempts to overthrow sovereign nations but still complain about Guantanamo I'd say that condemning is very different from invading. You could accuse the rest of the world for not being proactive, but at least they never considered invading the US on the justification of human rights.
Helioterra
17-03-2005, 16:05
You aren't doing anything to bring anyone to justice. No one. Anywhere. At any time.


They did try to bring Donald rumsfeld to justice...But no, as you said, they are just cowards :(
Invidentia
17-03-2005, 16:23
Ein Deutscher']Human Rights are unchangeable and no US concentration camp can be used to negate them. The egocentric aim for safety while torturing people or illegally depriving people of their freedom, is detestable at best.

The US is not the model after which other countries should form themselves. In fact, I'd hate if more countries became as self-centered and arrogant as the US are in this day and age. Neo-imperialism and disregarding the rule of law, the most basic concept on which democracy is built on, are tainting the image of the US ever more with each new atrocity rearing it's ugly head.

The tortures in Iraq/Afghanistan/Gitmo are of a systemic nature, since all of them were authorized by the highest departments and their respective leaders. Your new General Attorney was the man who gave his boss the "legal" advise that these activities are ok under any law. Rumsfeld & Co. knew about and sanctioned the torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If countries should look to other countries then pretty much any European country (except the UK due to complicity in the illegal Iraq war) is nowadays more of a good example than the US are. Hell, even Canada is a better country than the US in regards to human rights/civil rights. Take Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. etc. - all of them are better examples than the US today.

This is a stunning and dramatic development, which took only 4 years of Bush & Cronies in power. It is scary for many Europeans, due to our past. We know where this leads and we do not want to go there again.


and shockingly enough each of those countries (with the exception of Canada )have fought brutal wars for nothing less then greed of terrirorty or other selfish means (of which could not even be explained away). No matter what you think of the United STates in the wars it has fought, an excellent case maybe made in each instances in which America has fought each of its wars for nothingless then nobel intentions.... yes even in Iraq (because if Iraq was for oil.. where is it, we shouldn't still be paying our enemies 55 dollars a barrel). And funny enough, each of those countries you menitoned have democracies based on the United States democracy. and just remeber with the exception of Canada, each of those countries you mentioned have far blacker hands in the way of human rights violations throughout their histories.. The US still is the model... and you can claim neo-imperialism all you like, without iron clad proof of it.. its mere conjecture.
Helioterra
17-03-2005, 16:29
and shockingly enough each of those countries (with the exception of Canada )have fought brutal wars for nothing less then greed of terrirorty or other selfish means (of which could not even be explained away). No matter what you think of the United STates in the wars it has fought, an excellent case maybe made in each instances in which America has fought each of its wars for nothingless then nobel intentions.... yes even in Iraq (because if Iraq was for oil.. where is it, we shouldn't still be paying our enemies 55 dollars a barrel). And funny enough, each of those countries you menitoned have democracies based on the United States democracy. and just remeber with the exception of Canada, each of those countries you mentioned have far blacker hands in the way of human rights violations throughout their histories.. The US still is the model... and you can claim neo-imperialism all you like, without iron clad proof of it.. its mere conjecture.
I know this is not the point, but none of what you wrote is true in Sweden, Norway and Finland.
Markreich
17-03-2005, 16:31
I know this is not the point, but none of what you wrote is true in Sweden, Norway and Finland.

*wakes up*

Huh?

Sweden hasn't been beligernet *of late*, but how about all those incurisions into Poland?
[NS]Ein Deutscher
17-03-2005, 16:32
I know this is not the point, but none of what you wrote is true in Sweden, Norway and Finland.
It's not true in Germany either.
Markreich
17-03-2005, 16:33
and shockingly enough each of those countries (with the exception of Canada )have fought brutal wars for nothing less then greed of terrirorty or other selfish means (of which could not even be explained away). No matter what you think of the United STates in the wars it has fought, an excellent case maybe made in each instances in which America has fought each of its wars for nothingless then nobel intentions.... yes even in Iraq (because if Iraq was for oil.. where is it, we shouldn't still be paying our enemies 55 dollars a barrel). And funny enough, each of those countries you menitoned have democracies based on the United States democracy. and just remeber with the exception of Canada, each of those countries you mentioned have far blacker hands in the way of human rights violations throughout their histories.. The US still is the model... and you can claim neo-imperialism all you like, without iron clad proof of it.. its mere conjecture.

True, with the exception of the Spanish-American War. And maybe the Mexican-American War, depending on your point of view. Certainly your point is true for the past 100 years.
Markreich
17-03-2005, 16:36
Ein Deutscher']It's not true in Germany either.

(chuckle)
Iztatepopotla
17-03-2005, 16:37
No matter what you think of the United STates in the wars it has fought, an excellent case maybe made in each instances in which America has fought each of its wars for nothingless then nobel intentions....

Well, that can be said of any war fought by anyone. It's called rationalization and is necessary for people to go and kill other people. And it's utterly dellusional, so let's not get into it.

And funny enough, each of those countries you menitoned have democracies based on the United States democracy.
Nope. These countries have each found democracy their own way and come with their own manner to implement it. In fact, it can be said that the US is following a "European-style" democracy, since many of its ideals come from liberal French and English thinkers. Certainly, without a Rousseau, a Voltaire, or even the English Magna Charta, there wouldn't have been a Jefferson or a Franklin.

Remember, democracy is not a US invention.
Helioterra
17-03-2005, 16:40
Ein Deutscher']It's not true in Germany either.
I have to disagree quite heavily. German hasn't been in any brutal wars for greed of territory or other selfish needs?

Markreich. Alright. I knew someone would point out Sweden's bloody history. But they have behaved well for quite some time now.
Markreich
17-03-2005, 16:55
Ein Deutscher']But the grand US do fix everything, right? Nonsense. Hussein was a US puppet. Osama was a US puppet. Currently the "dictator" of Pakistan is a US puppet. I could go on and on, but you ignore the facts anyway, so I'll just stop now before I waste any more time debating with you. Get some *intelligence* (the real kind) before you return.

Actually, by your arguement, yes.

Hussein kept Iran tied up for the better part of a decade.
Osama & the mujahaeed bled the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

BTW, it's not polite to insult folks. :(
Markreich
17-03-2005, 16:57
Markreich. Alright. I knew someone would point out Sweden's bloody history. But they have behaved well for quite some time now.

Yes. But the point was that every nation goes through a period of international beligerence.

The only exception to that rule I can think of at this point is Belize. :)
Helioterra
17-03-2005, 17:24
Yes. But the point was that every nation goes through a period of international beligerence.

The only exception to that rule I can think of at this point is Belize. :)
Tuvalu! best country ever

back to topic
But that was only one point of his post. He also insisted that Sweden (and others) has it's democracy based on the United States democracy and has far blacker hands in the way of human rights violations throughout their histories.. I don't know, Sweden and human right violations. Just don't match. Of course they have and have had some problems, but compared to USA, naah.
Layarteb
17-03-2005, 17:28
When you release a soldier he goes back to the army he fought for, the country he fought for. When you release a terrorist he goes back to being a terrorist with no army and no country. He gets put back in the game in a different cell, somewhere else. In essence if we release all the people we have captured from Al Qaida then we are just giving Bin Laden and Al Qaida their manpower back. Any such act wouldn't be foolish, it would be downright stupid. These men listen to a higher authority, a higher being of power. They're not going to be "rehabilitated" or "reeducated," they're going to be "reangered" and "rejoined" with their target and their cause.
Ukulilandia
17-03-2005, 17:33
Think back to WW II.

British soldiers taken prisoner by Germans.

British soldiers go to POW camp.

Some are interrogated.

...


So you admit that nowadays USA is similar to WW II -era Germany? Holy Goebbels!
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 17:45
So you admit that nowadays USA is similar to WW II -era Germany? Holy Goebbels!
No, you're just clueless.

I'm demonstrating that when people are taken prisoner in a war, they don't get a trial.

I could just as well write:

Think back to WW II.

A UK soldier captures a German soldier
The German soldier goes to POW camp
He gets interrogated if he's an officer
He doesn't get a trial or a hearing to determine his status

All is in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

No one, and I mean no nation on earth, since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, has EVER put a prisoner of war on trial to determine whether or not he's really an enemy soldier or committed any crimes - with the exception of show trials by the former Soviet Union in cases like Gary Powers.
Markreich
17-03-2005, 17:46
Tuvalu! best country ever

back to topic
But that was only one point of his post. He also insisted that Sweden (and others) has it's democracy based on the United States democracy and has far blacker hands in the way of human rights violations throughout their histories.. I don't know, Sweden and human right violations. Just don't match. Of course they have and have had some problems, but compared to USA, naah.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tv.html
You're reaching. :)
This is a nation with a population of half of my town, that's younger than me, and that has not only no military, but no borders per se...

Technically, I'd give it some props:
* The US, as the first modern democracy/republic, is the basis for all subsequent ones formed by other nations. The only possible exception *might* be for Poland (which had the 2nd Constitution in the world), but that governement fell.

* As for human rights violations, one might make a case of the Quisling period of Norway, and Norway's dealing with those folks.
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 18:08
I think you would have to go back to the Thirty Years War to get problems with Sweden.
The Cat-Tribe
17-03-2005, 18:34
No, you're just clueless.

I'm demonstrating that when people are taken prisoner in a war, they don't get a trial.

I could just as well write:

Think back to WW II.

A UK soldier captures a German soldier
The German soldier goes to POW camp
He gets interrogated if he's an officer
He doesn't get a trial or a hearing to determine his status

All is in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

No one, and I mean no nation on earth, since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, has EVER put a prisoner of war on trial to determine whether or not he's really an enemy soldier or committed any crimes - with the exception of show trials by the former Soviet Union in cases like Gary Powers.

But a key point you wish to ignore is that NO, the detentions at Guantanamo are not "[a]ll in accordance with the Geneva Convention."

You keep pointing to the Geneva Conventions as authority, but at the same time saying it does not apply.

The truth of the matter is you are perpetuating the Bush Administration's attempt to exploit ambiguity. Under the Conventions, the detainees are lawful combatants, unlawful combatants, or non-combatants. (There is no such thing as "enemy combatants" under the Conventions). To the extent they are not treated under the most favorable category, they are entitled to a trial to determine what their status is.

If the US government would comply with Geneva Conventions regarding the detainees, you would be correct that they are not necessarily entitled to a trial. But you cannot have it both ways.
The Winter Alliance
17-03-2005, 20:14
I think what Whispering legs is saying is that the Geneva conventions specifically tell countries the instances in which the Geneva conventions do not apply. It seems pretty clear to me... no doublespeak.
The Cat-Tribe
17-03-2005, 21:44
I think what Whispering legs is saying is that the Geneva conventions specifically tell countries the instances in which the Geneva conventions do not apply. It seems pretty clear to me... no doublespeak.

Except that the Geneva Conventions do no such thing here.
Whispering Legs
17-03-2005, 21:47
Except that the Geneva Conventions do no such thing here.

Convention I, Article 2 seems pretty explicit on whom the Geneva Conventions apply to.

You either have to be a member of a High Contracting Party, or your side has to announce their intention to follow the Conventions.

Barring that, you're out there flapping.
Kroblexskij
17-03-2005, 21:49
its the americans we own teh wurld so we can make nazi death camps to put SUSPECTED TERRORISTS in.

people try to justify it, people like my cousin
I say:
its stolen land
its illegal by international law
its barbaric
its all lies
it cons people into thinking there are real threats
its just wrong and all should die
The Cat-Tribe
17-03-2005, 22:34
Convention I, Article 2 seems pretty explicit on whom the Geneva Conventions apply to.

You either have to be a member of a High Contracting Party, or your side has to announce their intention to follow the Conventions.

Barring that, you're out there flapping.

Not quite.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, 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 in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The Conventions apply to declared wars or armed conflicts between 2 or more Contracting Parties.

The Conventions apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a Contracting Party.

And Powers that are parties are bound by the Conventions in their mutual relations.

Guess what? Afghanistan and Iraq (along with 192 other countries) are Contracting Parties (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_gc/$File/Conventions%20de%20Geneve%20et%20Protocoles%20additionnels%20ENG.pdf).

So, the Conventions apply to those captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Conventions also apply to those who are citizens of nations bound by the Conventions.

Moreover, the Conventions are not a negative. They do not say -- "if we do not apply, all rules are off."

BTW, by taking the position that the Conventions and other standards of international law do not apply at all, (a) our soldiers lose all of the protections of the Conventions (including the Convention I protections) and (b) our enemies cannot be guilty of violating the Conventions or international law- no war crimes, etc. So, their use of terrorism is A-OK.
Invidentia
17-03-2005, 23:14
Nope. These countries have each found democracy their own way and come with their own manner to implement it. In fact, it can be said that the US is following a "European-style" democracy, since many of its ideals come from liberal French and English thinkers. Certainly, without a Rousseau, a Voltaire, or even the English Magna Charta, there wouldn't have been a Jefferson or a Franklin.

Remember, democracy is not a US invention.

and modern democracy can very well be argued to be a US invention... all European democracies have their consitutions based on the US's consitution format and basic civil rights.. before the US had this document there were no other documents even comming close to this including the Magna Carta !

people try to justify it, people like my cousin
people try to justify it, people like my cousin
I say:
its stolen land
its illegal by international law
its barbaric
its all lies
it cons people into thinking there are real threats
its just wrong and all should die


and this load of trash.. where is the stolen land ?? what IN IRaq have we claimed for our own... is it illegal by international law ? where are the tribunals to prosecute us ( i would love to see that after RESOLUTION 441)..

Its all lies ???? LIES is a pretty big word, considering the UN saw this same information and essentially agreed that Iraq was a threat which had to be dealt with.. and the information from which that decision was made was collected by INTERNATIONAL intelegence agencies not just the CIA.

it cons people into thinking tehre are real threats ??? there were real threats.. the only thing keeping IRaq from WMDs by the inspectors own accounts were the sanctions which France was pushing to have lifted if no WMDs were found. IRAQ may not have had the wepons at that time but had documents stating clear intent on attaining them.

Its barbaric ??? any less barbaric then when Saddam gased his own people or toruted his civilians.. was the democratic vote which brought the first basic democracy in the country in the last centry barbaric ??

I think.. i rest my case
The Cat-Tribe
18-03-2005, 00:49
and modern democracy can very well be argued to be a US invention... all European democracies have their consitutions based on the US's consitution format and basic civil rights.. before the US had this document there were no other documents even comming close to this including the Magna Carta !

I'm not even touching this.

and this load of trash.. where is the stolen land ?? what IN IRaq have we claimed for our own... is it illegal by international law ? where are the tribunals to prosecute us ( i would love to see that after RESOLUTION 441)..

Its all lies ???? LIES is a pretty big word, considering the UN saw this same information and essentially agreed that Iraq was a threat which had to be dealt with.. and the information from which that decision was made was collected by INTERNATIONAL intelegence agencies not just the CIA.

it cons people into thinking tehre are real threats ??? there were real threats.. the only thing keeping IRaq from WMDs by the inspectors own accounts were the sanctions which France was pushing to have lifted if no WMDs were found. IRAQ may not have had the wepons at that time but had documents stating clear intent on attaining them.

Its barbaric ??? any less barbaric then when Saddam gased his own people or toruted his civilians.. was the democratic vote which brought the first basic democracy in the country in the last centry barbaric ??

I think.. i rest my case

Um, er, whether you agree with the post or not, Kroblexskij was not referring to the war gainst Iraq, but rather the detentions at Guantanamo -- which is the subject of this thread.
Whispering Legs
18-03-2005, 00:58
So, the Conventions apply to those captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Nope. Iraq is a signatory - and the Taliban government was explicitly not. Neither was al-Qaeda.

The Conventions only apply to relations *between* two High Contracting Parties. Or between a High Contracting Party and a group that publicly declares its willingness to abide by the Conventions.

We already knew that our soldiers weren't given the protection of the Conventions by al-Qaeda or the Taliban. In each case where they captured an American, they killed him on the spot. Long before anyone was sent to Guantanamo.

The Iraqi soldiers in their regular Army should be protected by the Conventions, as well as the insurgents in Iraq - provided that the insurgent is an Iraqi - and not a foreign national from another country. In those cases, they could be classified as mercenaries (since they are not part of another official military), and could be shot after a military tribunal - which need take no other form than a field court martial.

Additionally, any insurgent that is fighting US forces (and has been doing it for any length of time, not just "I picked up my rifle this morning") could be tried as a war criminal under the provisions of the Hague Conventions for fighting out of uniform and/or not wearing an official, visible emblem at all times while fighting.

Traditionally, people like that have been tried, and legally shot or hung.
San haiti
18-03-2005, 01:01
But Afghanistan is a member of the treaty.
Whispering Legs
18-03-2005, 01:04
But Afghanistan is a member of the treaty.

No, they were not under the Taliban Government. The Taliban explicitly took themselves out of the treaty.
San haiti
18-03-2005, 01:09
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.


Wha about this bit then?
Whispering Legs
18-03-2005, 01:12
Wha about this bit then?

"Parties" means "High Contracting Parties". It means signatories.

It means that if you're involved in a war, and let's say there are three countries, and you're a Party, and one of the other countries is a Party, and the third is not, you're obliged to obey the Convention between the two Parties.

But the third country is screwed unless they announce their intention to abide by the Convention.

The meaning of this phrase has been clear for decades.
The Cat-Tribe
18-03-2005, 02:09
No, they were not under the Taliban Government. The Taliban explicitly took themselves out of the treaty.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Your statement is contrary to the evidence I have seen, but I could be in error.

In fact, here is an offical US fact sheet (http://www.state.gov/p/sa/rls/fs/7910.htm) from the White House from the US Department of State website. It states (emphasis added):

"The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees. Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.

Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs."

The fact sheet does not explain why Taliban detainees are not POWs and its logic about al-Qaida detainees I have discussed before, but it is very clear that Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention.
Isanyonehome
18-03-2005, 02:45
You're missing my point, there. They haven't just released the 'uninteresting' ones. They kept those Britons for over 2 years before finally accepting that they had nothing to do with terrorist activities.
Yet they released this guy - Abdullah Mehsud - some time last year, who soon after returning to Pakistan becomes their most wanted militant.
Now either:
1. He was a nice guy before being captured but decided to become a terrorist after he was released; or
2. He was already a militant before being captured.
If it was 1, then I think we can point the finger at Guantanamo Bay and the way it treats it's prisoners as having created, rather than stopped, terrorists.
If it's 2, then US intelligence failed miserably if they had no idea that this guy was a dangerous militant.
Either way, Guantanamo Bay is a failure.

How the hell do you know who is interesting or not before the fact? Do you think the prisoners are carrying signs saying a) I know nothing, someone told me to show so I could get some food b) I was told to arrive here and oh, btw carry this ak for me c) I know every detail of all the terrorist cells world wide and I know their contact numbers and go codes d) Excuse me, what country is this again?

Grow up. you think the world is perfect? If the interogators could predict the future dont you think they would be getting rich in the stock market instead of earning a govt pay + 3 hots and a cot?
Markreich
18-03-2005, 03:15
How the hell do you know who is interesting or not before the fact? Do you think the prisoners are carrying signs saying a) I know nothing, someone told me to show so I could get some food b) I was told to arrive here and oh, btw carry this ak for me c) I know every detail of all the terrorist cells world wide and I know their contact numbers and go codes d) Excuse me, what country is this again?

Grow up. you think the world is perfect? If the interogators could predict the future dont you think they would be getting rich in the stock market instead of earning a govt pay + 3 hots and a cot?

But but but... aren't the Interogators all Level 17 and have +25 precognition?
The Cat-Tribe
18-03-2005, 03:51
How the hell do you know who is interesting or not before the fact? Do you think the prisoners are carrying signs saying a) I know nothing, someone told me to show so I could get some food b) I was told to arrive here and oh, btw carry this ak for me c) I know every detail of all the terrorist cells world wide and I know their contact numbers and go codes d) Excuse me, what country is this again?

Grow up. you think the world is perfect? If the interogators could predict the future dont you think they would be getting rich in the stock market instead of earning a govt pay + 3 hots and a cot?

"Grow up?" Razor wit. Particularly as you failed to understand Demented Hamster's point.

Abdullah Mehsud spent 25 months in US custody at Guantanamo. After he was released he became an anti-US hero and Pakistan's most wanted militant. The story is discussed here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3745962.stm) and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4349461.stm).

So, Demented Hamster's point was that the US either (1) captured but stupidly released a dangerous terrorist (after questioning him for 25 months but apparently not figuring out he was a terrorist) or (2) created a dangerous terrorist by detaining and questioning him for 25 months.

On a separate note:
Imagine if you were seized by the police, kept in a little cage without outside contact, and interrogated for 2 years why they tried to decide if you'd done anything wrong or knew anything about anyone else who might have done something wrong.

Now, tell me why this is OK?
--Because I'm not from the US?
(Except the US has detained US citizens.)
--Because I was found in Iraq?
(Why is that wrong if I'm an Iraqi?)--Because I was found in Afghanistan?
(Except the US has detained those found in other countries, including US citizens in the US.)--Because the US is big and powerful but scared?
[NS]Ein Deutscher
18-03-2005, 04:06
Watch this:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/intel.html

The U.S.A. of today. *woohoo* :headbang:
Sel Appa
18-03-2005, 04:14
It is to detain "Suspected" terrorists. I had wondered how the hell we had a base in Cuba until I read two days ago that it was leased since 1903.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
18-03-2005, 05:00
It is to detain "Suspected" terrorists. I had wondered how the hell we had a base in Cuba until I read two days ago that it was leased since 1903.
It's not really leased. It was annexed - more or less and dictated to the Cubans so they could become independent. The "contract" for this piece of land requires that both parties agree to absolving it, which in this case, will never happen from the US side, although the territory is ultimately Cuba's to decide over. As such, the contract which allows the usage of this area as a US naval base, is immoral if not illegal due to it's defiance of Cuban sovereignty of the territory and bias towards US interests.
Harlesburg
18-03-2005, 05:21
It is only there to piss the Cubans off!
Whispering Legs
18-03-2005, 13:20
But a key point you wish to ignore is that NO, the detentions at Guantanamo are not "[a]ll in accordance with the Geneva Convention."

You keep pointing to the Geneva Conventions as authority, but at the same time saying it does not apply.

The truth of the matter is you are perpetuating the Bush Administration's attempt to exploit ambiguity. Under the Conventions, the detainees are lawful combatants, unlawful combatants, or non-combatants. (There is no such thing as "enemy combatants" under the Conventions). To the extent they are not treated under the most favorable category, they are entitled to a trial to determine what their status is.

If the US government would comply with Geneva Conventions regarding the detainees, you would be correct that they are not necessarily entitled to a trial. But you cannot have it both ways.

I'm not the Bush Administration, so you can't mix my position and theirs.

I'm saying they are unlawful combatants.

1. Anyone who is caught fighting against US forces, or supporting in any material way anyone fighting US forces (providing food, shelter, money, instruction, etc) and is NOT a native of that country (i.e, most of the al-Qaeda personnel we captured, including natives of nations such as Australia) is a "mercenary". Mercenaries are not accorded any Geneva protections. There is plenty of historical precedent for this. If I was running things, these people would have a summary field court martial, and be shot on the spot. Mitigation of sentence would only be considered if the captured foreigners would be willing to give vital information.

2. Natives of a country that were not a signatory who are not fighting in a uniform, and captured not wearing an official, visible, common emblem would also be unlawful combatants, and as such would be subject to the same conditions as the people in the first instance. Quick court martial and summary execution.

3. Anyone who was a native of the country who was either wearing a uniform or an official emblem would be considered a "lawful combatant", and would be accorded regular treatment as a prisoner of war. However, you will note that no prisoner of war in history has ever received the right to a trial to determine whether or not they are truly a prisoner of war. And, such prisoners are detained for the duration of the conflict. If the insurgency in that country is still ongoing, the war is in essence still ongoing. Until such insurgency stops completely, and the insurgents offer a formal surrender, the war is ongoing. I would not release any combatant until that time. That might be forever.

4. For those who were captured who were not bearing arms - I would have a military tribunal to determine the reasons and conditions under which they were originally detained. For those captured bearing arms there would be NO tribunal - it would be a matter of treating them as you would any combatant - lawful or unlawful. Those not bearing arms who were rendering support to the enemy would have the opportunity to present their argument that perhaps they were forced to do so - those who expressed no such case, or expresed no remorse at aiding the enemy would be considered a combatant - and then a determination would be made at a subsequent court martial as to whether they were lawful or unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants would be shot.

5. Non-combatants, as determined above, would be released.

I don't think that any of the above would be a violation in any way of the Geneva Conventions, nor would they be a violation of the Hague Conventions. In fact, there would probably be a lot more of the "trials" that you seem to want under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But I would be executing far, far more people than the Bush Administration ever will.

I would note, however, that the Bush Administration seems to be engaging in a policy of not only detaining, but killing al-Qaeda operatives. None of these killings are being documented - and supposedly they occur in "combat" - they are not technically assassinations (although you may argue so).

Is attacking an armed combatant while he's sleeping in his house, entering and shooting him full of holes with a silenced submachinegun a military ambush at night, or is it an assassination? In any case, there's no trial.

Maybe that's how most of it is done. Maybe Bush doesn't want to be bothered with my way either.

If it was done my way, I would also make the trials and executions quite public. I would broadcast them on CSPAN.
Snetchistan
18-03-2005, 13:51
4. For those who were captured who were not bearing arms - I would have a military tribunal to determine the reasons and conditions under which they were originally detained. For those captured bearing arms there would be NO tribunal - it would be a matter of treating them as you would any combatant - lawful or unlawful. Those not bearing arms who were rendering support to the enemy would have the opportunity to present their argument that perhaps they were forced to do so - those who expressed no such case, or expresed no remorse at aiding the enemy would be considered a combatant - and then a determination would be made at a subsequent court martial as to whether they were lawful or unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants would be shot.

So let me see if I've got this right. Under your system if a civilian was arrested in e.g. Iraq on the grounds that he was potentially involved with the insurgency, then the burden of proof falls upon him to prove his innocence somehow but if he fails to convince a tribunal, you just shoot him?
That's absolutely ridiculous.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
18-03-2005, 14:19
So let me see if I've got this right. Under your system if a civilian was arrested in e.g. Iraq on the grounds that he was potentially involved with the insurgency, then the burden of proof falls upon him to prove his innocence somehow but if he fails to convince a tribunal, you just shoot him?
That's absolutely ridiculous.
It's the "superior" logic of the US American Whispering Legs. Does that surprise you? :rolleyes:
Niccolo Medici
18-03-2005, 18:05
Ein Deutscher']It's the "superior" logic of the US American Whispering Legs. Does that surprise you? :rolleyes:

Yes, it does. If Whispering Legs has any experience at all in this type of military activity; I'm ethier very surprised, considering these posts, or I'm exceedingly worried about the state of this person's soul.

Especially after talking to a number of friends in the military after my first posting, and those in intelligence in specific; people who talk about their jobs in terms of "duty" and "tough work", not the joys of summary excecutions that Whispering Legs details. Many have PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), or worry about getting numb from all the things they've done.

The kind of things described in this article go beyond what I can condone in service to my nation. When talking to my friends they agreed with my assesment, then admitted that they've done similar things in the course of their duties. All of them expressed remorse, regret, or outrage at having to do such things while on duty.

I was told this: The nature of the job is to follow orders; the personal cost, staying up nights, not being able to relate to the rest of the world, that all comes later. It happens when you do something wrong, guilt and remorse for your actions sets in. When you do something this wrong in the service, even if you are told you're doing your duty the guilt remains.

Apologists and self-justifications are just weak attempts to put a band-aid on the massive traumas that we are inflicting on our military intelligence men and women. These are not soulless automatons; these are men and women who have to live the rest of their lives knowing that they helped touture innocents and the guilty alike. What can we do about these men and women in uniform? How could we explain to them that these abuses, tourtures and such were needed? How do we help them sleep at night when they've done all these things?

I want so dearly to support and protect them, these abuses are abuses commited against my friends in the service as well as these suspected terrorists. I cannot support or condone these actions that they are forced by duty to take, and I truly cannot believe a person with their soul intact could possibly do otherwise. We're slowly killing those who would protect us.

If one is numb from the experiences such as these I can understand their position; they have had their humanity burned out of them. Its sad but possible. The only other options I can think of is that they either do not or can not comprehend what they are talking about: They are either immature or inhuman.

Sometimes the cost of war is just too great. And sometimes the cost of war is magnified by hideous mistakes. To protect my friends, as well as my nation, I feel that I must condemn these mistakes. I've seen nothing on this thread that even remotely changes my view; and nothing that my friends from military intelligence told me did either.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
18-03-2005, 20:46
I'm sorry but this image of the meak human being that suffers from the evil deeds it is "forced" to do is incorrect. I've seen plenty American soldiers in videos or on photos, who actually enjoyed what they did. They felt the Iraqis better bowed before them, the superior ruler of them, in gratitute that they are now finally free. I've seen joking Americans who used Iraqi corpses to make comedy videos with. I've seen a female soldier pointing towards a hooded prisoner's genitals while grinning into the camera. I've seen American soldiers shoot wounded and disarmed Iraqis.

Clearly the large bulk of the military does not like what is happening, but that these tortures happen, is a systemic problem. Namely the US military is much too revered in their own country to the degree of institutional worship. The "boys" and the "girls" are treated as if they're infallible. Orders are not meant to be followed if they are illegal and torture is illegal. The execution of prisoners of war is illegal. The degrading treatment I've seen some American soldiers give to Iraqis or even Iraqi corpses is beyond horrible.

Here are just a few pictures of the whole dilemma...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

Many of these activities were sanctioned by the US government. That is unexcusable.
Niccolo Medici
18-03-2005, 23:49
Ein Deutscher']I'm sorry but this image of the meak human being that suffers from the evil deeds it is "forced" to do is incorrect. I've seen plenty American soldiers in videos or on photos, who actually enjoyed what they did. They felt the Iraqis better bowed before them, the superior ruler of them, in gratitute that they are now finally free. I've seen joking Americans who used Iraqi corpses to make comedy videos with. I've seen a female soldier pointing towards a hooded prisoner's genitals while grinning into the camera. I've seen American soldiers shoot wounded and disarmed Iraqis.

Clearly the large bulk of the military does not like what is happening, but that these tortures happen, is a systemic problem. Namely the US military is much too revered in their own country to the degree of institutional worship. The "boys" and the "girls" are treated as if they're infallible. Orders are not meant to be followed if they are illegal and torture is illegal. The execution of prisoners of war is illegal. The degrading treatment I've seen some American soldiers give to Iraqis or even Iraqi corpses is beyond horrible.

Incorrect? You belive what then that an insider's view is incorrect, and that you, who only knows the surface of this problem is correct? You are right that SOME people in the military are cruel, inhumane and capable of taking pleasure in these acts. The numbers of those who do these things and are hurt forever more by them is ignored problem. You concentrate on the degnerates who commit these acts and not the broader scope of the problem; EVERYONE around them is hurt by this.

For every grinning person commiting the atrocity there are many more off camera, I remind you. There are the people who have quietly documented these things in hopes of spurring a shake up in the military leadership; to stop this practice from continuing. The leadership that encourages this behavior is the problem here; there are often people on the ground who would get out of hand or out of control without proper leadership.

Good leadership stops or prevents this kind of problem, these kinds of atrocities are prevented when the troop are kept in line. To allow them to happen, time and again, shows that the problem goes far higher than the military has been allowed to admit.

There will always been induviduals who are inhumane and cruel, and the problem is certainly not limited to American troops. However the leadership that prevents this kind of thing from happening has been replaced by apologists or opportunists; civilian contractors, ineffective or just plain bad commanders. That's what gives these criminals the ability to run amok.
The Cat-Tribe
19-03-2005, 00:52
I'm not the Bush Administration, so you can't mix my position and theirs.

I'm saying they are unlawful combatants.

1. Anyone who is caught fighting against US forces, or supporting in any material way anyone fighting US forces (providing food, shelter, money, instruction, etc) and is NOT a native of that country (i.e, most of the al-Qaeda personnel we captured, including natives of nations such as Australia) is a "mercenary". Mercenaries are not accorded any Geneva protections. There is plenty of historical precedent for this. If I was running things, these people would have a summary field court martial, and be shot on the spot. Mitigation of sentence would only be considered if the captured foreigners would be willing to give vital information.

2. Natives of a country that were not a signatory who are not fighting in a uniform, and captured not wearing an official, visible, common emblem would also be unlawful combatants, and as such would be subject to the same conditions as the people in the first instance. Quick court martial and summary execution.

3. Anyone who was a native of the country who was either wearing a uniform or an official emblem would be considered a "lawful combatant", and would be accorded regular treatment as a prisoner of war. However, you will note that no prisoner of war in history has ever received the right to a trial to determine whether or not they are truly a prisoner of war. And, such prisoners are detained for the duration of the conflict. If the insurgency in that country is still ongoing, the war is in essence still ongoing. Until such insurgency stops completely, and the insurgents offer a formal surrender, the war is ongoing. I would not release any combatant until that time. That might be forever.

4. For those who were captured who were not bearing arms - I would have a military tribunal to determine the reasons and conditions under which they were originally detained. For those captured bearing arms there would be NO tribunal - it would be a matter of treating them as you would any combatant - lawful or unlawful. Those not bearing arms who were rendering support to the enemy would have the opportunity to present their argument that perhaps they were forced to do so - those who expressed no such case, or expresed no remorse at aiding the enemy would be considered a combatant - and then a determination would be made at a subsequent court martial as to whether they were lawful or unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants would be shot.

5. Non-combatants, as determined above, would be released.

I don't think that any of the above would be a violation in any way of the Geneva Conventions, nor would they be a violation of the Hague Conventions. In fact, there would probably be a lot more of the "trials" that you seem to want under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But I would be executing far, far more people than the Bush Administration ever will.

I would note, however, that the Bush Administration seems to be engaging in a policy of not only detaining, but killing al-Qaeda operatives. None of these killings are being documented - and supposedly they occur in "combat" - they are not technically assassinations (although you may argue so).

Is attacking an armed combatant while he's sleeping in his house, entering and shooting him full of holes with a silenced submachinegun a military ambush at night, or is it an assassination? In any case, there's no trial.

Maybe that's how most of it is done. Maybe Bush doesn't want to be bothered with my way either.

If it was done my way, I would also make the trials and executions quite public. I would broadcast them on CSPAN.

G**D*** computer ate my lengthy response. Twice! *#$@^%

Anyway, I can only assume that, by returning to a point several pages of the thread, you are abandoning the arguments that you have been making prior to this new one. As I established, the Geneva Conventions do apply to the vast majority -- if not all -- of the detainees at Guatanamo Bay.

Further, you appear to abandoned altogether a defense of the detainments at Guantanamo. Instead, you have postulated certain hypothetical situations and provided what response you think would be appropriate. That is interesting, although not the point we were discussing.

As to your hypotheticals, the actions you propose would, in fact, be violations of the Geneva Conventions and would constitute war crimes. I had gone into this in detail, but I'm not going to recreate it all over again. I don't really see the point.

I will say that this Wikipedia article (http://www.answers.com/topic/unlawful-combatant) provides a fairly good summary of the definitions and status under the Conventions of lawful combatants, unlawful combatants, and civilians. You may note that, even "unlawful combatants," are entitled to be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial." In my opinion, this article is actually slanted toward the US government view (as the terms "unlawful combatants doesn't even appear in the Conventions), but it does note criticism -- including this 30-page statement (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/%24File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf) from the International Red Cross.

For those who are curious, here is a balanced, easy-to-use guide (http://www.genevaconventions.org/) to the Geneva Conventions, including links to the texts of the Conventions.

Links to the complete text of all Four Conventions and the Two Protocols that are collectively the Geneva Conventions may also be found at the bottom of this webpage (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm).