NationStates Jolt Archive

BBC is reporting that a senior US American general has called the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay "essentially a model facility".

I find this deeply offensive and quite clearly smacking of propaganda. Anyone who has seen the few photos that have come out of the camp can see the conditions are clearly horrendous for those that are being illegally held there. It's also telling that the media's access to the camp is severely restricted, and in instances where those being illegally held captive have attempted to communicate with journalists visiting (or vice-versa), the journalists have been immeadiately escorted out by their US military chaparones.

There are a number of robust accounts of torture occuring at the camp. There are also robust reports that the number of suicide attempts at the camp have been covered-up.

The detention of people at Guantanamo Bay is clearly against international law. World governments and the UN should be far more aggresive in their diplomatic stance towards United States for this human rights violation.

How can US promote itself as the "land of the free" and a beacon of democracy when it resorts to methods of Stalin or Mao.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/4523825.stm

Camp X-ray is a symbol of the lunacy and irrational 'ideas' of the current American administration.
How can they hope to win the peace in the middle-east with this?
How can they hope to come off as a beacon of democracy and human rights to the world as long as this place exists?
Even in the unlikely situation that the mishandling proves untrue, this place should still be torn down because it would still tarnish America's image.
Bad reputations don't die easily.

I agree with you there. The lack of basic human rights at that place (right to trial/lawyer etc) is appalling. Can anyone from the US justify what's going on there?

Can anyone from the US justify what's going on there?
Wanna bet?

Camp X-ray is a symbol of the lunacy and irrational 'ideas' of the current American administration.
How can they hope to win the peace in the middle-east with this?
How can they hope to come off as a beacon of democracy and human rights to the world as long as this place exists?
Even in the unlikely situation that the mishandling proves untrue, this place should still be torn down because it would still tarnish America's image.
Bad reputations don't die easily.

Simply, they can not win the peace on the Arab street with this camp. And they certainly have no right to claim to be a leading nation promoting human rights with GB existing (not to mention human rights abuses in the United States that also go on - e.g. state-endorsed murder).

By the way, I see it was your 1st post - so welcome to NS General!

Wanna bet?
I bet that the first one will be Whispering Legs. Or is it too early for him?

Simply, they can not win the peace on the Arab street with this camp. And they certainly have no right to claim to be a leading nation promoting human rights with GB existing (not to mention human rights abuses in the United States that also go on - e.g. state-endorsed murder).

By the way, I see it was your 1st post - so welcome to NS General!

Your welcome is appreciated and your support for my post is thanked.

'The War against Terror' is a war.
In war, countries have obligations to the prisoners they take.
I believe the treaty is called the Geneva Convention and this treaty is one of the few human rights treaties (in respect to prisoners of course), that the US has signed up to and ratified.
The treaty stipulated fair treatment of prisoners and protection against forms of torture.
Torture can be described as bringing severe mental and physical pain to another.
This has been accomplished at Camp X-ray under the guise of 'aggressive interrogation'. Be under no illusions; aggressive interrogation is torture.
Since logically, torture is therefore going on at Camp X-ray, then it is rational to presume that the US is in violation of the Geneva Convention and is therefore guilty of War Crimes.

Compared to what? In many ways it's nicer than the homes they previously had. Many of the people enjoying their complimentary vacation probably never even dreamed of indoor plumbing. The vast majority of the world is a real shithole. And you can blame the people living there.

While some of them aren't terribly useful in fighting terrorists, the majority of them did take up arms against their betters (proof is who's deciding where they spend their time) and the rest were too stupid to go out of their way to comply with their opportunity presented itself. They are off the map. No nation will speak up for them. No nation will put it's ass on the line for ANY of the people there. Had they the political will, nations could no doubt force the issue. They don't care because *YOU* don't *really* care.

Compared to what? In many ways it's nicer than the homes they previously had. Many of the people enjoying their complimentary vacation probably never even dreamed of indoor plumbing. The vast majority of the world is a real shithole. And you can blame the people living there.

While some of them aren't terribly useful in fighting terrorists, the majority of them did take up arms against their betters (proof is who's deciding where they spend their time) and the rest were too stupid to go out of their way to comply with their opportunity presented itself. They are off the map. No nation will speak up for them. No nation will put it's ass on the line for ANY of the people there. Had they the political will, nations could no doubt force the issue. They don't care because *YOU* don't *really* care.

The EU parliament passed a resolution ages ago condemning Guantanamo Bay and calling on United States to respect its Geneva Convention obligations.

It's unfortunate that the Council of Ministers and individual member states have not supported more robust actions against the United States.

Compared to what? In many ways it's nicer than the homes they previously had. Many of the people enjoying their complimentary vacation probably never even dreamed of indoor plumbing. The vast majority of the world is a real shithole. And you can blame the people living there.

While some of them aren't terribly useful in fighting terrorists, the majority of them did take up arms against their betters (proof is who's deciding where they spend their time) and the rest were too stupid to go out of their way to comply with their opportunity presented itself. They are off the map. No nation will speak up for them. No nation will put it's ass on the line for ANY of the people there. Had they the political will, nations could no doubt force the issue. They don't care because *YOU* don't *really* care.

In response to your first paragraph, are you justifying the inhumane and torturous conditions of Camp X-ray on the basis of your subjective analysis that it is 'better' than the conditions of freedom?

In response to your second paragraph, you would be incorrect. The government in Britain has at least acknowledged the widespread disdain at the conditions in Camp X-ray and has secured the release of some of the British detainees to better conditions at Belmarsh or indeed put them under house arrest.

The danish government, who support Bush with troops in Iraq, have condemned the holding of prisoners without representation and possibility of a fair trail under the rule of law.

Denmark has secured the release of the one danish citizen detained.

Compared to what? In many ways it's nicer than the homes they previously had. Many of the people enjoying their complimentary vacation probably never even dreamed of indoor plumbing. The vast majority of the world is a real shithole. And you can blame the people living there.

Ohh... I just had an RE exam on friday... don't make me get all moral values on you!
Urk! too late!

The reason there's so much poverty is two numbers - 20 and 80.

20% of the population live in the northern hemisphere. they have 80% of the wealth of the world, and like ghandi said, in a world of limited resources nobody can have more unless somebody else has less.

It's not their fault that we took everything they had! and what'd you rather have? a mudhut or a prison cell? what about shitty prison food or something you've made yourself? At least people in 'shitholes' can make their own decisions, have family, have anything at all!

you warped bastard...

[/rant]
EDIT: Sorry, i forgot. you call the american government their 'betters'? you'd say a corrupt religious zealot with a name that means vagina 'better' than someone willing to fight to defend their life against invading forces?

you mean that you're bettre if you invade? hmm... i seem to have the words 'nazis', 'invading' and 'so they're better' on my tongue for some reason...

I wonder why...

sorry about the sarcasm, i do that sometimes.

Under the Conventions as ratified (This is what we do with Treaties in the United States) those detainees would be DEAD. They are, for the most part, what is defined as "Unlawful Combatants". This category includes both Terrorists, and Mercenaries-neither of which are accorded any rights under Geneva at all, as in whatsoever, beyond a quick 'Field' execution when captured.

While the Europeans (in a SOP to the Warsaw Pact at the time) ratified changes to include non-uniformed and foreign 'volunteer' combatants (a move to provide some kind of cover to Cuban Mercs in Angola and groups like the Sendero Luminoso and the Sandinistas in South and Central America), the United STates did not. Since those changes were not ratified under U.S. law, they do not apply to the United States. ERGO, the U.S. is being far more lenient with the detainees than its treaty obligations under Geneva require.

No nation will put it's ass on the line for ANY of the people there. Had they the political will, nations could no doubt force the issue. They don't care because *YOU* don't *really* care.

Don't under-estimate the damage to US reputation that these human rights abuses have with populations abroad (and prob in your own land also).

As for not doing anything, here's some excerpts from a speach by Laila Freivalds in English:

The horrible events of September 11, 2001 raised our awareness that we all can be subject to terrorist attacks or the impact of terrorist attacks. There was a clear need to act, both on a global level within the UN and for individual states. But at the same time we must also acknowledge that in a number of countries it has led to measures that severely threaten the impressive progress on human rights of the last decades. Many states have adopted counter-terrorism measures, without sufficient discussions on its effect on the rule of law and legal security, and that sometimes are in breach of their international obligations. And not sufficient criticism has been voiced about this evolution. A number of governments have increased repressive measures against their dissidents under the umbrella of counter-terrorism measures.

The Swedish Government has been vocal and clear: The fight against terrorism must be pursued with full respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Terrorism is not new. But the challenges to combat it have become far greater today. Terrorist acts have been given a new, wider and more dangerous dimension. The consequences are devastating and sometimes threaten the core values of our societies. If the situation created by terrorist acts is severe enough, the international standards on human rights provide for the possibility of derogation in times of emergency. But derogations may only be invoked according to established procedures and conditions, such as strict necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination. And never, under no circumstances, can derogations be made from non-derogable rights, such as the prohibitions of torture and of extra-judicial executions.

In her last Foreign Policy declaration my predecessor Anna Lindh stated:

"International terrorism is a threat to our rights. Intolerance based on a black-and-white view of the world is its foundation, financing through criminality and illegal money transactions its precondition, ruthlessness and terror its tools. No goal, no cause, no struggle can justify terror aiming to kill and maim innocent civilians. Sweden will always be in the vanguard when it comes to fighting terrorism.

But if we let the fight against terrorism take priority over human rights, we will be the losers and the terrorists will triumph. Human rights are at the heart of the tolerant lifestyle we aspire to and they oppose.

For this reason Sweden has successfully advocated that EU efforts to fight terrorism should be carried out in compliance with human rights. For this reason we have requested that the Swedes included on the UN sanctions list be removed from it since there is no evidence against them, and that the UN sanctions system be changed. For this reason we have demanded that the Swede imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay be released immediately."

Our efforts give result. But it takes too long time. Far too long.

The Swedish prisoner at Guantanamo is home. It is welcome to note that the US Supreme Court has confirmed the rule of law and the right of persons being held at Guantanamo to have their detention examined by American courts and tribunals. There can be no legal vacuum in which individuals can be deprived of their freedom beyond the protection of the law.

The introduction of targeted Security Council sanctions against individuals alleged to have terrorist links raise serious concerns regarding the rule of law and the human rights of the individuals. One Swedish citizen and three Swedish entities still remain on the sanctions list pursuant to resolution 1267. This continues to be of great concern to the Swedish Government. We have not been presented with any substantial evidence that justifies these listings. We have actively promoted within the EU and the UN that this system must be made legitimate in order to be effective. This should include a possibility of review of the measures taken.

You see, most governments recognise that terrorism must be prevented. But to prevent terrorism using illegal methods and methods that contravene human rights is just sinking to the same level of the terrorist. This then envokes sympathy for the terrorists among some, and thus can even increase the level of terrorism.

Human rights can not be allowed to be infringed. It's our defining difference from terrorists.

You know, the biggest problem is that all these issues are checked and doublechecked by lawyers... and all the sudden, some atrocities become not unlawful if you redefine or rename the whole procedures...

If somebody is a soldier, he's got certain rights.
If he's an unlawful combatant, he's got no rights?

I say, as long as he's a prisoner, treat him at least as the human being he is. How hard can that be? And I don't care what he's done or what he's allegedly done - two wrongs don't make one right and sinking to the same level of cruelty, injustice or hatred doesn't help either.

If Guantanamo is indeed considered a role model - I shudder to think what U.S. lawyers would have called the Nazi death camps...

Haha. No. Your prissy governments have effectively said, "We are saddened to learn that The United States have undertaken the doing of dirty laundry. It's not the laundry or the doing that particularly sadden us, it's that it's being done with what we wouldn't consider proper discretion. And now that it has regretably become public we will make vague, toothless statements appearing to highlight our growing impotence, but which are more accurately a reflection of the lack of conviction posessed by the people who profess to give a damn." And you ate it up.

"Well they've agreed to publish a vague, pointless statement which barely even qualifies as a request, surely they've exhausted all avenues. Alas, I, as a European, have no choice but to be satisfied with my government's performance. To the Internet!"

If they demanded that the US hand over their citizen(s) and scoured treaties and international for any nuance by which they might compell the safe swift return of those people, they'd at least get one HELL of a spectical out of it. Khrushchev banging his shoe big. But they don't want to provoke such a confrontation, because they don't really care, and most importantly you don't really care. Brazil fought harder to keep Martin Pang (killer of four Seattle firemen) from facing the death penalty. France, and Britain, they're not fighting at all. They're not even trying. Why do you think that is? Low self-esteem? At least in Britains case they could be playing nice to gather a kind of leverage for favorable policy movement in th EU.

Fine, send them all to Suadi Arabia. They'd be thrilled to have new people to torture there. Or China, another opportunity for outsourcing, and think of what it would do for the image of internation cooperation. Now this one's outside the box. North Korea. We take Kim & Co. off the naughty list, they provide us with useful intelligence (they've done a lot in advancing torture over the past couple of decades) and we'd get to wring our hands and pretend we're European if anyone found out. Or we could just send the few kids back to their religious schools where they could resume being beaten, raped, while suffering food not fit for maggots (which are fortunately a good source of protein) Then everyone would be happy.

If they don't belong to an army and don't have a nation that claims them, they are truly alone in the woods when it comes to the Geneva conventions. Which again, I note the Islamists are careful followers of, just as the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Russians, and Germans all were. The sole purpose of the Geneva conventions is to provide a common framework for the carrot of "civil" war as an alternative to the stick of total war. They've chosen the stick. Repeatedly. What's wrong with giving them a taste so that they may make an informed decision on whether to re-evaluate their position on carrots. In the case of Americas own history, a willingness to swing the stick saved far more Confederate lives that did the reliance on the carrot.

And don't get me started on the relative success rates of strategic vs tactical victories when it comes to fostering a lasting peace. I'll just say the emperical evidence is persuasive.

If somebody is a soldier, he's got certain rights.
If he's an unlawful combatant, he's got no rights?

I say, as long as he's a prisoner, treat him at least as the human being he is. How hard can that be? And I don't care what he's done or what he's allegedly done - two wrongs don't make one right and sinking to the same level of cruelty, injustice or hatred doesn't help either.

If Guantanamo is indeed considered a role model - I shudder to think what U.S. lawyers would have called the Nazi death camps...
1. Welcome to sophistry. Expect to see more of it. The internet has done more to advance it in a decade than lawyers have done in four centuries.

2. I'm going to go ahead and preempt my Godwin approved moral victory, and offer you a chance to re-evaluate the similarities between Auschwitz and Guantanamo. Hint: See 1.

International law... like anyone cares about that. Personally I think the whole issue with these "international law" stuff is a huge hoax. I mean, take a random warcriminal, they're put at trial in a completely different country than the one where they did their crimes, then they get a verdict based on a law that's not even a real penal law (take the trials of Nuremberg, ridiculous, crimes against something as bizarre as humanity (as in humaneness), wtf... while those were more like crimes against mankind, stupid), and then... they get put in a jail in a country that's not even their own and the people of that country have to pay for it? WTF?! Let their own country deal with it for crying out loud. Take the whole Sudan issue, that's Sudan's business and not the UN. It's the UN's business if, all of the sudden, the UN is something of a world government. But that's not the case... luckily.

Human rights... so somebody who wants to kill innocent people in the name of his weirdass interpretation of a religion has human rights? Bull... hang him.

The Swedish government says "The fight against terrorism must be pursued with full respect for human rights and the rule of law." And the Swedish government cares why? Because there's a Swede there. If there wouldn't be one they wouldn't really give a damn. 'Sides... the Swedes have done what in Afghanistan or Iraq or in the war against terror (as stupid as this term is)? Oh wait, we're talking about the government that whined "we want our dead back!" after the tsunami and that way gave the rescue units there even more, completely unecessary, work.

Also I think that comparing the Gitmo camps with any Nazi concentration camp is merely stupidity. Those two are nothing alike.

Personally... I'd execute them right away, hang them, they don't deserve a firing squad. They're not soldiers, they're guerilla and there's only one way to deal with guerilla.

Maybe off topic, but just heard a news report about Islamist Extremists (suicide bombers and such) who are French citizens now joining the fight against US soldiers in Iraq.

I was concentrating on other things so I only caught the tail end of the report. Anyone else hear of this?

I think it's pretty morally lax to suggest that because the USA may not have technical obligations under the Geneva Conventions (and that is disputed, but we need not discuss it here), it is alright to hold prisoners without trial and torture them. Morality exists with or without the Geneva Conventions.

Here in the UK (or England, more accurately), we have been luckier than most. Since Magna Carta in 1215 there has been an established law, enforced with varying degrees of firmness, but very stringently since the 17th century, that no person can be locked up without trial, and that the rule of law prevails. Muderers, rapists, paedophiles, terrorists, psychopaths - many have done far worse than those held at Guantanamo, but all have gone to trial before their punishment.

I believe that Americans often look to Magna Carta as the ancestor of their own constitution, and our fiercely proud of the freedoms it handed down to them. Americans would never allow imprisonment without trial to be imposed upon their own psychopaths and rapists, because it is a right that only has any meaning at all when it is given to the worst that society has to offer. Otherwise it is for the government to judge who the criminals are, as it has at Guantanamo, and the door is wide open to tyranny.

Americans should all oppose Guantanamo, whether or not they believe that the inmates are terrorists, because those who support it clearly cannot regard other nationalities as worthy of the most fundamental building block of liberty. Shame on them.

The reason there's so much poverty is two numbers - 20 and 80.

20% of the population live in the northern hemisphere. they have 80% of the wealth of the world, and like ghandi said, in a world of limited resources nobody can have more unless somebody else has less.

[/rant]
EDIT: Sorry, i forgot. you call the american government their 'betters'? you'd say a corrupt religious zealot with a name that means vagina 'better' than someone willing to fight to defend their life against invading forces?
I've got enough morality for both of us. And since today is a holiday over here, there might be some nice people from the Church of Latter-day Saints stopping by to drop some off just in case I find myself a little short. Those cheeky optimists.

Soooo close. But it wasn't theivery. It's not an accident the equatorial region isn't known for its great innovators. (Dead cultures aside) It's the comparative wealth provided by the region. The northern extremes necessitated invention. A year round hunter gather life style just wasn't sustainable. That necessity honed a particular talent humans have for abstraction, and lead Britain to be come the preminent expert in the projection of power in their age. A tiny island that ruled the world. And that was the way it had to be, because of the unique challenges they faced. As technology improved, this of course became much more difficult, as Japan found out. And now we're moving into a new age, and I think some guy, Max Berry, wrote a book meditating on this very topic. I can't think of the name.... Other people have written on the factors leading to the rise and fall of nations too. I think Rome is briefly mentioned in one of them....

If someone can force you to do what ever they want you to, they're your better. While might doesn't make right, in addition to the rules, it gets to determine the hierarchy. Invariably, the bitches are on the bottom.

Kibolonia - the UK is working to secure the release of its nationals at Guantanamo. Perhaps you should do a teeny-weeny bit of research before you speak next time...

International law... like anyone cares about that. Personally I think the whole issue with these "international law" stuff is a huge hoax. I mean, take a random warcriminal, they're put at trial in a completely different country than the one where they did their crimes, then they get a verdict based on a law that's not even a real penal law (take the trials of Nuremberg, ridiculous, crimes against something as bizarre as humanity (as in humaneness), wtf... while those were more like crimes against mankind, stupid), and then... they get put in a jail in a country that's not even their own and the people of that country have to pay for it? WTF?! Let their own country deal with it for crying out loud. Take the whole Sudan issue, that's Sudan's business and not the UN. It's the UN's business if, all of the sudden, the UN is something of a world government. But that's not the case... luckily.

Human rights... so somebody who wants to kill innocent people in the name of his weirdass interpretation of a religion has human rights? Bull... hang him.

The Swedish government says "The fight against terrorism must be pursued with full respect for human rights and the rule of law." And the Swedish government cares why? Because there's a Swede there. If there wouldn't be one they wouldn't really give a damn. 'Sides... the Swedes have done what in Afghanistan or Iraq or in the war against terror (as stupid as this term is)? Oh wait, we're talking about the government that whined "we want our dead back!" after the tsunami and that way gave the rescue units there even more, completely unecessary, work.

Also I think that comparing the Gitmo camps with any Nazi concentration camp is merely stupidity. Those two are nothing alike.

Personally... I'd execute them right away, hang them, they don't deserve a firing squad. They're not soldiers, they're guerilla and there's only one way to deal with guerilla.

Of course it's true that the Swedish government is going to make every effort to fulfill its consular duties to a Swedish citizen being illegally held captive. That's natural, it would do that in any circumstance.

But the Swedish government is not isolationist. It does believe strongly in human rights and therefore it's hardly surprising that it's hardly pro-Guantanamo Bay when it's so clear that so many people are being held their illegally in a legal limbo.

I agree that my government and others have not taken firm enough action against the United States for this illegal action though. I think it's because they are scared of upsetting the United States, which is terrible, as they should really put their principles first. I think this is why there hasn't been firmer statements or actions (e.g. sanctions.)

Of course, Sweden hasn't participated in the invasion of Irak. 2 reasons really, the war was illegal and secondly we are a neutral country. I believe that the government quite clearly stated it lamented the invasion when it started.

Swedes are active in the legitimate international forums, a clear example being that Hans Blix headed the UN arms inspectors in Irak. It's a shame that the USA wouldn't let his team finish their inspection and made every effort to discredit it. Perhaps they don't like to hear the truth when it could prevent their invasion - I think US Americans must be very dillusional if they think their nation invaded Irak to spread democracy etc. It's clear it was partly an effort to get George Bush elected and partly motivated by oil.

No their not. They're saying they are. There is a big wide Atlantic ocean of difference.

No their not. They're saying they are. There is a big wide Atlantic ocean of difference.

Ah, then I take it you have access to confidential Foreign Office files? If that is the case I bow to your superior knowledge. If not, I would be very interested to see where your views stem from.

1. Welcome to sophistry. Expect to see more of it. The internet has done more to advance it in a decade than lawyers have done in four centuries.
It just immensely saddens me that common sense is going to be completely replaced by sophistry.

2. I'm going to go ahead and preempt my Godwin approved moral victory, and offer you a chance to re-evaluate the similarities between Auschwitz and Guantanamo. Hint: See 1.
As I have used the subjunctive in the last remark of my statement it should have been clear that I was carrying this comparison to the extremes. I carefully chose that comparison to strike a point.
I have very mixed feelings about the way the U.S. behave lately, and to act the way they do in the name of freedom does not help any to ease my mind.
Something like "You can't compare the U.S. of today to Nazi Germany" is not a valid argument. I can, I do, and will continue to do so - if only one or two people stop for second and think "why does he do that in the first place", "what motivates him", or "he may be taking this to the extreme but he's got a point there" - it's all been worth it.
To make this clear: I don't hate the U.S., I'm deeply concerned about them and the path they chose to follow. Especially, maybe even because I'm a historically well educated and interested German.
One day, more people in the U.S. will acknowledge that not everything "Old Europe" has said is patronizing the U.S. but that it's a lesson learned the hard way throughout European history.

I agree that my government and others have not taken firm enough action against the United States for this illegal action though. I think it's because they are scared of upsetting the United States, which is terrible, as they should really put their principles first. I think this is why there hasn't been firmer statements or actions (e.g. sanctions.)


Surprisingly (not) we have the same problem...IMO Sweden and Finland have the perfect position to give firm statements. But as everywhere, business is more important than anything else.

Of course, Sweden hasn't participated in the invasion of Irak. 2 reasons really, the war was illegal and secondly we are a neutral country. I believe that the government quite clearly stated it lamented the invasion when it started.

Swedes are active in the legitimate international forums, a clear example being that Hans Blix headed the UN arms inspectors in Irak. It's a shame that the USA wouldn't let his team finish their inspection and made every effort to discredit it. Perhaps they don't like to hear the truth when it could prevent their invasion - I think US Americans must be very dillusional if they think their nation invaded Irak to spread democracy etc. It's clear it was partly an effort to get George Bush elected and partly motivated by oil.
Let's be blunt. No goverment has taken any meaningful action against the US, over this issue. Period. They haven't even threatened to take any meaningful action. Sweden included. Brazil has taken far more significant actions over changes in regulations governing foreign national entering the US. Even by this very modest standard Europe has done absolutely nothing.

As someone who is completely against the second Gulf war. Let's remember that hostilities were not even halted at the end of the First Gulf War. It was a perfectly stupid, but absolutely legal resumption of full hostilities. Even if they had NBCs I wouldn't have found the case for invasion particularly persausive. It'd almost be a blessing if it was about oil....

Let's be blunt. No goverment has taken any meaningful action against the US, over this issue. Period. They haven't even threatened to take any meaningful action. Sweden included. Brazil has taken far more significant actions over changes in regulations governing foreign national entering the US. Even by this very modest standard Europe has done absolutely nothing.

As someone who is completely against the second Gulf war. Let's remember that hostilities were not even halted at the end of the First Gulf War. It was a perfectly stupid, but absolutely legal resumption of full hostilities. Even if they had NBCs I wouldn't have found the case for invasion particularly persausive. It'd almost be a blessing if it was about oil....

Re your first paragraph, I think I acknowledged this didn't I? I think Brazil made their actions as a reaction to the American finger-printing immigration procedures rather than human rights issues concerning Guantanamo Bay? Could be wrong...

It was certainly illegal. Most international law experts agree on this. Even the British government received legal advice that it would be illegal, which was then swiftly changed and the original advice covered up.

Surprisingly (not) we have the same problem...IMO Sweden and Finland have the perfect position to give firm statements. But as everywhere, business is more important than anything else.

Yes you are right, although maybe Finland actually has a stronger position to make the statement.

We made a mistake by extraditing 2 people to Egypt against our anti-torture treaty obligations (because the Swedish government should have reasonably known that anyone sent to Egypt's legal system could be expected to face torture).

So, we have made our own human rights mistake. Of course, not on the same scale, but to be deplored none-the-less.

I think Guantanamo is far from happy fun-time land, but to compare it to a Nazi Death Camp? Hold on a second!

Are the prisoners being starved, hung out in public, tortured on a daily basis, living with about 50 people in a tiny, and quite flamable, hut, only to be dragged out of the camp one day for no apparent reason and get mowed down by stormtroopers, and then have their bodies either A. Cremated or B. left in plain view?

I think Guantanamo is far from happy fun-time land, but to compare it to a Nazi Death Camp? Hold on a second!

Are the prisoners being starved, hung out in public, tortured on a daily basis, living with about 50 people in a tiny, and quite flamable, hut, only to be dragged out of the camp one day for no apparent reason and get mowed down by stormtroopers, and then have their bodies either A. Cremated or B. left in plain view?Didn't you know? the only approved forms of Interrigation is to ask them nicely with a please, then when they refuse to talk, send them back to their nice clean Cells and let them watch cable TV and have nice hot meals and baths for at least 24 hours. Anything less and you are a Nazi Death Camp that tortures, rapes, and kills indiscrimatly. :rolleyes:

Ah, then I take it you have access to confidential Foreign Office files? If that is the case I bow to your superior knowledge. If not, I would be very interested to see where your views stem from.
Right, because politicians always mean what they indirectly encourage people to infer. Hey, who knows in a couple of years you'll stand a pretty good chance of having a British citizen excecuted. That'll be some news, huh.

If Jack Straw or someone says something to the effect of "we're working on it" what they really mean is, "They are on the class 5 rapids of shit river approaching the falls. If we find evidence that absolutely exonerates them, we trust the Americans will be reasonable. Failing that, we might be able to avoid an excecution. But seriously, a lot of these guys are assholes, we'd like to know what they have to say too, and if we had our way, they'd disappear when we were finished with them."

Something like "You can't compare the U.S. of today to Nazi Germany" is not a valid argument. I can, I do, and will continue to do so - if only one or two people stop for second and think "why does he do that in the first place", "what motivates him", or "he may be taking this to the extreme but he's got a point there" - it's all been worth it.
I can't say I don't share in the lamment. Chalk it up to a curse of the age. We don't pay for everything in money. It's kind of the tax on everyone being able to publish their opinion. Most of them suck. I trust the challenge will eventually make for wiser people.

I would say, hell I did say, you chose to presently your point carelessly, even foolishly. It was wild hyperbole that was laughable on it's face. Certainly not the kind of passionate plea that might encourage reflection. It's not because Nazi comparisons don't exist within this particular administration. There certainly are some, a few even eerie, and the most compelling of these combined by a single strong thread would make for quite a powerful emotional argument. Or so I might imagine. But starvation, disease, showers and ovens are a very long way away from what the prisoners in American Cuba endure. The implication doesn't encourage introspection, it encourages incredulity.

Now I must sleep. I'm sure the thread will be 80 pages strong by the time I wake up.

Utter horseshit.

The United States is obliged to take, and house prisoners until the end of a war.

They are not POWs because they are not the sworn soldiers of a recognised national government.

They are not members of a legitimate national liberation group.

They are not non-combatants.

The Geneva Conventions protect the above, plus religious officials, and medical people.

It does not protect terrorists.

Holding enemy fighters, regardless of whether they are or are not protected by the Geneva Conventions is something all nations are required to do. They are not required to try them for being enemy soldiers, unless you can find an international, or US Statute that says that all enemy fighters captured by the United States in time of war must be tried.

If you can, the German and Italian governments sure have a big case. All those Germans and Italian prisoners, held for up to 4 years without trial simply for being the enemy, and surrendering.

The people being held at Guantanamo Bay are not prisoners of a Police Force, they are not on remand. They are enemy combatants, and the US is required to detain an enemy combatant who has indicated his wish to surrender. What alternative do they have?

They can't just let him go, he'd only go back, and keep fighting (one of the things it is prudent to do in battle is stop the enemy fighting, and keep him from fighting)

They can't shoot him, because they are required to give quarter on the battlefield.

So they must detain him.

"illegal action"

Which law did the US Government break?

The fact that you are against something doesn't make it illegal.

"If somebody is a soldier, he's got certain rights.
If he's an unlawful combatant, he's got no rights?"

If somebody is a soldier, International law recognises he has certain rights

If he's an unlawful combatant, he has much fewer. US law forbids torture (I'll only point this out once, Torture is defined as "severe pain or suffering", coercive methods of interrogation are not torture provided they don't cross the "severe" line according to the UN Convention, and US Law, "cruel, inhumane, and degrading" treatment is also banned, but this is not defined in the UN Convention. The European Court of Human Rights ruled, in a case concerning British interrogations of IRA terrorists, that a series of coercive interrogation methods including hooding, streeful positions, loud noise, and sleep deprivation, were not, and only inhumane when all used together), other things are provided for, or forbidden in other US laws and military regulations, but under international law, an unlawful combatant has no rights.

By the way, you are making this out to be an arbitrary classification.

That is patent bullshit.

A soldier:
1) Wears a uniform, or other clearly identifiable insignia
2) Respects the rules of war
3) Has a chain-of-command from which he gets orders, and to which he is accountable
4) Bears arms openly

An al-qaeda terrorist

1) Wears civilian clothing
2) Deliberately targets civilians
3) If there's a chain of command, how do we determine it? A soldier wears insignia of rank indicating it
4) Hides among the civilian population before he strikes

A terrorist is, ipso facto, an unlawful combatant.

By the by, no one has considered that there are two sides to the hunanitarian question. The US uses stressful methods of interrogation (which are NOT torture) because asking nicely was not producing information that could be used to protect the lives of American servicemen and civilians, not to mention people in other countries all over the world.

"Something like "You can't compare the U.S. of today to Nazi Germany" is not a valid argument. I can, I do, and will continue to do so - if only one or two people stop for second and think "why does he do that in the first place", "what motivates him", or "he may be taking this to the extreme but he's got a point there" - it's all been worth it."

Nonsense.

No one who makes that comparison develops it with real evidence, they merely say Bu$h=Hitler. That is not a statement meant to further discussion, it is thrown in there because the people making that statement can't be bothered to find a real argument backed with true evidence.

By doing so, they trivialise the crimes of National Socialist Germany, and spit on the graves of their victims, and more importantly, the brave men who died to end the Nazi tyranny.

Kibolonia, I sometimes wonder if people like you in forums are for real, or just having a joke. You have failed completely to answer my question at the start (Can anyone from the US justify this...?), as you continually make unfounded, bigotted statements. It's lucky I know a number of people in the states, or I might end up using a poor representative like you to judge the nation for myself.

I agree that the conditions found in temperate regions like Western Europe are what produced innovation and invention. Because many regions further south have not had the harsh environmental conditions which have ironicallly become an advantage in today's world, are they any less a person than you? Whether or not the conditions they find in Guantanamo are worse than those at their home country (and everything I've heard suggests they're far worse), how can you agree with them being held their without trial? Wouldn't you protest if another country locked you up without hope of escape, or justice?

Think before you answer.

It's not because Nazi comparisons don't exist within this particular administration.

If you really want to break things down, one could compare any government with the Nazis.

A government that uses extremely high public spending to improve the economy, and create jobs (as opposed to public spending on essential infrastructure) can be compared with the Nazis. In this bag sits most Western countries.

Zimbabwe can be compared with Nazi Germany, because Mugabe has seized productive enterprises from people of the 'wrong' race, and given it to his party comerades, as Hitler did with Jewish companies.

The pan-Arab nationalism of many Arab regimes can be compared with the Nazi's pan-German nationalism,

and so-on.

Some of those locked up in that wonderful model facility were just minding their own business until some Americans turn up and say "Gee they look like terrorists, let's get them". Yes, there are Al Queda, Saddamists, Jihadists, Taliban and other not-so-nice people in there but not all. A lot will be completely innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time who cannot escape hanging around terrorists because of their environment.

Some of those locked up in that wonderful model facility were just minding their own business until some Americans turn up and say "Gee they look like terrorists, let's get them". Yes, there are Al Queda, Saddamists, Jihadists, Taliban and other not-so-nice people in there but not all. A lot will be completely innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time who cannot escape hanging around terrorists because of their environment.Actually, most were turned in by their own Neighbors. so if Ahkbar and Ahmed had an argument at the time, a quick tip to the US soldiers and Ahkbar takes a prolonged 'vacation'

and since all leads must be checked out...

Actually, most were turned in by their own Neighbors. so if Ahkbar and Ahmed had an argument at the time, a quick tip to the US soldiers and Ahkbar takes a prolonged 'vacation'

and since all leads must be checked out...

Yep and also if Ahkbar gets some "friendly interagation" by american or there friends he can think it's a good idea to say that Ahmed is a terrorist even if he know his not.

BBC is reporting that a senior US American general has called the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay "essentially a model facility".

I find this deeply offensive and quite clearly smacking of propaganda. Anyone who has seen the few photos that have come out of the camp can see the conditions are clearly horrendous for those that are being illegally held there.

Oh calm down. Model anything doesn't mean that it's perfect. It only means that they're going to make more just like it. :D

Utter horseshit.

patent bullshit.

Nonsense.


The problem you seem to be overlooking is that at the basis of American law lies the belief that people can not be treated as though they have a status until they have been proven to have it. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." Someone suspected of being a terrorist deserves all the same legal protection as someone suspected of being a loiterer or litterer. To simply lock up thousands of people in legal limbo is a total betrayal of American justice. If they are not soldiers, then they are civilians. If you think that they are terrorists then send them to a court to prove it.

Also, your semantic crap about "stressful interrogations" needs some correction. Just because you can come up with another name for torture, does not mean it isn't torture. If you try to get information out of people by making them suffer until they're willing to tell you what they think you want to hear (not necessarily the truth, just what will get you to stop) it's torture. And it is useless for keeping our service people safe. Tortured people tend to lie a lot.

Oh calm down. Model anything doesn't mean that it's perfect. It only means that they're going to make more just like it. :D
And since that is exactly what I first thought when reading this I said that the U.S. should be mindful which direction they are headed... The first camps in Germany were just like Guantanamo - the death camps followed later...

My choice of wording might have been not precise enough (for all you fans of sophistry) and I apologize to all of you who misread it. My fault.

I was taking this to the extreme and it backfired, mmkay. :(

But I did not compare Guantanamo to the Nazi death camps. I said
"If Guantanamo is indeed considered a role model - I shudder to think what U.S. lawyers would have called the Nazi death camps..."

If you're going to attack me for what I said, at least be precise about it!

I'm looking forward to your excuses when the next U.S. generation is asking you what you did against it. Oh wait, they're probably not being allowed to ask question any longer, they'll all be wearing uniforms serving the new empire...

Come on, guys, don't you see that the U.S. is headed down a dangerous track and you're defending it?

And since that is exactly what I first thought when reading this I said that the U.S. should be mindful which direction they are headed... The first camps in Germany were just like Guantanamo - the death camps followed later...
IMPHO, i HIGHLY, and i can't stress highly enough, doubt that America is heading towards nazi germany death camps. The international community wouldn't stand for it, and news of something like that would get out very quickly indeed.
But I did not compare Guantanamo to the Nazi death camps. I said
"If Guantanamo is indeed considered a role model - I shudder to think what U.S. lawyers would have called the Nazi death camps..."
how is this relevant? The US lawyers would have called the nazi death camps the same thing everyone else did. In a way it is a comparison of death camps and gitmo, why else bring it up in a thread about gitmo?

I'm looking forward to your excuses when the next U.S. generation is asking you what you did against it. Oh wait, they're probably not being allowed to ask question any longer, they'll all be wearing uniforms serving the new empire...

Come on, guys, don't you see that the U.S. is headed down a dangerous track and you're defending it?

again, it's only my opinion, but i don't think that the people of the US will allow imperialistic rule where questions are forbidden. There's been too much strife and struggle to get to where we are today to go in an opposite direction.
Defending against something that news media has a tendency to blow way out of proportion isn't a bad thing.
I agree that it may not be the best thing that torture has happened, but it isn't US policy to torture people. (and what do you mean by torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? If not, what's too extreme to be defined as torture? If so, i think it's a pretty weakminded idea of torture)

The problem you seem to be overlooking is that at the basis of American law lies the belief that people can not be treated as though they have a status until they have been proven to have it. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." Someone suspected of being a terrorist deserves all the same legal protection as someone suspected of being a loiterer or litterer. To simply lock up thousands of people in legal limbo is a total betrayal of American justice. If they are not soldiers, then they are civilians. If you think that they are terrorists then send them to a court to prove it.

Also, your semantic crap about "stressful interrogations" needs some correction. Just because you can come up with another name for torture, does not mean it isn't torture. If you try to get information out of people by making them suffer until they're willing to tell you what they think you want to hear (not necessarily the truth, just what will get you to stop) it's torture. And it is useless for keeping our service people safe. Tortured people tend to lie a lot.

Civilian Law, Domici. Military Law is not based on that. The accused in a Courts-Martial is assumed to be Guilty, and must prove his or her innocence, rather than the presumption-of-innocence accorded to American Civilians.
Unlawful Combatants are being held in a Military Facilty under Military Law and Regulations at GitMo.
This is a significantly different legal, and social, environment from a Civilian-run holding facility in the Continental U.S. and Hawaii.

Further, in Military interrogation, the rules are significantly looser than they are for Civil Police forces, Habeas Corpus does not exist, and the Prisoner's rights are determined not by the Constitution, but by Military regulations and the Post Commander under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under that code, you can hold a prisoner indefinitely without trial or hearing, and the conditions under which that prisoner is held, must only conform to what constitutes "Humane" in MILITARY terms-basically no electic shock, no needles-under-the-fingernails, no beatings.

Military personnel are frequently exposed to sleep deprivation, darkness, cold, damp, wet, and dirty conditions as a matter of course. (Five days on an O.P. where sleeping was not an option, dude. I was seeing shit by the time I was relieved.)

Ergo, those conditions are not militarily inhumane.

The men being held at GitMo are Unlawful Combatants. That means they were wearing civilian clothing and attempting to hide in civilian populations while conducting combat operations both against uniformed soldiers, and those selfsame Civilians. The dozen-or-so that the British claimed(took charge of) were handed over in part because it was good diplomacy, and in part because the rules British interrogators operate under are Looser than those that the United States Marines (Who own GitMo) operate under.
The same is true of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
They were also handed over because that government was willing to admit ownership and take them home, and because in doing so, the U.S. could be certain they would not be back out and causing trouble upon leaving United States Custody.

What you seem to be unable to understand, is that the conditions at Guantanamo Bay are, based on standards that do not apply to the holding of civil criminals by civil authorities. The Military Prison section of Leavenworth Kansas is able to do things to the prisoners it holds that the Civilian run portions of the same facility-because the Military Convicts there do not have the same rights (until released from service) that regular Felons do.

In the 1980's, the Military holding facility at Rammstein in Germany was infamous, as in scary, because prisoners held there could be denied access to JAG representatives as well as Civilian Legal Representatives.
(for those who don't watch their teevee, JAG stands for "Judge Advocate General"-Military Lawyers. Those who do, should know that JAG don't do all those neato-things you see on the idiot box.)

Within the Military, you can be held indefinitely without trial, outside contact, or legal representation. You can even be held without being charged with a crime, and this detention can be indefinite-that means no fixed-term.
Military prisoners do not have the right to a speedy and/or fair trial unless specific General Orders are filed. Those General Orders can be rescinded at any time by an officer equal to, or superior in, rank to the officer who issued them, and can only be superceded by an act of Congress or an Executive Order issued by the President. (the Act of Congress being a change to Military Regulations that supercedes those General Orders.)

The Amendment to Geneva protecting "Insurgents" and "National Liberation groups" was never ratified in the United STates. Thus, it is not part of either Miltary Regulation, nor is it possessed of the authority of a treaty.
Given the situation, it's amazing how well these prisoners are being treated. The only standard by which their treatment might be considered inhumane, is in comparison with medium-security Civilian facilities in the United States (proper), and Western Europe (not including Turkey).

Civilian Law, Domici. Military Law is not based on that. The accused in a Courts-Martial is assumed to be Guilty, and must prove his or her innocence, rather than the presumption-of-innocence accorded to American Civilians.
Unlawful Combatants are being held in a Military Facilty under Military Law and Regulations at GitMo.
This is a significantly different legal, and social, environment from a Civilian-run holding facility in the Continental U.S. and Hawaii.

Further, in Military interrogation, the rules are significantly looser than they are for Civil Police forces, Habeas Corpus does not exist, and the Prisoner's rights are determined not by the Constitution, but by Military regulations and the Post Commander under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under that code, you can hold a prisoner indefinitely without trial or hearing, and the conditions under which that prisoner is held, must only conform to what constitutes "Humane" in MILITARY terms-basically no electic shock, no needles-under-the-fingernails, no beatings.

Military personnel are frequently exposed to sleep deprivation, darkness, cold, damp, wet, and dirty conditions as a matter of course. (Five days on an O.P. where sleeping was not an option, dude. I was seeing shit by the time I was relieved.)

Ergo, those conditions are not militarily inhumane.

The men being held at GitMo are Unlawful Combatants. That means they were wearing civilian clothing and attempting to hide in civilian populations while conducting combat operations both against uniformed soldiers, and those selfsame Civilians. The dozen-or-so that the British claimed(took charge of) were handed over in part because it was good diplomacy, and in part because the rules British interrogators operate under are Looser than those that the United States Marines (Who own GitMo) operate under.
The same is true of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
They were also handed over because that government was willing to admit ownership and take them home, and because in doing so, the U.S. could be certain they would not be back out and causing trouble upon leaving United States Custody.

What you seem to be unable to understand, is that the conditions at Guantanamo Bay are, based on standards that do not apply to the holding of civil criminals by civil authorities. The Military Prison section of Leavenworth Kansas is able to do things to the prisoners it holds that the Civilian run portions of the same facility-because the Military Convicts there do not have the same rights (until released from service) that regular Felons do.

In the 1980's, the Military holding facility at Rammstein in Germany was infamous, as in scary, because prisoners held there could be denied access to JAG representatives as well as Civilian Legal Representatives.
(for those who don't watch their teevee, JAG stands for "Judge Advocate General"-Military Lawyers. Those who do, should know that JAG don't do all those neato-things you see on the idiot box.)

Within the Military, you can be held indefinitely without trial, outside contact, or legal representation. You can even be held without being charged with a crime, and this detention can be indefinite-that means no fixed-term.
Military prisoners do not have the right to a speedy and/or fair trial unless specific General Orders are filed. Those General Orders can be rescinded at any time by an officer equal to, or superior in, rank to the officer who issued them, and can only be superceded by an act of Congress or an Executive Order issued by the President. (the Act of Congress being a change to Military Regulations that supercedes those General Orders.)

The Amendment to Geneva protecting "Insurgents" and "National Liberation groups" was never ratified in the United STates. Thus, it is not part of either Miltary Regulation, nor is it possessed of the authority of a treaty.
Given the situation, it's amazing how well these prisoners are being treated. The only standard by which their treatment might be considered inhumane, is in comparison with medium-security Civilian facilities in the United States (proper), and Western Europe (not including Turkey).
Good points. However they assume that the prisoners are, indeed, illegal combatants. And we know that some of them weren't. (Some were released). And these limbo-people have absolutely no recourse whatsoever to fight this injustice.

That is what I'm opposed to. Treat them under military justice, fine. Punish the illegal combattants, fine. But give them a chance to make a case to see if they are or were just some random people rounded up.

Furthermore, if they are ennemy combattant, you must have an ennemy to fight. "Terrorist" have no country to call their own. Arresting people because they are terrorist should be seen as a civil case, and not a military one.

Military justice applies to people who have signed up to the military. These people haven't done that.

Saying that these people are terrorists is fine. Punishing them for their crimes is fine. But no one, whatever they've done, should be punished without trial. Rapists, serial killers, terrorists - it doesn't matter. If you can prove in a trial that these people were illegal combatants then do so, and punish them for it. But if we deny the right to a trial to a whole category of people, and all the government to decide who goes into that category, then sooner or later we're all screwed. The trouble is that none of us in the modern West don't remember how things were before these rights were established, and they take them for granted. They treat them as useful but not universally essential. Vey wrong.

And in terms of conditions, I don't care that Guantanamo is better than what you might get in Turkey. If you're proud to be able to compare yourself favourably to Turkey that just shows how low you're stooping on this one. You're the USA, remember?

Good points. However they assume that the prisoners are, indeed, illegal combatants. And we know that some of them weren't. (Some were released). And these limbo-people have absolutely no recourse whatsoever to fight this injustice.

That is what I'm opposed to. Treat them under military justice, fine. Punish the illegal combattants, fine. But give them a chance to make a case to see if they are or were just some random people rounded up.

Furthermore, if they are ennemy combattant, you must have an ennemy to fight. "Terrorist" have no country to call their own. Arresting people because they are terrorist should be seen as a civil case, and not a military one.
See, that's the thing, isn't it? If he represents a Country, and wears their uniform, he's NOT an unlawful Combatant. i.e. if we were fighting, say, the Syrian Army, and taking Syrian Army soldiers prisoner, they would be protected under Geneva, which supersedes U.S. military Regulations where those regulations are more aggressive.

The non-Afghans taken prisoner fall under the catagory of "Mercenary" troops. Mercenaries are also unlawful combatants. These people weren't scoopd off safe peacetime streets, they were (for the most part) busted in a war-zone, bearing arms. That puts them firmly under military jurisdiction. They are not "Noncombatants" or the technical definition of same. They're enemy combatants engaging in what is defined under Geneva as a War Crime. (Yes, not wearing a uniform when you fight is a war-crime.)
Ergo, they are not accorded the rights and privelages that a Civilian Criminal recieves, and they are presumed guilty under Military Law.

There's nothing "Moral" about it, there are only the rules, and whether you follow them or not.
Those that do not follow the rules, are not protected by them. One of the more important reasons for the in-depth interrogations, is to determine just which persons may be innocent (by Military Standards) of what they are being held over, this is purely practical-because of standing General orders, those prisoners must be fed, clothed, and sheltered. This costs money to do.
Even in wartime,the budget is not bottomless.
Those that can be released, likely will be-if for no other reason than holding them is a long-term cost.

Military justice applies to people who have signed up to the military. These people haven't done that.

Saying that these people are terrorists is fine. Punishing them for their crimes is fine. But no one, whatever they've done, should be punished without trial. Rapists, serial killers, terrorists - it doesn't matter. If you can prove in a trial that these people were illegal combatants then do so, and punish them for it. But if we deny the right to a trial to a whole category of people, and all the government to decide who goes into that category, then sooner or later we're all screwed. The trouble is that none of us in the modern West don't remember how things were before these rights were established, and they take them for granted. They treat them as useful but not universally essential. Vey wrong.

And in terms of conditions, I don't care that Guantanamo is better than what you might get in Turkey. If you're proud to be able to compare yourself favourably to Turkey that just shows how low you're stooping on this one. You're the USA, remember?

In a war-zone, if you're shooting, you've as good as signed up. If you're dumb enough to be shooting and not wearing a Uniform that clearly identifies which side you're on, you've bought yourself the trouble you're in. The term is "Combatant" and the divider is between "Lawful Combatant" and "Unlawful Combatant." Operating with no identification, no uniform, in a war-zone is a Crime, the enemy can (legally) blow your frelling brains out after you've surrendered. They can do other things to you as well-and you have no rights and no protections save those the enemy gives you of his or her own accord.

There's nothing "Moral" about it, there are only the rules, and whether you follow them or not.

There's no such thing as a moral vaccuum. Morality always exists. The fact that something may be within the law does not make it moral.

In a war-zone, if you're shooting, you've as good as signed up. If you're dumb enough to be shooting and not wearing a Uniform that clearly identifies which side you're on, you've bought yourself the trouble you're in. The term is "Combatant" and the divider is between "Lawful Combatant" and "Unlawful Combatant." Operating with no identification, no uniform, in a war-zone is a Crime, the enemy can (legally) blow your frelling brains out after you've surrendered. They can do other things to you as well-and you have no rights and no protections save those the enemy gives you of his or her own accord.

You're missing the point. If the law said that interrogators could use thumbscrews that wouldn't make it ok for them to do that. So I don't care what the law says about unlawful combatants. Holding people without trial is the root of tyranny. Inhuman treatment is thoroughly demeaning of a nation like the US that should be unpholding the values it espouses and generally sticks with.

There's no such thing as a moral vaccuum. Morality always exists. The fact that something may be within the law does not make it moral.

"Moral" doesn't apply in the same standards or concepts in Combat operations that it does in Civil life. Prisoners are generally not killed not because murder is wrong, but because there is an unspoken honor-system in place between uniformed combatants that can be termed "Rules of Engagement"-by not shooting your prisoners, you leave the enemy with the Honour requirement to not shoot those of your men whom have been taken prisoner. Likewise, blood-sport interrogation is frowned upon (i.e. torture-that-causes-injuries) for similar reasons. However, according EPW's the same rights as civilian prisoners recieve is NOT part of that. If you join in combat, you have accepted the odd and sick moral structures of that environment. The morality of warfare is not the morality of Civilian Life. This is one of the primary reasons Soldiers do not have Civil Rights.

"Moral" doesn't apply in the same standards or concepts in Combat operations that it does in Civil life. Prisoners are generally not killed not because murder is wrong, but because there is an unspoken honor-system in place between uniformed combatants that can be termed "Rules of Engagement"-by not shooting your prisoners, you leave the enemy with the Honour requirement to not shoot those of your men whom have been taken prisoner. Likewise, blood-sport interrogation is frowned upon (i.e. torture-that-causes-injuries) for similar reasons. However, according EPW's the same rights as civilian prisoners recieve is NOT part of that. If you join in combat, you have accepted the odd and sick moral structures of that environment. The morality of warfare is not the morality of Civilian Life. This is one of the primary reasons Soldiers do not have Civil Rights.

I'm sorry, but as these people are currently locked up in jail, and have been for some time now, battlefield ethics are clearly irrelevant. It's obviously something you're very into, but there are more fundamental principles that clearly need to override them at this point, several years after Afghanistan.

The non-Afghans taken prisoner fall under the catagory of "Mercenary" troops. Mercenaries are also unlawful combatants. These people weren't scoopd off safe peacetime streets, they were (for the most part) busted in a war-zone, bearing arms. That puts them firmly under military jurisdiction. They are not "Noncombatants" or the technical definition of same. They're enemy combatants engaging in what is defined under Geneva as a War Crime. (Yes, not wearing a uniform when you fight is a war-crime.)
Ergo, they are not accorded the rights and privelages that a Civilian Criminal recieves, and they are presumed guilty under Military Law.


What happens to captured mercenaries and non-combattants after the war is over under Geneva?

If you really want to break things down, one could compare any government with the Nazis.

This really is an excellent point. One I should have included. One could even extend that further and claim, that not only would nearly every organization (perhaps the staff of High Times excluded) should share several features with the Nazis. Looking a the number of individuals in an organization, and the number of individual events that go into it's forming and rise to prominence, there are a mind boggeling number of individual elements which might selected out for comparison. There's actually a phrase for this kind of fallacious thinking, "selection bias." It's either insidious or powerful, depending upon one's motives.

Kibolonia, I sometimes wonder if people like you in forums are for real, or just having a joke. You have failed completely to answer my question at the start (Can anyone from the US justify this...?).

Are they any less a person than you? Whether or not the conditions they find in Guantanamo are worse than those at their home country (and everything I've heard suggests they're far worse), how can you agree with them being held their without trial? Wouldn't you protest if another country locked you up without hope of escape, or justice?
I never tried to defend it because your false premise is more fun to kick the crap out of. When you make some kind of well founded argument, that isn't dependent entirely on emotional hyperbole to make it's impact we can talk about a reply in kind. But considering how lazy I am, I'd probably just acquiesce and retired to a thread about creationism. So there's your blueprint for easy victory without fear of a strategic Godwin strike. Are you capable of following through?

I think lives are important, and we should be more careful when they hang in the balance. But not because a life is a life the whole world over. That's laughably false. There are true believers (an extreme minority (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Rachel+Corey%22&btnG=Google+Search)), but you're not one of them. No, we've come to a more utilitarian conclusion. Lives are important because once they're undone, they can't be made whole again. It's the total reversibility of death, and our desire to control and define failure. But this is where it gets really twisted, there is no good answer for the number and magnitude of the errors we should tolerate. In the US, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't think incontrovertible evidence you're innocent is enough to save you from the death penalty, so long as you've already had a fair trail. He's what's known as an "origionalist," which is basically a sophist with a pedigree. Other people think other things.

Not all lives are equal, the gentle, the brave, the trustworthy, the wise, and the generous are always missed more that the cruel, the cowardly, the treacherous, the stupid, and the grasping. Through no fault of their own, most of the people in custody have been born into horrible lives far removed from civilization, and were not afforded the wealth of understanding we all take for granted. Then they were forced, in a moment, to choose sides, a choice that amounted to appearing to betray everything they knew. They chose badly, and they were weak. That they weren't wise enough to choose well isn't the fault of any American who ever lived. That they did not understand the scope of their own impotence is their fault alone. The consequences they now suffer are of their own ignorance and making.

The US has been at least as fair as gravity. It's hard to plausibly argue a person deserves more consideration from the universe, and it's a track record that's far better than any other nation has consistently managed in modern times. Even by the laws of many of the countries they were captured in, they don't have any right to a fair trail. Or indeed trials at all. Their rights are those the powerful decide to grant them. As to how I'd feel? If I'd been so careless as to put myself in such a situation, I'd feel pretty damn stupid since my life depends on my ability to avoid such a situation. But thanks to the fine work of Thomas L. Friedman, I really don't have any pity for them in any case. Much like the emotional arguments on this thread, his documentaries had entirely the opposite effect of that which was intended.

In so far as you'd like explanation, I see Cadillac-Gage has provided quite the treatise. Were one so inclined they might also care to google for information on the Supreme Court decision regarding the war crimes trials in Manila. That should be enlightening, or perhaps terrifying to those who expect the reputation of the United States to suffer any long term harm. That's what's so funny. People act like this and worse hasn't happened and been all but forgotten in living memory. In a perfect world, this current supreme court would have corrected that oversight of the past. But I don't get what I want all the time either.

The detention of people at Guantanamo Bay is clearly against international law. World governments and the UN should be far more aggresive in their diplomatic stance towards United States for this human rights violation

The reason why is

1. The UN HQ is in NYC...not a real great place to say that your condemning the U.S.

2. The U.S. and Russia both have the power to incinerate the world, and with the Russians being in complete dissarray and Bush in power well....the rest explains itself

3. A majority of the United States is completely apathetic to everything that doesn't have to do with them. Even if the world says something like "OMG I CANT BELIEVE TIHS HAPPENED!!! 111SHIFT+11111!" That won't really affect how the end result is anyhow. Seeing as Americans are really pissed off at Osama and his crackhead bastards, all the government has to do is say that they have his crackhead bastards in there and you have 270 million people who are screaming "Skin those ********************************************************************"

What happens to captured mercenaries and non-combattants after the war is over under Geneva?
Execution. Or whatever the victor feels like doing to them.
What will probably happen in the case of those interned at GitMo, is probably "Credit for time served" and a release back into their native environment-except for the really, really, bad ones. Those'll probably be turned over to their home-nations or the nations of their victims for trial (along with all evidence gathered that might apply in those nations.)
A few may actually swing on the gallows, but not many, Generally the U.S. doesn't hold someone that long and then execute them under Military Jurisdiction, (as opposed to the usual practice in Civilian courts) as the 'appeals' process is somewhat truncated in a Tribunal system-if they decide you're guilty enough to execute, they don't mess around with procedural appeals.

I bet that the first one will be Whispering Legs. Or is it too early for him?
That's really f*cking creepy. I was going to post almost EXACTLY what you said.

:eek:

The problem you seem to be overlooking is that at the basis of American law lies the belief that people can not be treated as though they have a status until they have been proven to have it. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." Someone suspected of being a terrorist deserves all the same legal protection as someone suspected of being a loiterer or litterer. To simply lock up thousands of people in legal limbo is a total betrayal of American justice. If they are not soldiers, then they are civilians. If you think that they are terrorists then send them to a court to prove it.

Also, your semantic crap about "stressful interrogations" needs some correction. Just because you can come up with another name for torture, does not mean it isn't torture. If you try to get information out of people by making them suffer until they're willing to tell you what they think you want to hear (not necessarily the truth, just what will get you to stop) it's torture. And it is useless for keeping our service people safe. Tortured people tend to lie a lot.

They can question in the courts their detention, but combatants captured on the battlefield must be detained, and may be legally held until the end of the war.

The right to detain captured enbemy combatants is a necessary humanitarian consideration.

You do know what they did before they could detain? I'll give you a clue, it involves a sword, and a bit of slicing.

You do know that there is a specific definition for for torture, and it isn't "anything the prisoner (trained by al Qaeda to make false accusations of torture), or AI don't like".

Various courts have held that coercive interrogation isn't torture. The fact thatr you think it is a semantic game should give you pause, because it betrays your ignorance.

If it's a model facility, why can't you have it inside your own country? Why does it have to be outside the purview of U.S. law? What is it you are trying to skulk around the boundaries of?

It is a transparently weak argument to suggest that if someone invades my country and bombs my mother's house, if she runs out in the street and throws a rock she becomes "a non-uniformed combatant" and it is now perfectly reasonable to ship her off to your offshore facility and treat her however you want because U.S. law doesn't have to be observed there.

I call bullshit on your argument.

If we held the terrorists at Gitmo in total darkness, in the mud, beat them daily and told them they were never going home, it'd be better than they deserve. These ppl aren't there because they ran a stop sign or cheated on their taxes. They are blood thirsty killers who were willing to do anything and kill anyone just to be able to kill westerners. Yes westerners, not just Americans. Given the chance they'd kill Britons, French, Spanish, Swedish, Danish, Irish, Belgian, etc. We're their second main enemy but not their only. Unless you're willing to convert to Islam and revert your lifestyle backwards at least 15 centuries then they do want you dead.

Let's examine some of the "horrible" treatment these terrorists are receiving.

1. They're given religiously sensitive meals 3 times a day. We could feed them pork and wine once a day and they'd have no choice but to eat it. But instead we make sure all their food is Islam approved. These ppl have never ate so well or so regularly in their lives!

2. They're given all the necessary supplies and time to conduct all religious observances. I can practically guarantee that the first Quran they've ever had to call their own was given to them by their US "oppressors". We bend over backwards to make sure they can be proper muslims. Don’t give me the flushing BS either. Seems that Newsweek hit piece failed to mention the original accuser recanted his story later. THE DAMN AL-QAEDA TRAINING MANUAL SPECIFICALLY SAYS TO MAKE UP FALSE ALLEGATIONS IF CAPTURED! What do you think would happen if one of the people abducted by terrorist asked for a bible? They’d behead him then probably sew the head back on the corpse so they could behead him a second time.

3. They’re given shelter from the weather, toilets (obviously the luxury “flushing” kind) and beds to sleep on at night. O no! What monsters we are. Maybe we should do like the North Vietnamese did and smash the terrorists into 3x4 bamboo cages then submerge them half in brackish swamp water for weeks on end. If they want to use the bathroom we could let them lie in their own waste too. But we don’t. How does the world stand for such “human rights abuse” as the USA practices.

4. We give them new clean clothes free of holes and parasites. These terrorists are often flea ridden and/or lice infected when captured. They’re not exactly up to 1st world hygiene standards. Now they can take regular showers, wash their clothes and live in a space devoid from vermin. This is the best conditions they’ve ever known.

5. They’re released! How many American vets died cold and alone in Soviet, Korean, and Vietnamese prisons? What were the last days of Gulf War pilot Scott Speicher like? Who knows, those Member In Good Standing UN nations don’t really keep detailed records of their atrocities. But these terrorists who are held until it’s determined they’re no longer a threat are released! Shazam! Not only are they released but they have all the fingers, toes, ears and other body parts they entered with to boot. They’re also whelt and scar free from their “horrible ordeal”.

Finally, how many of you crying crocodile tears for these sub-human animals know that some detainees are suing the US to REMAIN at Guantanamo? Yes you heard right, some are fighting their releases. They want to be assured a quality of life in their home countries that they had in US custody or else not be let go. Naturally some of you will completely deny these very real happening as it doesn’t fit your “America R Nazis” agenda but I don’t expect any more from you.

If it's a model facility, why can't you have it inside your own country? Why does it have to be outside the purview of U.S. law? What is it you are trying to skulk around the boundaries of?

It is a transparently weak argument to suggest that if someone invades my country and bombs my mother's house, if she runs out in the street and throws a rock she becomes "a non-uniformed combatant" and it is now perfectly reasonable to ship her off to your offshore facility and treat her however you want because U.S. law doesn't have to be observed there.

I call bullshit on your argument.
That was exactly the issue raised by the Manila war crimes trials where there was such a rush to the gallows. If they did it in the United States, there would be a question of who had ultimate jurisdiction. And it would be the People's government, not the military. Not so on bases abroad as it would turn out. The Supreme court has decided their power doesn't stretch that far. It's such a weak argument that it's been rule of law in the US for 60 years. Of course I should mention that the chief justice at the time did write a rather famous dissenting opinion to the descision. Consider it the traditional horizion of American compassion given force of law. And if your mom throws a rock at a guy with a machine gun he should shoot her, in the intrests of natural selection.

The men being held at GitMo are Unlawful Combatants.

Serious query: how do you know they are ? I hear lots of claims they do not receive trials for instance - are those claims true ? If so -how does one know the prisoners there are really guilty of anything ? What is the procedure to put people in GitMo ?

This is not an attack on GitMo - I seriously do not know these things.

"If it's a model facility, why can't you have it inside your own country? Why does it have to be outside the purview of U.S. law? What is it you are trying to skulk around the boundaries of?"

Guantanamo Bay is within US law.

The reason for chosing it is not difficult to work out, it does, however, require thought :eek:

Let us consider a prisoner held in the US. If he breaks loose, and has help, he could probably get to Mexico, provided the cops don't get him.

If he is held in Gitmo, and he breaks loose, where can he go?

He could try to escape over land, needing to get through the base security, the security on the fence, the mines, and machineguns on the perimeter, and then through the Cuban Army.

Or he could swim for it, and die of thrist.

The US Government chose Gitmo for the same reason they chose Alcatraz, it is the closest thing there is to escape proof.

You're in no position to call bullshit.

Serious query: how do you know they are ? I hear lots of claims they do not receive trials for instance - are those claims true ? If so -how does one know the prisoners there are really guilty of anything ? What is the procedure to put people in GitMo ?

This is not an attack on GitMo - I seriously do not know these things.

the process by which the bulk of the detainees were obtained, was their surviving the act of attacking U.S. troops, or surviving combat with the same.
Generally, you don't put POW's on trial. Since there is no established separate process for EpW's who aren't in a uniform, it's probably true that the majority have not faced a Trial-yet. Most will be held for the duration of the current conflict, then released, because it's much, much, easier on their guards not to shoot them.
Those that likely will face trials, are probably going to be found guilty of other War crimes-killing women and children, engaging in torture, standard military crimes. Their questioning at GitMo during their internment will probably separate the wheat from the chaff-that is, the really nasty ones, from the guys who were just dumb, and didn't know any better.
Why? Because long-term imprisonment is expensive and resource consuming, it's also not what we have the Guantanamo Bay Base for.

guys like Johnny Walker-Lindh will likely face U.S. courts for the act of Treason, while Abdul Abdullah, a guy who just did what his mullah told him was a good idea, likely will find himself being sent home when it's all over-what happens to him when he gets there is anyone's guess, as I doubt the people back home are going to be all that gentle with someone dumb enough to be on the wrong side.
i.e. in the case of those captured in Afghanistan, likely the only ones that have anything long-term to worry about, are the non-Afghans who were there as 'volunteers' for either the Taliban, or Al-Quaeda-those, and anyone who held significant rank in the Taliban.
As has happened in the past, some EPW's will want to enter the United States-don't ask me why, it's been a pretty steady trend in every war we've ever fought against anyone, even when the U.S. were much, much, nastier fellows (the 1840's for instance).

The difference between Military Jurisdiction, and Civil Jurisdiction is pretty broad in cases like this, so it's natural to be somewhat concerned by the eventual outcome. I predict that some of the guys who will eventually be released, even if they weren't terrorists, will go terrorist, while some others will not, and some of those who do not, will go pro-America for reasons that defy all normal psychology.

In the short-term, you won't see trials of anyone the controllng authority isn't pretty sure is guilty of something beyond fighting-but in the meantime, their legal limbo allows them to be held until the fighting is, for the most part, over, this will in all likelihood speed the release of the ones deemed 'harmless', as it does not serve American interests to hold these folks indefinitely, but it does serve the enemy's interests for these men to be held indefinitely.

Edit: by "No Established Process..." I mean, besides blowing their brains out in a summary execution.

If you come into contact with the armed forces of any nation, you're under their control unless you've got a damn good reason you shouldn't be, and they agree, or are compelled to ceed jurisdiction. This is just a simple fact of you're being under their power.

If you can't provide a good reason, then their rules will no doubt have some provision about how you should be handled, and who has ultimate authority, or at least a procedure to sort it all out.

In the case of Unlawful combatants, they're not part of an army, nor fighting in a war that will ever end as a legally protected representative of some nation. What's much worse is that if they're not on US soil, instead finding themselves on soil controlled by the US military. They've just discovered who their ultimate authority is unless the President or Congress decides to change something. Choosing someone who the US military says is an enemy over American sons and daughters is to invite what the Romans did to Carthage upon one's political career.

The Supreme Court of the US has held that they can even be summarily excecuted so long as a there is a minimal (and I do mean minimal) attempt to follow the military's internal rules on the matter. They are people *totally* naked before the full force of American might. Beyond the reach of our ideals, but absolutely secure in the grip of our power.

Let this be a lesson: If one of the post-industrial powers comes to your house with overwhelming force, cooperate fully until they leave, and which point you can look for CNN. Do not screw with them. If they want a place to sleep, insist they take the master bedroom. Yank their chain, and they *will* find a place that's effectively off the map. Right or wrong is irrelevent in the moment of that choice, which is being presented in terms of survive, die, or disappear.

depends what your modeling it on

ah Kibolonia, a fellow seattle-ite...(just a quick question, have you seen motercycle diaries-a movie-at all? What did you think of it-pm me maybe) anyway...

Both sides have brought up good points, but I see among kibolonia's many points he is starting to contradict himself. Earlier you mentioned that that the weak and the cowardly have put themselves in their place in the world through their own fault, and are unequal to the brave and the strong. You also mention that they were born in that position through no fault in their own. These two statements contradict one another. Also, you labeled a paragraph very nicely and outlined a "Lesson" that outlined what people should do if ever an industrial nation required your land and lodging. You said that you should "give them your master bedroom." Isn't that being weak? Is it the persons situation that controls his behavior or the persons character? I would say the answer to that question would more clearly define what type of person an individual is, not some rant about brave people and strong people. (Just hopeing you could clear that up, no offense intended.)

Also, all this talk about unlawfull-combatants, and combatants, and no one has even analyzed why unlawfull-combatants exist in the first place. Let me drop some knowledge....

These unlawfull-combatants, where not having a government seems to be one of their defining characteristics, are labeled as unlawfull-combatants for a simple reason. Their mission isn't one that involves conquest and oil. These people are fighting for government itself. They fight guerilla warfare because they don't have the luxury to choose their own style of fighting, don't have the luxury to choose when and where to drop their bombs. These "non-combatants" fight amongst the civilians, fight without uniforms, because they have no other way to fight. They don't have a government behind them because its been wiped out by a larger more powerful nation.

Its like this, pretend your living in the US, and Britain decides to take over. The US army is gone, but your 18 lets say and your father was killed while defending your neighborhood, your business went bankrupt because of the economic disruptions the war has brought on your countries infrastructure, and now you're broke unable to find a job, with a lot of time on your hands and some hate in your heart. You continuously see your mother cry at night, and your younger brother come home from school dirty and dusty, unable to take a bath because the waters been gone for a while, and hungry because you still haven’t found that job. So you decide to take up arms with a resistance. You don't have a government behind you because you are fighting to restore the government that was wiped out, and you don't have proper equipment or camouflage. You are fighting an enemy you see everyday outside your home, and also under this situation....you are a unlawfull-combatant. You get caught and put into Guantamano Bay. Do you deserve to be punished like a supposed "terrorists"? You fought for a noble-cause, if not the noble-est. Not for wealth or power, but for peace and government...for a restoration to your economy that has been completely neo-colonialized by a world superpower. These people are considered non-combatants because they have no other way out, and continue to fight without $20,000 of hi-tech equipment on their backs and a hum-vee escort.

Think about it, if people are willing to give up their lives in these suicide bombings...something must be wrong in their opinion to make them do this. If you think they simple "hate our freedom" I’m going to call you a dumbass straight up. And since good is a matter of perspective, who is to blame?

I think no-one is to blame, and we are all human beings. The prisoners in guantamano should be treated equall of not BETTER than prisoners of war, because they don't have the luxury of war. Cut the ridiculously expensive federal prisons the US has, take the funding from there. We are all people and we all want what is best for us and our loved ones. That we can agree on, and that’s what we should fix.....and definitely not through war.

Edit: By noncombatant, i meant unlawfull-combatatant, I apologize. The word now fits the context and has been edited.

ah Kibolonia, a fellow seattle-ite...(just a quick question, have you seen motercycle diaries-a movie-at all? What did you think of it-pm me maybe) anyway...

Both sides have brought up good points, but I see among kibolonia's many points he is starting to contradict himself. Earlier you mentioned that that the weak and the cowardly have put themselves in their place in the world through their own fault, and are unequal to the brave and the strong. You also mention that they were born in that position through no fault in their own. These two statements contradict one another. Also, you labeled a paragraph very nicely and outlined a "Lesson" that outlined what people should do if ever an industrial nation required your land and lodging. You said that you should "give them your master bedroom." Isn't that being weak? Is it the persons situation that controls his behavior or the persons character? I would say the answer to that question would more clearly define what type of person an individual is, not some rant about brave people and strong people. (Just hopeing you could clear that up, no offense intended.)

Also, all this talk about non-combatants, and combatants, and no one has even analyzed why non-combatants exist in the first place. Let me drop some knowledge....

These non-combatants, where not having a government seems to be one of their defining characteristics, are labeled as non-combatants for a simple reason. Their mission isn't one that involves conquest and oil. These people are fighting for government itself. They fight guerilla warfare because they don't have the luxury to choose their own style of fighting, don't have the luxury to choose when and where to drop their bombs. These "non-combatants" fight amongst the civilians, fight without uniforms, because they have no other way to fight. They don't have a government behind them because its been wiped out by a larger more powerful nation.

Its like this, pretend your living in the US, and Britain decides to take over. The US army is gone, but your 18 lets say and your father was killed while defending your neighborhood, your business went bankrupt because of the economic disruptions the war has brought on your countries infrastructure, and now you're broke unable to find a job, with a lot of time on your hands and some hate in your heart. You continuously see your mother cry at night, and your younger brother come home from school dirty and dusty, unable to take a bath because the waters been gone for a while, and hungry because you still haven’t found that job. So you decide to take up arms with a resistance. You don't have a government behind you because you are fighting to restore the government that was wiped out, and you don't have proper equipment or camouflage. You are fighting an enemy you see everyday outside your home, and also under this situation....you are a noncombatant. You get caught and put into Guantamano Bay. Do you deserve to be punished like a supposed "terrorists"? You fought for a noble-cause, if not the noble-est. Not for wealth or power, but for peace and government...for a restoration to your economy that has been completely neo-colonialized by a world superpower. These people are considered non-combatants because they have no other way out, and continue to fight without $20,000 of hi-tech equipment on their backs and a hum-vee escort.

Think about it, if people are willing to give up their lives in these suicide bombings...something must be wrong in their opinion to make them do this. If you think they simple "hate our freedom" I’m going to call you a dumbass straight up. And since good is a matter of perspective, who is to blame?

I think no-one is to blame, and we are all human beings. The prisoners in guantamano should be treated equall of not BETTER than prisoners of war, because they don't have the luxury of war. Cut the ridiculously expensive federal prisons the US has, take the funding from there. We are all people and we all want what is best for us and our loved ones. That we can agree on, and that’s what we should fix.....and definitely not through war.


Um, your sentiment is good, but your definitions need work-see, a "Non-Combatant" is bokyu-no-shootee. that is, they're an innocent bystander, who isn't involved in the fighting.

An Unlawful Combatant is a different animal entirely. Terrorists and Mercenaries are the two main types of Unlawful Combatants. Both have defining features-the Terrorist targets primarily non-military personnel with his or her attacks, and is indiscriminate, seeking only to cause as many civilian, non-combatant casualties as physically possible. These tend to be ineffectual in attacking armed opposition, and will by preference target unarmed, undefended, innocent bystanders.

Mercenaries, on the other hand, may or may not attack armed opponents, depending on the quality of the Mercenary's personal character and the nature of his or her (yes, there are "Her" mercs out there) employment. Generally a Mercenary is a foreigner fighting for an entity (be it a corporation, family, political movement, or government) in a war that does not (currently) include his or her home nation as a combatant, or for the side his or her home nation is fighting agianst-this is usually for some form of renumeration, whether money or some other form of payment.

Mercenaries are NOT protected under any current variant of the Geneva Conventions.

You're making the mistake, however, of confusing Terrorists (a form of unlawful combatant) with legitimate guerillas. A Legitimate Guerilla will, within the scope of his or her capability, target Military and/or Governmental targets. (i.e. a Guerilla will target City Hall or the National Guard Armory, a Terrorist will target a shopping mall or civilian train-station.)

Traditionally, the U.S. treats Guerillas as Soldiers, and Terrorists as...terrorists.

Terrorists have no rights, and under U.S. Law, neither do Guerillas-but under U.S. military tradition, if your guys aren't killing peasants to shut them up about your operations, setting off bombs in shopping areas, schools and hospitals, or kidnapping and beheading Civvie aid-workers, you're going to be treated like a Soldier-especially if you identify yourself as such-it's just traditional, it's how we work.

If, on the other hand, your guys have been using Rape as a psyops weapon, bombing/shelling hospitals, Clinics, schools, and shopping centres, blowing up city buses, and avoiding Military targets...well... you're neither a Guerilla, nor a Freedom Fighter. You'll get whatever we feel like giving you. and should probably count yourself lucky we aren't summarily shooting you, or opening your insides while you're alive and feeding your entrails to the dogs in the K9 unit.

The difference between a Soldier (even an irregular one) and a Scumbag is that simple-scumbags prefer unarmed victims, Soldiers prefer battle.

You're making the mistake, however, of confusing Terrorists (a form of unlawful combatant) with legitimate guerillas. A Legitimate Guerilla will, within the scope of his or her capability, target Military and/or Governmental targets. (i.e. a Guerilla will target City Hall or the National Guard Armory, a Terrorist will target a shopping mall or civilian train-station.)

Hmmm... how would you categorise a civilian that fights against invaders ? The "enemy civilians" in his country are still part of the invasion force, even if they are non-combatant. Take into account that the lone resistance fighter probably does not have the means to attack a well armed military base, even though he might prefer to destroy that instead of a school for the invaders children.

Consider the alternatives:
1. Never detain anyone captured in the fight against the Taliban (or al-Q, or anyone else who shoots at you or conspires to harm you).

Yeah, I'm sure that would work. "Sorry, old boy, we can't detain you since you've surrendered. We'll have to let you go. If only your friends who shot at us had half the sense. Go along now!"

2. Detain them, but never ask them questions. Set them up in individual cottages at The Crane Resort instead of Guantanamo, and make sure they have plenty of margaritas. If they get tired of living the high life, we let them go.

3. Try to strike a balance between going too far with interrogation and not going far enough. Release the ones we know haven't done anything, but detain the rest until we know more. Let everyone raise a stink about it, and know that you're going to make some major mistakes along the way - but that no one will ever hear what you really found out - or how it might have helped.

Maybe after determining their country of origin, we could treat them exactly how they would be treated if they were imprisoned in their homeland.
Oh, wait-that would be, in every case, far worse than they are being treated now. Thats not fair.

Tell them we're so sorry and give them all a first class ticket to the US and give each one a Shell station, Dunkin Donuts or a 7-11.

I think we should give each one of them a 20lb explosive charge that arms after 24 hours and that they can detonate on their own. Strap it to their bodies, along with a newly minted copy of the Koran.

Then drop them by parachute into France.

I think we should give each one of them a 20lb explosive charge that arms after 24 hours and that they can detonate on their own. Strap it to their bodies, along with a newly minted copy of the Koran.

Then drop them by parachute into France.


I thought you were going to suggest marooning them on an island.

I thought you were going to suggest marooning them on an island.
Well, if space travel were practical, I'd leave them on the Moon. It wouldn't be my fault if they ran out of air.

I think it's pretty morally lax to suggest that because the USA may not have technical obligations under the Geneva Conventions (and that is disputed, but we need not discuss it here), it is alright to hold prisoners without trial and torture them. Morality exists with or without the Geneva Conventions.

Here in the UK (or England, more accurately), we have been luckier than most. Since Magna Carta in 1215 there has been an established law, enforced with varying degrees of firmness, but very stringently since the 17th century, that no person can be locked up without trial, and that the rule of law prevails. Muderers, rapists, paedophiles, terrorists, psychopaths - many have done far worse than those held at Guantanamo, but all have gone to trial before their punishment.

I believe that Americans often look to Magna Carta as the ancestor of their own constitution, and our fiercely proud of the freedoms it handed down to them. Americans would never allow imprisonment without trial to be imposed upon their own psychopaths and rapists, because it is a right that only has any meaning at all when it is given to the worst that society has to offer. Otherwise it is for the government to judge who the criminals are, as it has at Guantanamo, and the door is wide open to tyranny.

Americans should all oppose Guantanamo, whether or not they believe that the inmates are terrorists, because those who support it clearly cannot regard other nationalities as worthy of the most fundamental building block of liberty. Shame on them.

Except for those banged up in Northern Ireland under the heady days of Internment or those Islamic plotters for three years in British jails before the Law Lords considered them illegal detentions?

We surely are a shining light of justice......

Except for those banged up in Northern Ireland under the heady days of Internment or those Islamic plotters for three years in British jails before the Law Lords considered them illegal detentions?

We surely are a shining light of justice......

Not to mention the interrogation techniques used in those days, which seem remarkably similar to the "treatment" at Guantanamo today.

Something tells me that some legal scholar thoroughly researched UK and French techniques that were held to be admissible under the UN Convention Against Torture.

snip



The assumption here, is that they're all "evil-doers".....

I agree with you there. The lack of basic human rights at that place (right to trial/lawyer etc) is appalling. Can anyone from the US justify what's going on there?

al Qaeda fighters do not have a nation state to represent them. Their nation state is the theocracy of Islam which has no earthly borders.

They are fed 3 meals a day with a varied diet in accordance with Islamic law.
They are provided a copy of the Qa'ran (some have backed up toilets in protest using it's pages)
They are sheltered from the weather.
They do not perform any type of work and exercise is voluntary.

al Qaeda fighters do not have a nation state to represent them. Their nation state is the theocracy of Islam which has no earthly borders.

They are fed 3 meals a day with a varied diet in accordance with Islamic law.
They are provided a copy of the Qa'ran (some have backed up toilets in protest using it's pages)
They are sheltered from the weather.
They do not perform any type of work and exercise is voluntary.

You forgot to add that it would have been legal to shoot them out of hand at the moment they tried to surrender.

They are fed 3 meals a day with a varied diet in accordance with Islamic law.
They are provided a copy of the Qa'ran (some have backed up toilets in protest using it's pages)
They are sheltered from the weather.
They do not perform any type of work and exercise is voluntary.

But, if I understood correctly, are still human beings being imprisoned without a trial. In a golden cage perhaps, but a cage nevertheless.

I do understand that giving everyone a speedy trial under the circumstances is a bit hard though.

Can someone explain to me how the US figured this one out?

1. Let's attack a criminal organisation that uses terrorism.
2. Let's fight them as if they were a nation like, say, France.
3. Let's imprison the ennemies we capture in a war against an organisation as if it was a country, BUT let's declare these prisonners "illegal combattant".

Well, of course they are illegal combattants. That's what you declared war against. Thios whole matter against terrorist should be handled in the criminal courts with charges of terrorism and illegal activities. Not by a military tribunal. If you want to pursue the charade of Al-Quaeda as a nation, you better consider their illegal combattant as part of their army, since it is what they are.

It seems the US is getting away with having is cake and eating it too, and all because of semantics.

Holding people without trial or prospect for release is bullshit. If you can't prove the guy's a terrorist you should release him. If you end up capturing him on the battlefield again, you know it's not coincidence, and I don't care what happens to him. If you can prove he's a terrorist, do whatever you want to him, but it just doesn't make sense to keep so many people locked up with no prospect of release.

You forgot to add that it would have been legal to shoot them out of hand at the moment they tried to surrender.
That probably would have been a better option.

But, if I understood correctly, are still human beings being imprisoned without a trial. In a golden cage perhaps, but a cage nevertheless.

I do understand that giving everyone a speedy trial under the circumstances is a bit hard though.

If they had been detained by police on suspicion of a crime, they would be entitled to a trial.

If they had been detained by military forces in combat, they would not be entitled to a trial. Only a military tribunal or hearing in which it would be decided that they were indeed combatants, or non-combatants. Non-combatants would be released. Combatants can be detained until the end of hostilities - in essence, forever - without trial.

You'll notice that there have been tribunals - and that non-combatants have been released. Everyone else is still there - and all have had the opportunity for tribunals.

A few have refused to appear at their own tribunals.

ah Kibolonia, a fellow seattle-ite...

Think about it, if people are willing to give up their lives in these suicide bombings...something must be wrong in their opinion to make them do this. If you think they simple "hate our freedom" I’m going to call you a dumbass straight up. And since good is a matter of perspective, who is to blame?

I think no-one is to blame, and we are all human beings. We are all people and we all want what is best for us and our loved ones. That we can agree on, and that’s what we should fix.....and definitely not through war.
I didn't see Motorcycle Diaries because Che Guevara is a symbol of enforced poverty, warfare, strife, and the end of progress. I don't care how his best summer vacation went. I also don't care about the movies show casing the more human side of Hitler. It's just not something I'm in to. Steamboy, Millions, those were dope.

Look the weak are unequal to the strong. The strong have power over the weak. That's what makes the strong strong and the weak weak. It might not be fair, but fair has nothing to do with it. The weak, if they're interested in keeping what little they have would do well to recognize that disparity and comport themselves accordingly. If they fail to sufficently please those who have power over them, have a nice 6 by 9 vacation.

As to my lesson: For the post-industrial powers, if they're not post-industrial: Run. And it's not being weak. Being weak is an inescapable state of your being, irrespective of whether they show up, or what they might demand. They can destroy your life and everything you posess easily from over the horizon. Now recognizing that you're are weak, completely naked and directly in front of the best the Military Channel has to offer, they're giving you a choice. Comply, die, disappear. I would want to be on the good side of those people. I would be a compliance super-star. But I'm not down with symbolic suffering.

Let me "drop" a little perspective back. Kamakazies were suicide bombers (literally) so clearly Japanese Imperialism was just. Oops. No, they were just certain they'd go to a glorious afterlife too. You're projecting your values on to them. They don't share them. The proof is in their actions. You find the prospect of murdering a bus load of children as you end your life to be incomprehensible, and revolting to your very nature, as no doubt do we all. The suicide bombers think its a great idea, a noble even glorious final act. They're not people capable of even having this conversation. Rather than worry about the inequities of their lives, I'd be more interested in ameliorating the inequities in the lives of their would-be victims.

It seems the US is getting away with having is cake and eating it too, and all because of semantics.
There are answers to these questions, that you have not sought them speaks volumes.

The Supreme Court of the United States of American has decided that our laws do not extend as far as our ability to project power.

Guantanamo Bay is within US law.

No, it isn't. That's the point.

Let us consider a prisoner held in the US. If he breaks loose, and has help, he could probably get to Mexico, provided the cops don't get him. If he is held in Gitmo, and he breaks loose, where can he go?

This is nonsense, you might as well be trying to argue that all U.S. prisons should be built on the moon, because your prisons are easy to break out of. Utter drivel.

He could try to escape over land, needing to get through the base security, the security on the fence, the mines, and machineguns on the perimeter, and then through the Cuban Army.

Or he could swim for it, and die of thrist.

The US Government chose Gitmo for the same reason they chose Alcatraz, it is the closest thing there is to escape proof.

I see, so I guess America possesses no islands of its own? It builds its infamous facility in another country because it needed an island and didn't have one? Or could it be that things transpire there that are illegal on U.S. soil? Come on, now, how foolish do you think we are?

Maybe Kibolonia, you should remember that the reverse side also has a reverse side, and although I do condemn killing in any form, but the reverse side also has a reverse side. I sense a lot of marxism and dependency theory in your statements. As for suicide bombers, that was a miliatary strategy that focused on national pride rather than religion. I havn't projected any values onto them.

As for symbolic suffering, you bear the cross you're given, carry it out of sight if you must, but never put it down to comply with something that goes against your very charecter.

Guantamano Bay is below standard when it comes to international human rights. These people are dragged from their homes, their lives interupted for years, usually because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Even if they wern't terrorists when they came inside Guantamano Bay, they sure as hell will become terrorists once they are set free.

These people are dragged from their homes, their lives interupted for years, usually because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Is there documentation for this - and not a single case, but something to support "these people", implying most if not all of them? If every man that was near the scene of the crime were arrested it would take a much larger place than GITMO to hold them.

Is there documentation for this?
No. There's just documentation for the contrary.

I call BS on the 'enemy combatants'. Most were taken randomly from the street, not the battlefield. This automatically grants them the basic rights of anyone arrested by the police. Deportation laws and all the rest must be followed.

Second. You call them 'Illegal combatants' I cal them guerrillas. Massive difference but in the end, the difference is defined by the US. Whoop-dee fucking-doo, the people with the least interest in you being legitamate define wether you are. The joys of 'freedom' eh?

And you are certain of this for what reason?

Most were taken randomly from the street, not the battlefield.

Proof?

Why would the administration run gitmo to widespread condemnation at the cost of millions "just" to imprison random people?

Its ironic, the people who claim the US won't prove its case have presented nothing to prove their case.

Practice what you preach.

"Second. You call them 'Illegal combatants' I cal them guerrillas. Massive difference but in the end, the difference is defined by the US."

Wrong.

A Guerilla must follow the rules of war, terrorists don't follow the rules of war.

As I said before, the people who claim that the Illegal Combatant classification is made-up are merely broadcasting their own ignorance. This topic has been dealt elsewhere in this thread, and doubtless on this board. Read before you post.

"No, it isn't. That's the point."

Its a US military base, the UCMJ applies there. That is US law.

"This is nonsense, you might as well be trying to argue that all U.S. prisons should be built on the moon, because your prisons are easy to break out of. Utter drivel."

1) Terrorists are slightly different to tax-fiddlers, terrorists are slightly more dangerous than tax-fiddlers.

2) Prisons aren't easy to break out of, and even if they were, the point is what can they do after a break out, and of what importance is it.

You simply don't understand that terrorists are dangerous people. This justifies holding them in a special prison.

"I see, so I guess America possesses no islands of its own? It builds its infamous facility in another country because it needed an island and didn't have one? Or could it be that things transpire there that are illegal on U.S. soil? Come on, now, how foolish do you think we are?"

The terrorists were captured in wartime, which is why the military holds them.

Why not on any old island?

Simple (to someone with a braincell): Every Island the US has, from Manhattan Island, to Guam, has a local elected government, and some, a state government.

Neither would be enthusiastic about the US Government importing hundreds of killers.

On the other hand, Guantanamo Bay is administered by the DoD, no State Governor to convince, no Mayor complaining about how he will lose the next election if he allows a terrorist prison.

You simply don't understand that terrorists are dangerous people. This justifies holding them in a special prison.

You make as little sense as G.W. Bush proclaiming that the terrorists attacked because "they hate freedom".

You have done nothing to convince anyone of a valid reason for having to put Guantanamo in a foreign country. I will come back to this tomorrow, it is far too late to keep up this drivel.

Okay I have done a bunch more digging and have found that the 9th Circuit Court has finally trumped the U.S. Administration on this issue and has told them that in fact U.S. courts DO have jurisdiction over Guantanamo. Until that ruling, the Administration held that as Cuba is not on American soil, U.S. criminal law did not apply to anything going on there, and U.S. courts had no right to hear habeas corpus cases issuing from Guantanamo. They still get around anti-torture laws by invoking some odd "maritime territory" statute.

So there is now one less reason to maintain the prison in Cuba. If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to operate your prison on Communist territory. And please don't try to argue that it is placed there in case someone escapes...because if your defense against enemy infiltration is supposed to be the little body of water separating Cuba from Florida, I hate to think what else is going on in your defense community. Ever been to Miami? There is no shortage of Cubans who managed the crossing. I would like to think the U.S. military is a bit better at their job than to have to rely on locating the prison on an island.

Are there not military bases and prisons all over the United States? Did the politicians in those places prevent them from being built? You would have us believe these politicians are content to have serial killers and mass-murderers but would throw up their hands in dismay at the idea of a non-uniformed combatant being held in their state...OMG whatever will we do if one escapes?! And do you REALLY think these "terrorists" (and all the others) could escape from real-life U.S. military detention? Come on now. Give it a little more thought.

Of course, there is proof. A few days ago there was prrof in this forum, with a thread on prisoner abuse on the afghanistan prisons (A man was caught and killed in the prison, and it turned out the police man who had caught him was the actual culprit.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4570941.stm (If you look up these men, both were found innocent after death.)

There is evidence out there, u just have to take the time to find it. People are being taken from their homes. Just the other day the lead political member of the sunni or shite (forget which party) party was mistakenly dragged from his home after US troops raided it, trashing the place. This was a mistake that was reported, I shudder to think of all the cases were nothing was reported, or the casses were the civilians had no political clout so they simply disappeared, without the media's attention.

I don't know if kidnappings of INNOCENT people occur every day, but I do know it happens. The large portion of people that are taken to these prisons are released later on. This also proves that these people are innocent.

"Are there not military bases and prisons all over the United States?"

There is a HUGE difference between US soldiers, and terrorists.

"They still get around anti-torture laws "

Rubbish. The US laws making torture illegal apply to military officers where ever they are.

"You would have us believe these politicians are content to have serial killers and mass-murderers but would throw up their hands in dismay at the idea of a non-uniformed combatant being held in their state...OMG whatever will we do if one escapes?! And do you REALLY think these "terrorists" (and all the others) could escape from real-life U.S. military detention? Come on now. Give it a little more thought."

They're obliged to imprison ciminals tried and convicted in their own jurisdiction. They're not obliged to imprison people held by other jurisdictions. I don't suppose you heard of NIMBY (Not In MY BackYard)

Whether I think they could, or couldn't escape is irrelevant, just as your opinion of the chance of an escape is irrelevant. The point is that it should be allowed for in each stage of planning.

"So there is now one less reason to maintain the prison in Cuba. If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to operate your prison on Communist territory. And please don't try to argue that it is placed there in case someone escapes...because if your defense against enemy infiltration is supposed to be the little body of water separating Cuba from Florida, I hate to think what else is going on in your defense community. Ever been to Miami? There is no shortage of Cubans who managed the crossing. I would like to think the U.S. military is a bit better at their job than to have to rely on locating the prison on an island."

You'd have me believe that people starting a swim from the wrong side of Cuba will get to Florida, about 1000km assuming he stays near the coast?

Will he be able to wait around for weeks to make/obtain a boat? If people start sending '59 Buicks to Guantanamo Bay, watch out.

Will the Cubans just let a boat go to the US? They've murdered people for less.

Give it some thought.

Here's amap of Cuba. You will notice, if you are willing to look at it, that Guantanamo Bay is on the South Coast, and Florida is over 200km from the North Coast (nearest points)

http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/Havana/cuba-map.jpg

"You have done nothing to convince anyone of a valid reason for having to put Guantanamo in a foreign country. I will come back to this tomorrow, it is far too late to keep up this drivel."

Rubbish.

Proof?

Why would the administration run gitmo to widespread condemnation at the cost of millions "just" to imprison random people?
You think that your country's military spendins is reasonable?

Can someone explain to me how the US figured this one out?

1. Let's attack a criminal organisation that uses terrorism.
2. Let's fight them as if they were a nation like, say, France.
3. Let's imprison the ennemies we capture in a war against an organisation as if it was a country, BUT let's declare these prisonners "illegal combattant".

Well, of course they are illegal combattants. That's what you declared war against. Thios whole matter against terrorist should be handled in the criminal courts with charges of terrorism and illegal activities. Not by a military tribunal. If you want to pursue the charade of Al-Quaeda as a nation, you better consider their illegal combattant as part of their army, since it is what they are.

It seems the US is getting away with having is cake and eating it too, and all because of semantics.
This is something I can't understand either. They call it war but no country is in war against them. How can there be "legal compatants" when there is no legal army. It's not war. They can't do anything they want just because they are "official" and the opposite is not.

You'd have me believe that people starting a swim from the wrong side of Cuba will get to Florida, about 1000km assuming he stays near the coast?

Maybe *serious thinking* they could WALK on the other side and steel a boat from there? :D

Hmmm... how would you categorise a civilian that fights against invaders ? The "enemy civilians" in his country are still part of the invasion force, even if they are non-combatant. Take into account that the lone resistance fighter probably does not have the means to attack a well armed military base, even though he might prefer to destroy that instead of a school for the invaders children.

The same way we were taught to fight in the event of being trapped in enemy territory-you shoot soldiers. Not kids, not women with babycarts, soldiers.
A Humvee full of GI's is a legit military target. So is the poor bastard walking point (and the rest of his squadmates.) A city bus full of women, villagers, and kids, is not.

Resistance is Resistance, when it is coupled with Courage, Courage means that you swallow your doubts and your fear (which you will have) and go after the Military targets.


Terrorists go after civilians, they also do it because it creates headlines, it advertises them. They also do it because they're essentially without anything resembling either honour, or courage. Suicide is a coward's way out, taking civilians with, is cowardice married to murder.

In the Military ethical structure, the Guerilla who uses an AK-47 on a Humvee is worthy of respect. The thug who sprays a schoolbus full of kids, is worthy only of contempt.

This was just as true in the Kosovo situation, as it is in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Okay I have done a bunch more digging and have found that the 9th Circuit Court has finally trumped the U.S. Administration on this issue and has told them that in fact U.S. courts DO have jurisdiction over Guantanamo. Until that ruling, the Administration held that as Cuba is not on American soil, U.S. criminal law did not apply to anything going on there, and U.S. courts had no right to hear habeas corpus cases issuing from Guantanamo. They still get around anti-torture laws by invoking some odd "maritime territory" statute.

So there is now one less reason to maintain the prison in Cuba. If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to operate your prison on Communist territory. And please don't try to argue that it is placed there in case someone escapes...because if your defense against enemy infiltration is supposed to be the little body of water separating Cuba from Florida, I hate to think what else is going on in your defense community. Ever been to Miami? There is no shortage of Cubans who managed the crossing. I would like to think the U.S. military is a bit better at their job than to have to rely on locating the prison on an island.

Are there not military bases and prisons all over the United States? Did the politicians in those places prevent them from being built? You would have us believe these politicians are content to have serial killers and mass-murderers but would throw up their hands in dismay at the idea of a non-uniformed combatant being held in their state...OMG whatever will we do if one escapes?! And do you REALLY think these "terrorists" (and all the others) could escape from real-life U.S. military detention? Come on now. Give it a little more thought.


Why not? Several States protested being used to house captured Nazis, after all, and California seemed quite happy to have japanese-americans shipped off to the Nevada and Arizona deserts...

The main argument I could see the Governors coming up with, is "Prison Overcrowding"-which is a serious problem in some states (serious enough they pay other states to hold their naughtiest).

The second argument, is that unlike most Serial Killers, some of these internees have real training, and a good deal of motivation. I look off my side window at a paper mill where they make their own bleach. The tank-farm is an easy rifle-shot away, one or two bullets can blanket quite a bit of the area where I live in lethal fumes, provided there's no chemical-fires to speed the process and make even more lethal fumes.
The park where the shot is best taken from, is three blocks away, and overlooks both the papermill, and a U.S. Navy base. A shooter could make the shot, and be gone from the scene before the first 911 call summoned police.

Most Serial Killers are more selective than that.

You think that your country's military spendins is reasonable?

Within the limits of the Government's convoluted procurement process, it is. A friend of mine (at the time) was putting together a "Black Book" of commonly-available radioshack parts that could be used to repair frequently-broken parts of the PATRIOT radar system-it's a 'black book' in this case, because a three or four dollar switch on the market in Leesville, costs the U.S. Taxpayer $350 (1991) to draw through the 'approved' procurement process, and buying said switch is bokyu illegal to do. We broke the law frequently as the budget shrank, in order to keep our gear running. (Clinton Years).
The problem, is a system overseen by Congressmen owned by Lobbyists and enforced with all the rationality of any ZT policy you could name. Spending far outstrips actual costs, even using the lowest bidders. Thus generating something called "Pork" which is usually translated into Honoraria, political contributions (both sides, how do you think McDonnell Douglas got away with selling advanced missile guidance systems to Red China?), and good, old-fashioned corruption.

Okay I have done a bunch more digging and have found that the 9th Circuit Court has finally trumped the U.S. Administration on this issue and has told them that in fact U.S. courts DO have jurisdiction over Guantanamo. Until that ruling, the Administration held that as Cuba is not on American soil, U.S. criminal law did not apply to anything going on there, and U.S. courts had no right to hear habeas corpus cases issuing from Guantanamo. They still get around anti-torture laws by invoking some odd "maritime territory" statute.

So there is now one less reason to maintain the prison in Cuba. If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to operate your prison on Communist territory.
That's going to get nuked. No doubt about it. Judge Reinhardt's going to get a smack down, which he's appearently used to. And the excecution of this descision is stayed until after the Supreme court rules on Al Odah v. US.

One of the arguments in Al Odah v. US is pretty "novel." It puts forth the idea that the courts do have jurisdiction abroad, presumably into all US controlled areas, because of the "Separation of Powers." If the courts don't have jurisdiction, then the other branches of government are unchecked by the courts. Given the subject matter, as keen as the justices might be to extend judicial power, I think they'll take a pass. They'll probably decide, quite persuasively, that congress checks the executive branch in this respect. Since the pen that signs the checks is mightier than the one that signs the executive memos, it's a very effective way to pass the buck. It's important to consider the make up of the court in this, and that several members are rather openly political. O'Conner(iirc) having even mentioned that she'd wait for a Republican President to give up the bench as a way of thanking Reagan for the opportunity. And keep in mind Scalia even believes that if a person was convicted in a fair trial and other evidence comes to light proving their innocence, they don't necessarily deserve a new trial. He's not siding with anyone from Camp X-ray. A bunch of people everyone knows don't count, and are probably assholes, this one smells like a bone they throw to all the shut-ins who've got nothing to do all day but hate judges and write letters.

In either case, since it hasn't been decided, you're wrong, the US courts don't have jurisdiction yet, and they may never. It would be nice if something was done about that black mark from Manila though.

It's tough, the area the enemy combatents fall into is the area treaties are supposed to cover, but those people were specifically left out of the treaties that have force of law in the US, and the changes that apply to them have not been ratified. And NEVER will be at this point, I'm quite sure.

But I was wrong earlier. I said other governments were doing nothing, a couple are doing something, they're pursuing supreme court cases. MUWAUAHAHAHA. Man, I bet a lot of people who live in the UK are really going to need a picture of titties close at hand to quell their rage when this decision comes down.

Re Helioterra,

I believe LBJ invented war on concepts with his War on Poverty. That said, after WWII it became politically expedient to call wars other than what they were. But what's going on in Afganistan and Iraq are wars. Wars with elements of governments no longer in power, and groups of people that never were in power. They organize themselves loosly in no small part because of what historically happened to well organized militant groups. Chang Kai Shek's massacer of the Communists for instance. But because we consider these types of bitches beneath our contempt and undeserving of our protections, they're not protected under the version of the Geneva conventions the US adheres to. This is bad, for them. See, might makes the rules, irrespective of right or wrong. Our protections and compassion is their only shield. Their choices just aren't conducive with a free and fruitful life. In fact, their actions are the kind of things that have historically invited total war and worse upon peoples.

The US Supreme Court has established in separate cases that the US can be at war with a non-state group, and that the US can be in an undeclared war.

This is a war, morally, and legally.

The US Supreme Court has established in separate cases that the US can be at war with a non-state group, and that the US can be in an undeclared war.

This is a war, morally, and legally.
In that case, members of the non-state group should be considered member of their standing army and not "ennemy combattants".

In that case, members of the non-state group should be considered member of their standing army and not "ennemy combattants".

If they wore a common uniform, with a common identifying emblem, and had an official ID card, and didn't conceal themselves as civilians, then they would be treated as members of a standing army.

Read the rulebook, please.

There are no rulebooks about wars against concept.

There are no rulebooks about wars against concept.

If they want to be treated as a "standing army", they can consult the rulebook.

No common emblem, no published public chain of command, no common uniform, no ID card, no dog tags - but shooting at our soldiers

- enemy combatant.

If they want to wear a distinctive uniform with a distinctive emblem, carry ID cards, publish their chain of command publicly, etc.

- prisoner of war as a soldier from a standing army

Maybe they're too afraid to walk outside in a uniform that identifies them as the enemy.

I agree with you there. The lack of basic human rights at that place (right to trial/lawyer etc) is appalling. Can anyone from the US justify what's going on there?

I'm sorry, but terrorists don't deserve rights whatsoever :) :sniper:

I'm sorry, but terrorists don't deserve rights whatsoever :) :sniper:

Neither do Americans, especially not nationalists.

Neither do Americans, especially not nationalists.

So, assuming that you quoted what I said and then responded with this, I can safely assume you think Americans are terrorists, right? Americans are not terrorists. Your failure to see this shows your idiocy.

I agree with you that Guantanamo Bay is horrific, but at least they allowed Red Cross monitors in. China still doesn't allow that, even now.

Neither do Americans, especially not nationalists.

So, defending America against a group whose sole avowed purpose is to destroy the United States is somehow wrong?

Defending your country IS nationalism. Inescapably.

So, defending America against a group whose sole avowed purpose is to destroy the United States is somehow wrong?

Defending your country IS nationalism. Inescapably.

Well said. The person who said that Americas don't deserve rights is obviously a moron who sides with the terrorists on this matter. Treasonous if you ask me.

Compared to what? In many ways it's nicer than the homes they previously had. Many of the people enjoying their complimentary vacation probably never even dreamed of indoor plumbing. The vast majority of the world is a real shithole. And you can blame the people living there.

While some of them aren't terribly useful in fighting terrorists, the majority of them did take up arms against their betters (proof is who's deciding where they spend their time) and the rest were too stupid to go out of their way to comply with their opportunity presented itself. They are off the map. No nation will speak up for them. No nation will put it's ass on the line for ANY of the people there. Had they the political will, nations could no doubt force the issue. They don't care because *YOU* don't *really* care.


HELLO? "take up arms against their betters? how can anyone judge who is 'better'?

In that case, members of the non-state group should be considered member of their standing army and not "ennemy combattants".

This has been pointed out time and time again.

There are 3 types of combatants:

-Soldiers: representatives of a recognised national government, who wear uniforms/clearly identifying marks, bear arms openly, have a chain of command, and obey the rules of war

-Guerillas/resisters/etc. : not representing a recognised national government, but otherwise like soldiers

-Illegal combatants: terrorists, and mercenaries. Terrorists are fighters who hide among the civilian population, do not bear arms openly, do not wear uniforms, and do not obey the rules of war.

The terrorists cannot be classified as soldiers because they do not represent a recognised national government, they cannot be classified as guerillas because they satisfy none on the aforementioned criteria.

They are illegal combatants, and have no rights under international law.

EC, you should read before you post.

"I agree with you that Guantanamo Bay is horrific"

Such an overwhelming body of non-existant evidence.

This has been pointed out time and time again.

There are 3 types of combatants:

-Soldiers: representatives of a recognised national government, who wear uniforms/clearly identifying marks, bear arms openly, have a chain of command, and obey the rules of war

-Guerillas/resisters/etc. : not representing a recognised national government, but otherwise like soldiers

-Illegal combatants: terrorists, and mercenaries. Terrorists are fighters who hide among the civilian population, do not bear arms openly, do not wear uniforms, and do not obey the rules of war.

The terrorists cannot be classified as soldiers because they do not represent a recognised national government, they cannot be classified as guerillas because they satisfy none on the aforementioned criteria.

They are illegal combatants, and have no rights under international law.

EC, you should read before you post.

"I agree with you that Guantanamo Bay is horrific"

Such an overwhelming body of non-existant evidence.
This is not a war against an army. Get it. It's a war against a criminal organisation. I don't care how the rules are printed. If you decide to go against a terrorist organisation, you damn well better find these "terrorist" as the army of your opponent.

If I decide to go to war against the US postal services, and capture some postal workers, you're telling me that I am within my rights to kill them on the spot if I take them from their homes in the middle of the night as they are not wearing "uniform"? Great set of rules you have there.

and that is my bloody point : the rules were not designed for this kind of miltary action. Using the Geneva Conventions as written instead of using the spirit of the law underlying it is just plain stupid. Yes, i've seen the rules. Yes I know the different provisions for soldier, freedom fighter and terrorist. I'm saying you are fighting a terrorist organisation. Of course they are dressed as civilians. that's their Modus Operandi. Use a modicus of common sense for crying out loud.

What I'm getting at, again, is that the rules as written are not designed for this war. You HAVE to disreagard them and, in my opinion, treat them as POWs under the Geneva Conventions. Laws, as written, be damned.

Civilian Law, Domici. Military Law is not based on that. The accused in a Courts-Martial is assumed to be Guilty, and must prove his or her innocence, rather than the presumption-of-innocence accorded to American Civilians.
Unlawful Combatants are being held in a Military Facilty under Military Law and Regulations at GitMo.
This is a significantly different legal, and social, environment from a Civilian-run holding facility in the Continental U.S. and Hawaii.

But military law can't be applied to anyone who isn't proven to be a military figure. Otherwise we live in a police state. If military law can be applied to anyone who the military has an interest in prosecuting then what exactly is the value of civilian law?

If you aren't a soldier then the civilian courts have to determine if you are fit to be tried in a military court.

HELLO? "take up arms against their betters? how can anyone judge who is 'better'?
I'm sorry. I thought we could agree it was better to be powerful than powerless. But maybe that's because I'm not hoping to be a medalist in the victim olympics (I bet you, being the sensitive bastard you are, are going for the silver). But I could come up with any number of tests, post-industrial >> agrarian by every standard that depreciates suffering.

Rubbish. The US laws making torture illegal apply to military officers where ever they are.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040610-062546-5753r.htm

Not at Guantanamo, they don't.

To: Aeruillin and
Patriot Americans.

Aeruillin brings up a good point about the American nationals, and I mean no disrespect here. How can you define what is good or bad, what is a terrorist and what is not a terrorist? The only reason that Sadam is in a jail cell and bush is free is because we won the war. If the situation was reversed, and a dictatorship was a more effective form of government than democracy was, you'd be pledging allegiance to sadam just as Iraq's are being pushed to a western lifestyle. My point is, you can define what terrorism is in the English language, but who can't define who a terrorist is because good is a matter of perspective.

I found a good quote, ""When a president stands up before the planet and says an American comes first, he is only preaching hatred. When a president stands up and says we don't honor our missile treaty with the Russians, he is only preaching arrogance. When he refuses to condemn what is happening in Palestine, he is only preaching tyranny."

Point of that quote is that the US is the original aggressor, not these farmers and children who join groups like alqaada (sp?). I find killing to be wrong in any form, and two wrongs don't make a right (don't get me wrong i'm not encouraging "terrorism".). But it is the US's foreign policy that shuffles these countries around and exploits periphery's around the world. Its the US' enforcement of economic policies around the world that benefit the US at the expense of other countries that have no voice that piss people off in those countries. What do you get? Terrorism.....Its actually really easy to hate the US if you just look at its past. Take two courses in Poli Sci and you'll feel your stomach getting queasy already. We also have to remember the good things too, however, if those good things don't reach these periphery countries, and they continuously only see the bad, I'm not surprised something like 9/11 occurred. Its very sad and I'm very sorry to those who lost family members....but I’m not surprised.

Ah yes, another blame America for everything post. I suppose it is more fun and less intellectually challenging to assign blame than credit.

The US is no different than any other nation - we will pursue what is best for the US. Period. Our foreign policy has been egocentric in the past and there were definitely some mistakes made.

A good argument can be made that had the US not made some of those decisions the world would be a much worse place. For ex. had Iran won the Iran/Iraq war - which they likely would have done had it not been for the intercession of the US to create a stalemate.

Then, in September 2001, all that changed. The US took on a proactive role in cleaning up the mess. We will no longer stand idle while people are murdered by their so called leaders. We will not wring our hands and pursue endless diplomacy against loose-cannon dictators. We will encourage countries who pursue positive reforms, and discourage those who do not.

The US has been consistent in this endeavor. Have they jumped into every hotspot in the world? No, of course not. The USA is cleaning up one step at a time. Starting with the easier jobs first.

Meanwhile the rest of the world stands around in dismay - wondering why we are taking action instead of the historical endless and fruitless diplomacy. They fail to see the positive results; Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq; Elections in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Elections in Palestine. The abandonment of WMD pursuits by Libya.

Sorry World, but it won't fit into a nice, tidy 30 minute miniseries for you to measure the progress. However, the days of standing by, wringing our hands and feeble gestures, at least as far as the US is concerned, are over.
If other nations want to join with us we welcome them. If they do not, we hold no quarrel. However the USA will no longer stand idle or provide quarters for tyrants, despots and murderers.

We will not tolerate them, will you?

To: Aeruillin and
Patriot Americans.

Aeruillin brings up a good point about the American nationals, and I mean no disrespect here. How can you define what is good or bad, what is a terrorist and what is not a terrorist? The only reason that Sadam is in a jail cell and bush is free is because we won the war. If the situation was reversed, and a dictatorship was a more effective form of government than democracy was, you'd be pledging allegiance to sadam just as Iraq's are being pushed to a western lifestyle. My point is, you can define what terrorism is in the English language, but who can't define who a terrorist is because good is a matter of perspective.

I found a good quote, ""When a president stands up before the planet and says an American comes first, he is only preaching hatred. When a president stands up and says we don't honor our missile treaty with the Russians, he is only preaching arrogance. When he refuses to condemn what is happening in Palestine, he is only preaching tyranny."

Point of that quote is that the US is the original aggressor, not these farmers and children who join groups like alqaada (sp?). I find killing to be wrong in any form, and two wrongs don't make a right (don't get me wrong i'm not encouraging "terrorism".). But it is the US's foreign policy that shuffles these countries around and exploits periphery's around the world. Its the US' enforcement of economic policies around the world that benefit the US at the expense of other countries that have no voice that piss people off in those countries. What do you get? Terrorism.....Its actually really easy to hate the US if you just look at its past. Take two courses in Poli Sci and you'll feel your stomach getting queasy already. We also have to remember the good things too, however, if those good things don't reach these periphery countries, and they continuously only see the bad, I'm not surprised something like 9/11 occurred. Its very sad and I'm very sorry to those who lost family members....but I’m not surprised.

Well said...

Granted every nation does what is best for itself. But America's position as a superpower and a trading partner to the world put it in a unique position that makes it different from lets say Zimbabwe or Aruba. When America walks softly and waves a big stick, whether that big stick is a carrier battle group or threats of economic sanctions, when starving farmers in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan see all the pornography and hedonistic excess in the American media while they cannot feed their families for even a day, when parents are forced to sell their daughters into prostitution just to make ends meet - things like that tend to make people feel very, very angry.

Elections maybe... but when Karzai wants more power and authority the American military lets him know who's REALLY running the show.

If America will 'no longer stand for tyrants, despots and murderers', explain why corrupt and evil men like Chalabi, Karimov and in the past Marcos, Suharto, Noriega and even good old Saddam and the Taliban were allowed to prosper, stealing their people's money and murdering their citizens why America looked the other way?

Open you eyes America. And in as much as it's memorial day, let's remember the dead: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/25/193144/999

Make America what it once was and can be again - the TRUE beacon of freedom and democracy in the world.

This has been pointed out time and time again.

There are 3 types of combatants:

-Soldiers: representatives of a recognised national government, who wear uniforms/clearly identifying marks, bear arms openly, have a chain of command, and obey the rules of war

-Guerillas/resisters/etc. : not representing a recognised national government, but otherwise like soldiers

-Illegal combatants: terrorists, and mercenaries. Terrorists are fighters who hide among the civilian population, do not bear arms openly, do not wear uniforms, and do not obey the rules of war.


So where do "civilian contractors" who are mercenaries fit in?

"evil men like Chalabi"

The case against Chalabi has never been proven. Stick to the evidence, rather than the slander.

"Not at Guantanamo, they don't."

That's like saying that "self defence" makes all homocide legal. Having a defence doesn't make a law non-existant, and criminal laws include the valid defences, and if not, they should.

"This is not a war against an army. Get it. It's a war against a criminal organisation. I don't care how the rules are printed. If you decide to go against a terrorist organisation, you damn well better find these "terrorist" as the army of your opponent."

Why? They don't wear uniforms, they don't have a formal chain of command, they hide among civilians, and they refuse to obey the rules of war.

You have utterly failed to make any sort of case, beyond stamping your foot.

"If I decide to go to war against the US postal services, and capture some postal workers, you're telling me that I am within my rights to kill them on the spot if I take them from their homes in the middle of the night as they are not wearing "uniform"? Great set of rules you have there."

A moronic analogy. You'd be committing a crime, nothing more, nothing less. By the way, US postal workers do have a uniform.

In any case, a US postal worker is a non-combatant.

Are you illiterate or something?

I said there were 3 types of COMBATANTS. A postal worker is a non-combatant, who is protected by the Geneva Conventions.

" the rules were not designed for this kind of miltary action. Using the Geneva Conventions as written instead of using the spirit of the law underlying it is just plain stupid. Yes, i've seen the rules. Yes I know the different provisions for soldier, freedom fighter and terrorist. I'm saying you are fighting a terrorist organisation. Of course they are dressed as civilians. that's their Modus Operandi. Use a modicus of common sense for crying out loud."

Their MO is illegal, it violates the rules of war.

The 'spirit' of the Geneva Convention is that a combatant who acts in a civilised manner, following the rules of war, deserves to be treated in a civilised manner. That is what underlies the Conventions.

"What I'm getting at, again, is that the rules as written are not designed for this war. You HAVE to disreagard them and, in my opinion, treat them as POWs under the Geneva Conventions. Laws, as written, be damned."

Why? They don't wear uniforms, they don't have a formal chain of command, they hide among civilians, and they refuse to obey the rules of war.

You have utterly failed to make any sort of case, beyond stamping your foot.

So where do "civilian contractors" who are mercenaries fit in?

Interesting question.

The sticking point is that Iraq's elected, soverign government allows them to operate, that gives them legitimacy.

In any case, the civilian contractors are acting as security guards for people and facilities, and a company, or an individual has the right to employ people to ensure security, and this is an essential part of the right to life (bodyguards), and the right to property (guarding facilities).

While they stick to protecting their charges (be they people, or facilities) they are simply security guards.

You may as well have asked "So where do the Bank's Security Guards fit in?"

I found a good quote, ""When a president stands up before the planet and says an American comes first, he is only preaching hatred. When a president stands up and says we don't honor our missile treaty with the Russians, he is only preaching arrogance. When he refuses to condemn what is happening in Palestine, he is only preaching tyranny."
It's a moronic quote. An American president is elected to represent the interests of the American people, and first and foremost in their interests are the well being of Americans. I don't see too many muslims taking a moment after morning prayer to consider how they can make the world a better place for Americans. In fact I don't see many elected leaders who were installed by their people to serve American intrests, or the interests of any other people. But why not continue ripping it a new ass? We did honor our treaty with the Russians. We enacted the provisions for withdrawing from it. Not honoring the treaty would be creating, and deploying the system in secret. Then after we'd completed our National Missle Shield Wonder, nuking the hell out of them while mooning the rest of the world from behind our forcefields. The Palestinians have only themselves to blame. Maybe the British, and beyond that the UN in general.

See, the problem of your post, which is tragically appearent, is that you've gotten all of your political and historical information from a pamphlet with a vegan menu printed on the back. The US is far from the original aggressor. Everyone around the world wants it both ways. They want the wealth that comes from trade, but not the influence, they want the US to solve their problems but they don't want the US involved, they want the US's protection, but not the appearence of imperialism, and they all want to be first in line. And while the US might not be the original aggressor, the final arbiter is an option that's always on the table and better looking everyday we have to put up with this crap.

There are two ways to achieve peace. Only two. The people involved in conflict can decide for themselves that they truly want, and will sacrifice of themselves to obtain and keep it. Or populations can be slaughtered until they are willing to accept any kind of subjugation and humiliation to end the bloodshed or they're annihilated The only power the US has is to cause or prevent the latter.

That's like saying that "self defence" makes all homocide legal. Having a defence doesn't make a law non-existant, and criminal laws include the valid defences, and if not, they should.

Read the whole thing:

"The working group memo, however, actually argues the opposite: that Guantanamo Bay is in fact within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It puts for that argument to bulwark its case that torture laws do not apply to interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. An American law prohibiting torture, known as the torture statute, only applies to torture cases that occur outside the United States.

"Guantanamo Bay Naval Station (GTMO) is included within the definition of the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States and accordingly is within the United States for purposes of" the Torture Statute, the document states. The U.S. prohibition on torture, then, does not apply to military personnel acting in Guantanamo."

In the very next breath, the Administration argues that since Guantanamo is NOT in the United States, U.S. courts have no jurisdiction to hear writs of habeas corpus. Do you not see the pattern of obfuscation here?

But military law can't be applied to anyone who isn't proven to be a military figure. Otherwise we live in a police state. If military law can be applied to anyone who the military has an interest in prosecuting then what exactly is the value of civilian law?

If you aren't a soldier then the civilian courts have to determine if you are fit to be tried in a military court.

If you conduct warfare during peacetime inside the U.S. or its possessions, yes, you are correct. However, the situation here is a state of war, and the regions are under de-facto and De-jure Martial Law. (being combat zones and all, you know...)

Precedent here includes the Reconstruction Era in the 1860's (late) and 1870s, the L.A. riots in 1992, the Ludlow Coal Mine Strike in Colorado (1905), and any other less-than-national-scale uses of Military force to impose and/or restore order. (This is ignoring actual combat operations, which are too numerous and varied to mention, though the Philipine Insurrection of the 'teens, Korea, Vietnam, GW1, etc. are closer parallels.)

These are not Civilian Arrests, nor is someone a Civilian by dint of not being in a National Army. Any combatant (Defined as someone conducting combat operations) in a Combat Zone (Defined as an area or areas where a war is being fought with weapons and soldiers are killing and dying) is by his own actions, a combatant, whether that combatant is a Legal Combatant (uniformed soldier for a recognized polity), a Guerilla (Something of a grey area-most soldiers will treat legit Guerillas and Insurgents as soldiers with rights), or Terrorist (Scum of the earth), the defining rules are not the rules of civil society, but of Martial Society.

Depending on what your prisoner was doing at the time he was captured (Not arrested), he will fall into one of those three loose catagories. Mercenaries fall outside the rules alongside Terrorists because the presumed motive for their presence is one that is viewed askance by other soldiers-fighting for mere money is considered among the most disgusting character trait demonstrators. Thus, even in the Revised Edition of the Geneva Conventions, Mercs have no rights whatsoever.

Under the definition used by the U.S., non-uniformed combatants have no legal protections save those the U.S. decides to grant them. Non-native fighters fall under the legal definitions of either Mercenary, or Terrorist, not 'freedom fighter' or even 'soldier' in the case of Insurgencies or nations we're invading. (provided they're on the other side, note.)

Morally, this is defensible under the ethos of the Military. (even if it means that your Che is nothing but a cheap merc who commits terrorist acts.)

"If I decide to go to war against the US postal services, and capture some postal workers, you're telling me that I am within my rights to kill them on the spot if I take them from their homes in the middle of the night as they are not wearing "uniform"? Great set of rules you have there."

A moronic analogy. You'd be committing a crime, nothing more, nothing less. By the way, US postal workers do have a uniform.

In any case, a US postal worker is a non-combatant.

Are you illiterate or something?
That's ad-hominem and not tolerated on this forum. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

And if I'm commiting a crime, nothing more nothing less, what is the difference between my crime and the terrorist's crime. That's right... one is seen as a war even though it isn't.

Why? They don't wear uniforms, they don't have a formal chain of command, they hide among civilians, and they refuse to obey the rules of war.

Which is perfectly understandable since they are a criminal organisation. YOu are waging a so-called war which should be defined as a police action. These criminal should all be brought to trail under a criminal court and all rules of law should be followed, especially extradition laws.

You are the only one who sees this as a conventionnal war. It isn't.

You have utterly failed to make any sort of case, beyond stamping your foot.
I made a point, it's not my fault you didn't get it. If I didn't make a point, I'm sure that more than one poster would have responded, first among them being Whispering Legs with which I have debated on this issue quite a few number of times already.

You are the only one who sees this as a conventionnal war. It isn't.


I just haven't been online.

While it may not be a "conventional" war, the laws of war we do have are entirely inadequate to cover such unconventional wars - wars between nation states and non-state actors. There are several times when attempts were made to modify the Geneva Conventions in the 1970s to try and address this, but only in regards to people rebelling in their own countries.

Since the laws are woefully inadequate, and not everyone agrees on their application in such cases (a hallmark of which is that many nations did not go along with the changes in the 1970s), we are faced with the problem that every mechanism for redress or complaint is set up to provide a nation-state with that opportunity.

Non-state actors have NO place to go for redress or complaint.

If we were to assume that al-Qaeda, for instance, was a nation state, we could make several observations:

1. They are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
2. They do not wear official uniforms, they disguise themselves as civilians, they have no common visible emblem, they have no common ID card, and they have no publicly published chain of command. They also have expressed no desire to conform to the Geneva Conventions.
3. Therefore, if they were an ordinary nation state, as a non-signatory to the Conventions, and showing their intention not to abide by the provisions of the Convention, none of their soldiers would be subject to the protections of the convention - at all.

Since they are non-state actors, and since they are fighting all over the world (not just in their home countries), the coverage is even thinner, and at best, they are entitled to a military hearing to ascertain whether or not they are truly combatants.

These hearings have already been held. That's why some have been released - it was determined that they were not combatants. The remainder are detained.

This is not a criminal matter - this is a military matter. Imagine, for instance, if instead of imprisoning captured enemy soldiers for the duration of the conflict, we took their rifle, gave them a hot shower and a hot meal, and sent them back to their home country. In an ordinary war, they would get home, get a new rifle, and come right back. Which is exactly what an al-Qaeda combatant would do - some have even expressed this (without being tortured) at their hearings - they are firmly set on the idea of killing every Westerner they can lay their hands on, in any way they can, starting with the Americans.

So, it's obviously not as simple as "letting them go".

I just haven't been online.

While it may not be a "conventional" war, the laws of war we do have are entirely inadequate to cover such unconventional wars - wars between nation states and non-state actors. There are several times when attempts were made to modify the Geneva Conventions in the 1970s to try and address this, but only in regards to people rebelling in their own countries.

Since the laws are woefully inadequate, and not everyone agrees on their application in such cases (a hallmark of which is that many nations did not go along with the changes in the 1970s), we are faced with the problem that every mechanism for redress or complaint is set up to provide a nation-state with that opportunity.

Non-state actors have NO place to go for redress or complaint.

If we were to assume that al-Qaeda, for instance, was a nation state, we could make several observations:

1. They are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
2. They do not wear official uniforms, they disguise themselves as civilians, they have no common visible emblem, they have no common ID card, and they have no publicly published chain of command. They also have expressed no desire to conform to the Geneva Conventions.
3. Therefore, if they were an ordinary nation state, as a non-signatory to the Conventions, and showing their intention not to abide by the provisions of the Convention, none of their soldiers would be subject to the protections of the convention - at all.

Since they are non-state actors, and since they are fighting all over the world (not just in their home countries), the coverage is even thinner, and at best, they are entitled to a military hearing to ascertain whether or not they are truly combatants.

These hearings have already been held. That's why some have been released - it was determined that they were not combatants. The remainder are detained.

This is not a criminal matter - this is a military matter. Imagine, for instance, if instead of imprisoning captured enemy soldiers for the duration of the conflict, we took their rifle, gave them a hot shower and a hot meal, and sent them back to their home country. In an ordinary war, they would get home, get a new rifle, and come right back. Which is exactly what an al-Qaeda combatant would do - some have even expressed this (without being tortured) at their hearings - they are firmly set on the idea of killing every Westerner they can lay their hands on, in any way they can, starting with the Americans.

So, it's obviously not as simple as "letting them go".

Agreed. And if people are found to be terrorist, then they deserve to be punished. I never advocated letting them go.

However, some people that are suspected to be terrorist aren't and this is why I strongly push for the tribunal process to go faster. Now, I'm not versed in Military Law but I find it dubious that the suspect is not granted legal representation, is not aware of the charges against him and cannot view the evidence against him. Also, while I agree that it's not generally a good idea to bring to justice ennemy combattants before the resolution of a conflict, I think that a war against terrorism has the potential of continuing until the destruction of the planet. As such, I am against further delays in trying the GB detainees.

"However, some people that are suspected to be terrorist aren't and this is why I strongly push for the tribunal process to go faster."

If you push a tribunal to do its work faster, they might get less diligent. Give them time to do their work thoroughly.

"As such, I am against further delays in trying the GB detainees."

They're not being held as suspects awaiting trial, they are being held as illegal combatants.

They should be allowed to challenge their status, that's all.

Well said...

Granted every nation does what is best for itself. But America's position as a superpower and a trading partner to the world put it in a unique position that makes it different from lets say Zimbabwe or Aruba.
Why does this only apply to America and not Germany, Japan, France, Brazil or China? America is under no further obligation than they are, yet we do more than all of them combined in every regard on a global scale.

When America walks softly and waves a big stick, whether that big stick is a carrier battle group or threats of economic sanctions, when starving farmers in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan see all the pornography and hedonistic excess in the American media while they cannot feed their families for even a day, when parents are forced to sell their daughters into prostitution just to make ends meet - things like that tend to make people feel very, very angry.

Forced to sell their daughters? Eeek! I feel sorry for any women in your family if that is your attitude. Regardless, blaming the USA for that circumstance is about as logical as blaming the USA for the tsunami. If they want excess and pon they should be talking to their own government.

Elections maybe... but when Karzai wants more power and authority the American military lets him know who's REALLY running the show.
Not sure what it is you are referencing here....

If America will 'no longer stand for tyrants, despots and murderers', explain why corrupt and evil men like Chalabi, Karimov and in the past Marcos, Suharto, Noriega and even good old Saddam and the Taliban were allowed to prosper, stealing their people's money and murdering their citizens why America looked the other way?

I pretty much summed it up in my prior post - September 01 all that changed. Now we will not tolerate TD and M. We cannot go after all of them at once, afterall our resources are not limitless. The question is why are not more of the 'trading partners of the world' doing their part?

Open you eyes America. And in as much as it's memorial day, let's remember the dead: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/25/193144/999

Make America what it once was and can be again - the TRUE beacon of freedom and democracy in the world.
She is. No other nation has made or is making the same level of sacrafice to bring freedom not only to her own citizens, but to the oppressed around the world. If more did then the taxk would be completed much more rapidly. It would be nice if more nations were as interested in freedom and democracy as well.

Agreed. And if people are found to be terrorist, then they deserve to be punished. I never advocated letting them go.

However, some people that are suspected to be terrorist aren't and this is why I strongly push for the tribunal process to go faster. Now, I'm not versed in Military Law but I find it dubious that the suspect is not granted legal representation, is not aware of the charges against him and cannot view the evidence against him. Also, while I agree that it's not generally a good idea to bring to justice ennemy combattants before the resolution of a conflict, I think that a war against terrorism has the potential of continuing until the destruction of the planet. As such, I am against further delays in trying the GB detainees.

Last I heard, the tribunal is not set up to establish "guilt or innocence", but merely ascertain whether the individual, as a member of a terrorist organization who may or may not have yet committed a terrorist act, is a threat to the United States. There is a three judge panel, as well as a JAG-appointed lawyer for the detainee. There are no charges as such - and the legal representative can see the evidence against the person charged.

It might be better to pass a law in the United States to make it a criminal offense to advocate, support, or put into action any plan, deed, or act intended by direct or indirect action to overthrow the government of the United States, to commit acts of terrorism against US citizens, etc.

Then make the death penalty mandatory for it. Then whenever you capture anyone who does anything against the US, we have a fair trial followed by a first class hanging.

As for the current detainees, I would release them unannounced in Antarctica.

"It might be better to pass a law in the United States to make it a criminal offense to advocate, support, or put into action any plan, deed, or act intended by direct or indirect action to overthrow the government of the United States"

They already have:

If its a US citizen, its treason (punisable by death)

If a foreigner, its an act of war (even if the foreigner is not representing a nation state, since the Supreme Court held that the US can be at war with a non-state actor)

The only real gap is lone-nutters, but is it really a gap?

What could a lone nutter do? Attempt, or carry out, an assassination is about it, which is already a crime.

Last I heard, the tribunal is not set up to establish "guilt or innocence", but merely ascertain whether the individual, as a member of a terrorist organization who may or may not have yet committed a terrorist act, is a threat to the United States. There is a three judge panel, as well as a JAG-appointed lawyer for the detainee. There are no charges as such - and the legal representative can see the evidence against the person charged.
Well, one should be set up to review the charges then. It's about time they charge them with something. Detaining people in a legal limbo you created is immoral if you ask me.

Then make the death penalty mandatory for it. Then whenever you capture anyone who does anything against the US, we have a fair trial followed by a first class hanging.
I strongly disagree as I find the Death Penalty barbaric and inhumane. But that is highjacking the purpose of the thread so I'll agree to disagree.

They should be allowed to challenge their status, that's all.
And the fact that they can't is what the moral outcry is all about.

Letting terrorists out into society is immoral.

If the detainees aren't terrorists, let them challenge their detention in front of the tribunal.

"And the fact that they can't is what the moral outcry is all about."

Nonsense, they can.

Well, one should be set up to review the charges then. It's about time they charge them with something. Detaining people in a legal limbo you created is immoral if you ask me.

I strongly disagree as I find the Death Penalty barbaric and inhumane. But that is highjacking the purpose of the thread so I'll agree to disagree.

If World War II were still going on, and we still held German POWs in prison camp 60 years after their original detention, would that be considered immoral? Even though soldiers aren't charged with a crime?

If World War II were still going on, and we still held German POWs in prison camp 60 years after their original detention, would that be considered immoral? Even though soldiers aren't charged with a crime?
I would deem it so. Yes.

Nonsense, they can.
It would seem thay have near impossible obstacles to overcome before, then. 'Cause I don't see many using that option. Let's face it, the US administration has stacked the deck against such a recourse.

I would deem it so. Yes.

You could deem it so all you like. It would be perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions, as soldiers imprisoned as POWs are not criminals.

It would seem thay have near impossible obstacles to overcome before, then. 'Cause I don't see many using that option. Let's face it, the US administration has stacked the deck against such a recourse.

They've all had at least one military tribunal.

You could deem it so all you like. It would be perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions, as soldiers imprisoned as POWs are not criminals.
Yes, but I though you were asking if *I* personnaly would deem it immoral (not illegal) to hold people for 60 years. I am aware that it's perfectly legal. I though your were going into the moral debate.

Yes, but I though you were asking if *I* personnaly would deem it immoral (not illegal) to hold people for 60 years. I am aware that it's perfectly legal. I though your were going into the moral debate.

I guess I'm trying to illustrate that there isn't a leg to stand on in under the Geneva Convention (Convention I, Article 2). By the book, and fully legal, the men of al-Qaeda are well and truly screwed.

Since they were captured by military forces, they were not captured as criminals committing crimes. They were not captured by police forces.

So they've fallen into a black hole of legal nakedness. I've read the Conventions over and over again, and I see no place where it says that these men have any right to any of its protections for any reason.

Other than saying you have a personal moral reason to do so, I don't see one.

We're giving them more care and provisions than the Conventions specify - out of some need to look not quite as bad. Certainly, we could be nicer, but at the very least, if any of them are actual terrorists, we can't release them.

I've noticed however, that I have NEVER seen anyone who criticizes the US loudly over Guantanamo also turn around and criticize the people who decapitate frightened unarmed civilians on al-Jazeera. Never seen that happen. And I don't believe I will - because not only is the US going to be held to a high standard, the non-state actors will not be held to any standard at all by anyone except the US military.

I've noticed however, that I have NEVER seen anyone who criticizes the US loudly over Guantanamo also turn around and criticize the people who decapitate frightened unarmed civilians on al-Jazeera. Never seen that happen. And I don't believe I will - because not only is the US going to be held to a high standard, the non-state actors will not be held to any standard at all by anyone except the US military.
Well, let me be the first. These act are despicable. In war, you may have to execute people but you don't have to film it and put it on the news.

What they do is trying to inject a sense of fear. It leads to loathing. Their tactic is self-destructive for their cause. Not only that but it is morally repugnant. They should stop it and the TV should not broadcast it.

That being said, let's go back to the torture the US is doing...

I guess I'm trying to illustrate that there isn't a leg to stand on in under the Geneva Convention (Convention I, Article 2). By the book, and fully legal, the men of al-Qaeda are well and truly screwed.

Since they were captured by military forces, they were not captured as criminals committing crimes. They were not captured by police forces.

So they've fallen into a black hole of legal nakedness. I've read the Conventions over and over again, and I see no place where it says that these men have any right to any of its protections for any reason.

Other than saying you have a personal moral reason to do so, I don't see one.

We're giving them more care and provisions than the Conventions specify - out of some need to look not quite as bad. Certainly, we could be nicer, but at the very least, if any of them are actual terrorists, we can't release them.

I've noticed however, that I have NEVER seen anyone who criticizes the US loudly over Guantanamo also turn around and criticize the people who decapitate frightened unarmed civilians on al-Jazeera. Never seen that happen. And I don't believe I will - because not only is the US going to be held to a high standard, the non-state actors will not be held to any standard at all by anyone except the US military.

Third Geneva Convention, part I, article 4.1.6

"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

The US was the invading force.
The men captured did 'spontaneaously take up arms'.
I don't think they had time to go to bootcamp and join to afghanistan military during the invasion.
If you are defending your cave with an ak-47, you are openly carrying arms.
I don't think most of (let alone all) the prisoners disrespected the laws and customs of war, as i haven't heard stories about american prisoners (if they existed) who were beheaded during the invasion. Nor did they carry out a suicide attack (they are still alive).

Well, let me be the first. These act are despicable. In war, you may have to execute people but you don't have to film it and put it on the news.

What they do is trying to inject a sense of fear. It leads to loathing. Their tactic is self-destructive for their cause. Not only that but it is morally repugnant. They should stop it and the TV should not broadcast it.

That being said, let's go back to the torture the US is doing...

The problem we have is the legal definition of torture.

Technically, if I ask you a question, and you say that the mere asking of the question causes you mental anguish, under a strict interpretation of the UNCAT, that's torture.

You ARE allowed to ask prisoners questions under the Geneva Conventions. They do NOT have to answer anything except their identifying information.

In countries like the UK and France, the use of "uncomfortable positions" is not torture under their legal systems, and is used by their own military forces.

That, and we must cast doubt on any al-Q detainee claiming torture - because it's in their own training manual to claim it whether it is happenning or not.

Without constant direct observation by an independent third party (which no one has), you can't verify any of the claims made by the detainees.

Case in point: the young American who was detained in Saudi Arabia on being accused of being a member of al-Q claimed, when he was brought before a judge here in Alexandria, Virginia, that he had been beaten and tortured, and that the torture left massive scars on his back. The media ran with this story.

The judge ordered several independent medical professionals to examine the man. All of them said that the young man had NEVER been physically abused and had NO scars ANYWHERE on his body.

I don't see the media quick to bring that up.

As an aside, I know that US interrogation techniques rely largely on deception (making you lose track of time, not know who you're really talking to, etc.) and when that fails the use of drugs.

Events like Abu Ghraib are aberrations, and have been punished as such. I do believe that even our own FBI is looking into the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners, and our courts are looking into them as well (a sign that the system is working). I might also point out that although there have been MANY allegations, none of them have been proven.

None.

So until someone can prove, without a doubt, that people are being really physically tortured, have scars to prove it, asserting that torture is taking place is groundless.

There's far more proof that the thugs on that side of the ocean are torturing, terrifying, and then murdering their captives. They videotape it.

East Canuck, you have some funny ideas about proof, on the one hand, you say the US should not hold anyone captured in wartime unless it can convict them in a court, and on the other hand, you indict a whole nation without proof.

For all your hectoring about morals, you've not stated what they are, nor have you explained them, or the reasoning behind them.

You've not offered a reasonable alternative to holding captured terrorists in captivity.

Why is it immoral to imprison the enemy's fighters? What is a moral thing to do with them? What is the alternative to imprisonment?

You've spoken on the "spirit" of the Geneva Convention, yet you've failed to work out that part of the point behind it was that combatants captured would not be placed before trials, unless they capturing party actually had specific prior charges against them.

"It would seem thay have near impossible obstacles to overcome before, then. 'Cause I don't see many using that option. Let's face it, the US administration has stacked the deck against such a recourse."

Prove it.

You also contradict yourself, you have argued that they must be tried or released, and now you call into question the integrity of the people trying them.

You can't have it both ways.

The US was the invading force.
The men captured did 'spontaneaously take up arms'.
I don't think they had time to go to bootcamp and join to afghanistan military during the invasion.
If you are defending your cave with an ak-47, you are openly carrying arms.
I don't think most of (let alone all) the prisoners disrespected the laws and customs of war, as i haven't heard stories about american prisoners (if they existed) who were beheaded during the invasion. Nor did they carry out a suicide attack (they are still alive).

Rubbish. al Qaeda had been training people in Afghanistan for years, the Taliban also had their own trained fighters. They'd been stockpiling arms for years.

These did not wear uniforms, and there was no published chain of command.

Rubbish. al Qaeda had been training people in Afghanistan for years, the Taliban also had their own trained fighters. They'd been stockpiling arms for years.

These did not wear uniforms, and there was no published chain of command.
Nor were they wearing a common easily visible emblem, nor had their organization offered to at least temporarily abide by the Geneva Conventions.

They also demonstrated an intense unwillingness to abide by those conventions, by attacking unarmed civilians by direct preference.

Puts them in the "s**t out of luck" category.

East Canuck, you have some funny ideas about proof, on the one hand, you say the US should not hold anyone captured in wartime unless it can convict them in a court, and on the other hand, you indict a whole nation without proof.
You've got a funny way of interpreting what I said. For the record, my position is that the prisonners in Gitmo should be treated as criminals and be subject to the criminal system and not as wartime prisoners. I base this assertion on the fact that Al-Quaeda is a criminal organisation who engage in crimi9nal activities. They are not an army and to call this a war is the wrong way to see it.

I said the US should not hold THESE people captured based on that. I never suggested that they should be release willy nilly. I always advocated to bring them up to charges and let justice be served.

And where have I indicted whole nation without proof?


For all your hectoring about morals, you've not stated what they are, nor have you explained them, or the reasoning behind them.
Seein as morals is an entirely subjective thing, and seeing as we can not possibly agree on what is morally right and wrong, and seeing as this would be highjacking the thread, I saw it fit to mention that it is against my moral code and leave it at that.

That being said, if you go by what is considered universal human right, both torture, the death penalty and unjust limitation on freedom (like imprisonment)
are considered immoral by the global international community.


You've not offered a reasonable alternative to holding captured terrorists in captivity.
Well first, nobody asked. Second, I didn't see how that would be relevant to the discussion on whether Gitmo is "right" or "wrong".

Why is it immoral to imprison the enemy's fighters? What is a moral thing to do with them? What is the alternative to imprisonment?
See my previous point on not seeing these prisonners as enemy's fighters.

You've spoken on the "spirit" of the Geneva Convention, yet you've failed to work out that part of the point behind it was that combatants captured would not be placed before trials, unless they capturing party actually had specific prior charges against them.
See my above point on not considering this an act of war. And I object as classifying them as illegal combattant under the conventions as I explained when you said I stamped my foot. Sure they have way more rights than they are entitled under the clauses on illegal combattants under the conventions, but that hardly is correct if they should be treated as POW, now does it?


You also contradict yourself, you have argued that they must be tried or released, and now you call into question the integrity of the people trying them.

You can't have it both ways.
Well, unlike you, I see a distinction between the judicial branch and the US administration. When I say the US government is stacking the deck or making up rules as they go along, I am talking about Bush and maybe, just maybe, the Military high command. And the US supreme court had a few ruling saying the Us administration is not doing it according to the law. This is when they instated the tribunal that Whispering Legs has mentionned.

So, I don't consider that I'm contradicting myself. Try again.

I recall that the tribunal thing was as much pressure from the US courts as it was the realization that some of the guys they were holding were hapless innocents.

Some, of course, may have been released on purpose. To see where they go and who they talk to.

It's all probably more Kafkaesque than we can imagine. But I could care less. So far, Bush is batting a great average - we haven't had a repeat of 9-11 or anything like it in the United States.

As long as the bad stuff happens elsewhere (and I don't care where else), and bad guys are crying about how they're being treated, or are being vaporized by AC-130 gunfire as they try to run away in the night, I'm ok with how things are running.

It's all probably more Kafkaesque than we can imagine. But I could care less. So far, Bush is batting a great average - we haven't had a repeat of 9-11 or anything like it in the United States.

I find it a fallacy. When was the last time something like 9-11 happened before 9-11. The fact that nothing else happenned in the States since is highly probable. Besdies, if the CIA or FBI would stop a terrorist action, chances are we might not even hear about it.

Furthermore, the bombing in Spain shows that the choice of actions of Bush might not be as excellent as he claims it to be.


As long as the bad stuff happens elsewhere (and I don't care where else), and bad guys are crying about how they're being treated, or are being vaporized by AC-130 gunfire as they try to run away in the night, I'm ok with how things are running.

That is your prerogative but I find it sad that you hold the life of a US citizen higher than the life of a Spanish citizen, a Canadian citizen or a Iraqui citizen.
The western world all had grief and words of consolation for the US when 9-11 happened. Never forget that. I disagree with your view on this.

Spain didn't have to cave in to their demands.

They could have gotten more resolve, and gone and kicked more terrorist asses.

or are being vaporized by AC-130 gunfire

Mmmm, AC-130U Spooky gunship auwaaghhaa....*drool*

Spain didn't have to cave in to their demands.

They could have gotten more resolve, and gone and kicked more terrorist asses.
I think that is unfair. The terrorist attack in Madrid was simply the final straw that demonstrated the Spanish would not tolerate their overwhelming public opinion against the war to be overlooked anymore.

The population of Spain was against the war from the start by a large percentage.

And the fact that they can't is what the moral outcry is all about.
I guess the fact that some of the detainees have a case challenging their status pending before the supreme court is an example of them not being able to contest their status.

I've got this really crazy idea. Since you care so deeply, and I believe you sincerly do, about this injustice, why don't you use the fantastic indexing power of google to learn all about it. Then you will no doubt be able to argue the merits of your viewpoint competently. Then we'll all win. Now, we're loosing what you would like to be the thread of the argument, because you keep making these factually incorrect assertions and tying them to one platatude or another. And it's just no challenge at all to come a long and kick the baseless assumption out from under your argument, and walk away.

"You've got a funny way of interpreting what I said. For the record, my position is that the prisonners in Gitmo should be treated as criminals and be subject to the criminal system and not as wartime prisoners. I base this assertion on the fact that Al-Quaeda is a criminal organisation who engage in crimi9nal activities. They are not an army and to call this a war is the wrong way to see it."

The Mafia don't kill thousands of people with manned missiles in one morning.

al Qaeda did.

The Mafia never DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES

al Qaeda did.

The Mafia don't have pretensions to forming a new world caliphate.

al Qaeda do.

The Mafia don't engage in terrorist actions all over the world.

al Qaeda do.


al Qaeda is at war with the US, they've said as much. They are far beyond the pale of mere criminals, and you've not shown otherwise.

"And where have I indicted whole nation without proof?"

Here: "That being said, let's go back to the torture the US is doing..."

"That being said, if you go by what is considered universal human right, both torture, the death penalty and unjust limitation on freedom (like imprisonment)
are considered immoral by the global international community."

Where is it said that imprisoning enemy combatants until the end of the war is an unjust limitation of freedom?

"Well first, nobody asked. Second, I didn't see how that would be relevant to the discussion on whether Gitmo is "right" or "wrong"."

Then move into the real world. If you don't like something, you should suggest something better.

"See my above point on not considering this an act of war. And I object as classifying them as illegal combattant under the conventions as I explained when you said I stamped my foot. Sure they have way more rights than they are entitled under the clauses on illegal combattants under the conventions, but that hardly is correct if they should be treated as POW, now does it?"

Why do you object? The terrorists meet the illegal combatant criteria under the conventions, and they certainly do not meet the soldier or guerilla criteria.

"Well, unlike you, I see a distinction between the judicial branch and the US administration. When I say the US government is stacking the deck or making up rules as they go along, I am talking about Bush and maybe, just maybe, the Military high command. And the US supreme court had a few ruling saying the Us administration is not doing it according to the law. This is when they instated the tribunal that Whispering Legs has mentionned."

More generalisations, where is your evidence that the US Government is acting unfairly.

More to the point, where is your evidence that the US Government is ordering torture?

In what way is that a moronic quote kibolonia, what…, that the fact that you don't agree with it?

"An American president is elected to represent the interests of the American people, and first and foremost in their interests are the well being of Americans. I don't see too many muslims taking a moment after morning prayer to consider how they can make the world a better place for Americans." -Kibolonia

An American president is elected to represent his people, but also has the ultimate goal of staying in power. If he isn't in power in the first place, then there is no way to spread his influence and enact the policies that he would like to. Read the quote again, then tell me something about the actual quote, don't just spit definitions out and think you've said something. Muslims don't stop in the morning after their prayer to see how to better the lives of Americans because they are the ones getting screwed. If a friend and I both worked 8-hour shifts together, and at the end of the day, he got paid $30 and I got paid $70 for the same amount of work, it would be he who would be up in arms, not I. Its him being screwed, he has the responsibility to voice himself if he wants change. I’m perfectly fine in my situation, because I know if I voice my opinion there will be a transfer of wealth and I will lose. It’s the (using Kibolonia wording) “muslims” (the 3rd world countries) being screwed, so its their responsibility to voice themselves that their being screwed, not to promote that the other guy gets ever more money.

"Not honoring the treaty would be creating, and deploying the system in secret. Then after we'd completed our National Missle Shield Wonder, nuking the hell out of them while mooning the rest of the world from behind our forcefields." - Kibolonia

No, that’s actually not in the best interest of America, because then it can't enact its foreign policy and trade. It can’t receive any imputes from 3rd world countries, and without imputes it can't manufacture its products and increase the GDP in the economy. Without an increase in GDP there is no spur in the economy, and massive inflation combined with a recession means we're ultimately screwed. The US can not uphold its agreement without throwing even the slightest threat into the international community.

"The Palestinians have only themselves to blame. Maybe the British, and beyond that the UN in general." -Kibolonia

Palestine also has the US to blame, who provides 3 billion dollars a year to fund the Israeli army so it can crush Palestinian homes in the central bank and gaza strip.. Didn't know that did you Kibolonia? There is a lot of blame in this world, but not a lot of people who are willing to accept that blame.

"See, the problem of your post, which is tragically appearent, is that you've gotten all of your political and historical information from a pamphlet with a vegan menu printed on the back." –Kibolonia (And everything he doesn’t agree with is sooo “tragically apparent”…..)

Sadly, I see you decided to only read the vegan menu....

“The US is far from the original aggressor. Everyone around the world wants it both ways. They want the wealth that comes from trade, but not the influence, they want the US to solve their problems but they don't want the US involved, they want the US's protection, but not the appearence of imperialism, and they all want to be first in line." - Kibolonia

Now I agree with you here man, this is very true. Just like citizens themselves who want the best socially programs (free education and healthcare etc) but don't want to pay any taxes. However, we domestically have a balance. No balance exist today in the international community. As the balance tips in the U.S.'s favor, countries try to unionize to counterbalance. I personally think if the U.S. funded more than just a military for other countries, but instead, actually provided some sort of "International Welfare," a lot of hate would go away. (I’m not exactly sure on the statistic, but it goes something like…”The US provides more money in subsidize to farmers in South Carolina than it does in foreign aid to the rest of the world.”) It’s the 21st century. With technology so advanced continuously shrinking the world, it would be nice to see a country take a step in a directional which doesn’t benefit it directly.

"There are two ways to achieve peace. Only two. The people involved in conflict can decide for themselves that they truly want, and will sacrifice of themselves to obtain and keep it. Or populations can be slaughtered until they are willing to accept any kind of subjugation and humiliation to end the bloodshed or they're annihilated The only power the US has is to cause or prevent the latter." -Kibolonia

And that’s what people are doing. This entire backlash against globalization (aka terrorism) has been directed towards the US, the key globalizer. Many countries, especially religiously devoted countries, don't want the same lifestyle as the western world does. They don't want to wake up every morning and watch football and watch commercials about viagra followed by a commercial about birth control. Its exactly this culture they are fighting, and they have chosen to fight. However, according to your incredibly simpleminded quote above, only two options are apparent, so I guess they will all have to die....

I don't understand your elitist complex that you seem to carry about the US......that they are somehow, the worlds "better." (You used that terminology...that they are better than other nations because they can exert their power over them.) If I can throw a 12 year old across the room because I’m stronger, does that make me his better? No, because in the end, we are all people.

The Mafia don't kill thousands of people with manned missiles in one morning.

al Qaeda did.

The Mafia never DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES

al Qaeda did.

The Mafia don't have pretensions to forming a new world caliphate.

al Qaeda do.

The Mafia don't engage in terrorist actions all over the world.

al Qaeda do.


al Qaeda is at war with the US, they've said as much. They are far beyond the pale of mere criminals, and you've not shown otherwise.

The Mafia is not the "be all and end all" of criminal organisation, you know. Al-Qaeda is a criminal organisation whether you like it or not. It sure as hell not a country or a guerilla faction, as you so pointedly repeated over and over.

"That being said, if you go by what is considered universal human right, both torture, the death penalty and unjust limitation on freedom (like imprisonment) are considered immoral by the global international community."

Where is it said that imprisoning enemy combatants until the end of the war is an unjust limitation of freedom?
Where is it said that I was talking about enemy combatants? I made my stance very clear that I do not consider them ennemy combatant, whether you consider them so or not. As such, the reasoning behind holding them indefinitely is unjust. You should try to understand my position. It would help as I wouldn't have to repeat it over and over.


"Well first, nobody asked. Second, I didn't see how that would be relevant to the discussion on whether Gitmo is "right" or "wrong"."

Then move into the real world. If you don't like something, you should suggest something better.
It has been my experience that the real world is full of people protesting, arguing, denouncing and yet do not suggest an alternative. Where is the real world you are talking about? I do not have to subject myself to your arbitrary rules, especially if you are this condescending.


"See my above point on not considering this an act of war. And I object as classifying them as illegal combattant under the conventions as I explained when you said I stamped my foot. Sure they have way more rights than they are entitled under the clauses on illegal combattants under the conventions, but that hardly is correct if they should be treated as POW, now does it?"

Why do you object? The terrorists meet the illegal combatant criteria under the conventions, and they certainly do not meet the soldier or guerilla criteria.

The convention is during WAR. As pointed previously, and bolded for your benefit, I do not consider this a war. This is why I object.

"Well, unlike you, I see a distinction between the judicial branch and the US administration. When I say the US government is stacking the deck or making up rules as they go along, I am talking about Bush and maybe, just maybe, the Military high command. And the US supreme court had a few ruling saying the Us administration is not doing it according to the law. This is when they instated the tribunal that Whispering Legs has mentionned."

More generalisations, where is your evidence that the US Government is acting unfairly.

More to the point, where is your evidence that the US Government is ordering torture?
Use Google, look it up. I think that debate has been going for a while. Where have you been?

I think that is unfair. The terrorist attack in Madrid was simply the final straw that demonstrated the Spanish would not tolerate their overwhelming public opinion against the war to be overlooked anymore.

The population of Spain was against the war from the start by a large percentage.

Considering that judges in Spain were actively seeking al-Q members, arresting them, convicting them, and imprisoning them, and that this activity slowed to nearly a stop after the train bombings, I believe that Spain has done more than leave Iraq.

The Mafia is not the "be all and end all" of criminal organisation, you know. Al-Qaeda is a criminal organisation whether you like it or not. It sure as hell not a country or a guerilla faction, as you so pointedly repeated over and over.

Whether the mafia is the be all and the end all of criminal organisations is irrelevant, I could have just as easily said Colombian drug cartels, or Russian Mob, and it doesn't invalidate the example. The Mafia is a well organised criminal group.

And you've done nothing to show why al Qaeda is merely a criminal organisation.

I shall enlighten you.

Let's take an indisputably criminal organisation, the Mafia, and compare it with al Qaeda.

al Qaeda aims to create a global Islamo-fascist caliphate, the Mafia's aim is to enrich its members through lucrative criminal enterprise.

al Qaeda uses violence to further political aims, the Mafia uses violence to protect its criminal enterprise against rivals and the state.

When al Qaeda interferes with government, it is to either co-opt it (in the case of the Taliban), or weaken/destroy it. When the Mafia interferes with government, it is to get the police/prosecutors off its back.

The fact that al Qaeda aims to bring down legitimate, soverign governments is what makes it different from a simply criminal organisation, and it is also what makes this a war, rather than a glorified police raid.

Where is it said that I was talking about enemy combatants? I made my stance very clear that I do not consider them ennemy combatant, whether you consider them so or not. As such, the reasoning behind holding them indefinitely is unjust. You should try to understand my position. It would help as I wouldn't have to repeat it over and over.

You've given me nothing to understand but an unfounded assertion.

It has been my experience that the real world is full of people protesting, arguing, denouncing and yet do not suggest an alternative.

Bully for you.

The convention is during WAR. As pointed previously, and bolded for your benefit, I do not consider this a war. This is why I object.

Bully for you, show me why it isn;t a war. I've shown why it is a war.

Use Google, look it up. I think that debate has been going for a while. Where have you been?

You've got to be fucking kidding me. I should do your research?!

Whether the mafia is the be all and the end all of criminal organisations is irrelevant, I could have just as easily said Colombian drug cartels, or Russian Mob, and it doesn't invalidate the example. The Mafia is a well organised criminal group.

And you've done nothing to show why al Qaeda is merely a criminal organisation.

I shall enlighten you.

Let's take an indisputably criminal organisation, the Mafia, and compare it with al Qaeda.

al Qaeda aims to create a global Islamo-fascist caliphate, the Mafia's aim is to enrich its members through lucrative criminal enterprise.

al Qaeda uses violence to further political aims, the Mafia uses violence to protect its criminal enterprise against rivals and the state.

When al Qaeda interferes with government, it is to either co-opt it (in the case of the Taliban), or weaken/destroy it. When the Mafia interferes with government, it is to get the police/prosecutors off its back.

The fact that al Qaeda aims to bring down legitimate, soverign governments is what makes it different from a simply criminal organisation, and it is also what makes this a war, rather than a glorified police raid.

Then how do you classify Al-Qaeda?
And the two bolded statements you attributed to Al-Qaeda are true for the mafia also. So I repeat, how do you classify Al-Qaeda if it's not a criminal organisation?


You've given me nothing to understand but an unfounded assertion.

Bully for you.

Bully for you, show me why it isn;t a war. I've shown why it is a war.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. I should do your research?!
You seem to want to avoid a debate and just be right. These are not answers to further a debate. As such, I am done with you. Welcome to my ignore list.

I agree with Guantanamo Bay.

At the end of the day the people in there are TERRORISTS and kill women and children! Why on earth should these people have any rights?

These people are evil, pure evil, to go out and kill innocent civilians, and not just normal civilians BUT women and children is immoral, evil and no where near the Islam morales they claim to be representing.

These people should be locked up for the greater good of the world. They are a danger to everyone, and being terrorists they are unresonable and therefore any resonable will not work as they cannot reason.

The people in Guantanamo should be shot and killed if you ask me, they support Al Qaeda and all the other evil organisaions in the world that kill innocent people then they evidently have something wrong with their heads.

Torture! What do you think of Ken Bigley and all the other INNOCENT civilians captured in Iraq that have been DECAPITATED! That is just sick and barbaric, I do not believe that Guantanamo is torturing people, especially in comparison to what normal civilians in Iraq have to go through every day because of people that deserve to be in Guantanamo that are currently running loose and blowing people up, and generlally making the lives for the majority so much harder, not to mention hindering the development of Iraq.

We are treating those people in Guantanamo how they should be treated end of story. They are evil, and should not be let out.

As a British person i am ashamed of the 6 people we currently have/had in Guantanamo Bay, they are all traitors for fighting against the British/US troops in Afghanistan.

They deserve to be locked up.

Graham Harvey
UK

"Then how do you classify Al-Qaeda?"

A terrorist organisation, which is an organisation that uses unlawful violence directed at civilians to further religious, or political aims.

"And the two bolded statements you attributed to Al-Qaeda are true for the mafia also. "

No, they're not. Criminal organisations like the Mafia are in it for the money. al Qaeda is in it to establish an Islamo-fascist dictatorship.

"You seem to want to avoid a debate and just be right."

Rubbish, you've only made unfounded assertions. By the by, ignore lists are for cowards.

WTF? Quote tags broken? Or just writing something semi-coherent that responded to the various elements you wish to respond to.

An American president is elected to represent his people, but also has the ultimate goal of staying in power. Muslims don't stop in the morning after their prayer to see how to better the lives of Americans because they are the ones getting screwed. If a friend and I both worked 8-hour shifts together, and at the end of the day, he got paid $30 and I got paid $70 for the same amount of work, it would be he who would be up in arms, not I. Its him being screwed, he has the responsibility to voice himself if he wants change.

1: There are administrations that exist as powerful counter examples. And you seem to be searching for some sort of anthropomorphic principle to make your argument. I told you everything about the quote, including that it was written by a moron. The world doesn't get to vote for a US president. He doesn't represent them, or their interests, and he's not doing his job if he does. That's why *other* nations exist. That's a fact. If you don't like it, apply for citizenship. If you don't like people throwing definitions at you, don't make assumptions that contradict them.

2: The Muslims put a lot of effort into making their corner of the world the shit-hole it is today. They wake up everyday, with the dream of making their world worse for someone else, and for the most part they succeed. Seriously, just shoot your metaphor in the head, it's lame. Unless you think everyone the world over should have exactly the same amount of wealth no matter what they do. It's a hopelessly flawed and concieted sentiment. How about you just give everything you own to poor people in other countries (first and foremost anything you use to access the internet). The rest of us will sit back and see how it goes and decide what to do for ourselves. But it is almost heartwarming to see how generous you are with other people's wealth.


No, that’s actually not in the best interest of America, because then it can't enact its foreign policy and trade. It can’t receive any imputes from 3rd world countries, and without imputes it can't manufacture its products and increase the GDP in the economy. Without an increase in GDP there is no spur in the economy, and massive inflation combined with a recession means we're ultimately screwed. The US can not uphold its agreement without throwing even the slightest threat into the international community.
I just realized, I don't speak space-cadet. Even if you thought I was serious about the US actually nuking Russia for no reason, you're still not making a lick of sense.

Palestine also has the US to blame, who provides 3 billion dollars a year to fund the Israeli army so it can crush Palestinian homes in the central bank and gaza strip.. Didn't know that did you Kibolonia? There is a lot of blame in this world, but not a lot of people who are willing to accept that blame.
More like it's 3 billion dollars a year so the Isrealis don't just kill them all. Think about it, if they're cut off from the world, what is there to lose? They can cream their neighbors in a conventional fight, and they've got top flight training and top flight US arms, so no nation would want to engage them militarily (as the Russians found out). It would be a crisis of conscience, but faced with the destruction of their nation and people, it's easy to guess who'd they choose out of "us or the Palestinians" scenerio. Yes yes, the Israelis bulldoze the former homes of suicide bombers. I even know that noted local dumbass, and likely pot-head, Rachel Cory got run over by an Isreali bulldozer. Suicide bombers kill lots of people. A human life is more important than a house, let alone many. Point Israel. I can play the pandering game too.


"See, the problem of your post, which is tragically appearent, is that you've gotten all of your political and historical information from a pamphlet with a vegan menu printed on the back." –Kibolonia (And everything he doesn’t agree with is sooo “tragically apparent”…..)

Sadly, I see you decided to only read the vegan menu....
Just leaving it in for posterity.

As the balance tips in the U.S.'s favor, countries try to unionize to counterbalance. I personally think if the U.S. funded more than just a military for other countries, but instead, actually provided some sort of "International Welfare," a lot of hate would go away. (I’m not exactly sure on the statistic, but it goes something like…”The US provides more money in subsidize to farmers in South Carolina than it does in foreign aid to the rest of the world.”) It’s the 21st century. With technology so advanced continuously shrinking the world, it would be nice to see a country take a step in a directional which doesn’t benefit it directly.
I assume you're refering to UN accounting of foriegn aid. If one looks deeply into this, one finds that the UN method of accounting for this is skewed STRONGLY against the methods through which the US provides aid. I'm not just talking about the public sector charities either, which do spectacular business in the US and are more in keeping with US economic philosophy. But if the US army core of engineers puts in a road, a phone system, or builds a school, that's not counted as economic aid. Neither is the farming asistance some third world people recieve as a result of American programs. Even with the *vast* majority of our foriegn aid discounted the US isn't terribly far behind the rest of the world, and only suffers in comparision as a percentage of GDP. But remember commercial activity all but disapears in countries that are unable to maintain their own security.

The downside of a country having contact with US wealth, isn't that Americans exploit the people in a region. People in a region exploit each other in order to maximize the return on the wealth from the US. Now were the US to interceed and forcefully stop such behavior, that acctually IS imperialism. Which is what the US doesn't practice. And this goes for charities too. When a bunch of free food comes in to stave off massive famine, it's hard to make money as a farmer. Who's going to pay for your food, when the clean, beautiful and safe industrial agricultural products are free? Same thing with charities that donate cloathing, or any good. NAFTA is a brilliant example, wages went down in Mexico because it allowed the powerful mexicans to gain ever more leverage with which to exploit the poorest people in their country. You'd think that'd be a job for the Mexican government to deal with, well they do, they tell them to become illegal aliens in the United States. Is that the kind of government the Mexicans deserve? They seem to think so. Who are we to tell them different, Marines excepted. Do you think they'd take kindly to Uncle Sam telling them "Run your country thus, or no trade!"? I some how doubt it, it hasn't proven popular in the past.

Many countries, especially religiously devoted countries, don't want the same lifestyle as the western world does. However, according to your incredibly simpleminded quote above, only two options are apparent, so I guess they will all have to die....
No no no. They don't want their neighbor to be able to choose any element Western lifestyle. They want to remain ignorant and force their choice on everyone. The US has NOTHING to do with it, beyond the fact that our culture is the most powerful on earth. (Simply because we consolidate the best the world has to offer and we've built the infrastructure to deliver it anywhere on earth, piping hot, ready to serve. Our culture is a universal solvent, and it's made on such a massive scale we're practically giving it way.) Terrorism isn't ever about people personal choices, it's about controlling the choices of the much larger group of people who disagree with them, through fear of death. Japan, Britain, China, France, they all pick and choose what they like, to varying degrees, some of them making the choices of their citizens for them. But not usually under threat of death, and certainly not at random. The terrorists want to force their self-imposed misery and ignorance on others, nothing more. And, as much as I loath Bush Mk II, and as absolutely painful as it is to agree with anything he says, the terrorists really do hate freedom. And if they want to have a say in my freedom. (And they do, thank you Thomas L. Friedman) I'm afraid I'll have to support their violent end, preferably antiseptic and from over the horizion. Let me assure you, I'd sleep like a baby.

I don't understand your elitist complex that you seem to carry about the US......that they are somehow, the worlds "better." (You used that terminology...that they are better than other nations because they can exert their power over them.) If I can throw a 12 year old across the room because I’m stronger, does that make me his better? No, because in the end, we are all people.
It makes you more powerful, and in that instance it's better to be you than the 12 yearold. When the cops come to lay down some justice, it's better to be them than you. But why not look at personal freedoms, I think the Dutch will take this one, but America scores well. But again, the Muslim countries are some of the worst on this metric too. If only tyranny and spiritual bullshit was somehow worth something, good for anything aside creating misery. They would score so well. They are poor because they aren't free. They are miserable because they know they are poor. They are violent because they are miserable. And they're not free, because their practice of Islam is incompatible with the freedom of other people. Muslims love corruption and tyranny. Look at how far the Indians have come in such a short time. They didn't have the advantages of the arabs, and their burdens were far more challenging. In every sense we are their betters. But to my mind, the most important one is that I'm an American. America first, best and last. When we're bored of looking out for our interests, and have the leftovers, sure why not help other countries (Liberia first really) to make ourselves feel a little less self-indulgent. Maybe traditional and strategic allies deserve special consideration, after all who doesn't love to be generous to their friends? To the rest, we owe them no more than they owe us. You're free to disagree of course. And I think you should live out your philosophy. Give till it hurts. Sell a kidney to build wells in sub-Saharan Africa. Whatever.

I’m not using quote tags because its easier to respond to some of your statements this way, let me know if it REALLY bothers you….
I’m just attempting to solve problems, looking at it from angles (yours as well). Anyway, this is interesting…Although the sarcastic tags above quotes…kinda immature….And you were the one that started criticizing me and not my posts, stick to what you see typed and not to anyone’s character..

Anyway,

“There are administrations that exist as powerful counter examples. And you seem to be searching for some sort of anthropomorphic principle to make your argument. I told you everything about the quote, including that it was written by a moron” –Kibolonia

Its easy to say that the persons a moron if you don’t agree with the quote. One situation that quote was referring to was the fact that the U.S. used the volunteers in Afghanistan to fight the Russians in the 80’s, then when their blood was spilled and communism stopped, they left and did nothing to help the country. This was one of the reasons the Taliban were able to gain power so easily. Result, anti-American sentiment…..and you get terrorism.

“The world doesn't get to vote for a US president. He doesn't represent them, or their interests, and he's not doing his job if he does. That's why *other* nations exist.” -Kibolonia

I understand that the president represents his country, and a country’s main purpose is for its security, security of its boarder, and its people. However, I also see a need to domestic social programs such as welfare etc (although it should be completely reformed….its ridiculous how people work fro a few months and intestinally get fired just to receive compensation…its s a burden to all.). I do see that welfare is needed for those who are new to the country, who traveled oversees to work and accumulate wealth, not work just hard enough to get fired. Also for the psychologically sick, and the 5% of citizens that are unemployed in an ideal society-ideal unemployment rate is 5%, and not 0%. I was taking these principles and applying them to the international world. For the US to prosper, some countries have to give up wealth, and this is evident that this does occur.

“Unless you think everyone the world over should have exactly the same amount of wealth no matter what they do. It's a hopelessly flawed and conceited sentiment. How about you just give everything you own to poor people in other countries (first and foremost anything you use to access the internet). The rest of us will sit back and see how it goes and decide what to do for ourselves. But it is almost heartwarming to see how generous you are with other people's wealth.” –Kibolonia

Not that everyone should have the same wealth, but they should have the same chance to accumulate wealth, a very large difference. You are assuming to much from my statements. The US shouldn’t donate, but it can stop exploiting.
“I just realized, I don't speak space-cadet. Even if you thought I was serious about the US actually nuking Russia for no reason, you're still not making a lick of sense.” -Kibolonia

Re-read it then, its not space-cadet.

“More like it's 3 billion dollars a year so the Israelis don't just kill them all. Think about it, if they're cut off from the world, what is there to lose? They can cream their neighbors in a conventional fight, and they've got top flight training and top flight US arms, so no nation would want to engage them militarily (as the Russians found out).” –Kibolonia

Although it’s a good point, the question here is who’s homes are being bulldozed. There is never an incident where only one house is bulldozed, but rather a neighborhood or plot of land….I doubt an entire neighborhood was filled with suicide bombers, but included many innocent people…..so yes they do bulldoze the houses of innocent people….who happen to be in the way. The Israeli army receives 3 billion dollars of open funding, used to fit their budget in any form, to purchase tanks or guns or…sometimes bulldozers. It’s the fact that they the Middle East see this as a step towards proliferation and not disarmament. Israel has the best incentives to get rid of Palestine altogether, and they are slowly doing it. Why donate so much money to Israel? To establish a foothold in the Middle East and a foothold in the petroleum industry. And Israel can increase its wealth and stability by cutting away at Palestine, so all the more reason to cooperate. I seriously doubt Israel in any way uses their revenue to help their neighbors rather then themselves, and that goes for the US as well. Like you said, no country does anything fr free, if it isn’t in its own interest.

“The downside of a country having contact with US wealth, isn't that Americans exploit the people in a region. People in a region exploit each other in order to maximize the return on the wealth from the US.” –Kibolonia

Have you ever heard of the United Fruit Company? U.S. company neo-colonizes South America. http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/united-fruit.html The US companies exploit the people in that region. I’m not saying its good or bad, but I am saying it makes domestic competition almost impossible.

”No no no. They don't want their neighbor to be able to choose any element Western lifestyle. They want to remain ignorant and force their choice on everyone. The US has NOTHING to do with it, beyond the fact that our culture is the most powerful on earth. (Simply because we consolidate the best the world has to offer and we've built the infrastructure to deliver it anywhere on earth, piping hot, ready to serve. Our culture is a universal solvent, and it's made on such a massive scale we're practically giving it way.) Terrorism isn't ever about people personal choices, it's about controlling the choices of the much larger group of people who disagree with them, through fear of death.” –Kibolonia

This is because US culture, western culture in general, is HIGHLY materialistic. However, eastern culture stresses the development of ones character etc through poverty, giving away wealth, and not participating in extravagance. In the short run, and with immediate results, it looks like the US is “superior”. However, the western world would disagree, and would say that the US citizens have the more power in the short run. They have a lavish lifestyle for the 80 years or so that they remain on this earth, and then afterwards, suffer after death, while the eastern civilizations who held true to their humble beliefs and invested in an afterlife will now reap the rewards. Now who is right is a matter of opinion.

To say the US is the better because they have more toys, or food etc is a western measurement. Many citizens don’t want to be rich but want to invest in their afterlife, that’s why a suicide bomber will do what he does, because he doesn’t see his life being over but sees himself investing. (I’m not saying this is the right thing to do, just the fact that we need to look at wealth at this angle as well, and that our culture focuses on the short run-life itself, and nothing past it.)

Its better to be that 12 year old is your opinion, not any sort of fact. Many people would rather be the man being arrested by the police than the police itself, depending on the situation and the cause of arrest. I’d rather be arrested fro a noble cause then to arrest someone who performed a noble cause that I agreed with. That noble cause being an investment, sort of like the Muslim belief in an afterlife.

I hope none of this offends anyone, it’s just nice to see non-flame bait and a discussion going on in at least a few of these threads. And don’t get me wrong on my opinion, I don’t think freedom is bad etc, I’m just trying to cover all the angles, regardless of where I stand.

I guess the fact that some of the detainees have a case challenging their status pending before the supreme court is an example of them not being able to contest their status.

I've got this really crazy idea. Since you care so deeply, and I believe you sincerly do, about this injustice, why don't you use the fantastic indexing power of google to learn all about it. Then you will no doubt be able to argue the merits of your viewpoint competently. Then we'll all win. Now, we're loosing what you would like to be the thread of the argument, because you keep making these factually incorrect assertions and tying them to one platatude or another. And it's just no challenge at all to come a long and kick the baseless assumption out from under your argument, and walk away.

And also a reason why Bush should be really glad that he didn't get a real alliance in Iraq. Because if the people in a country is like 70 percent against the war, it can be very easy to see why the goverment pull out the troops or the people elect a new goverment that pull out the troops if they faced with a terrorist atacks. Ecpecially if the goverment tries to lie and blame another organisation (in spaine ETA). Just imation that would happen if a american goverment against the will of the people joined a war just because the american goverment would like to kiss up to france and then had a terrorist atack as a result.

Model Facility Indeed (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-04T110422Z_01_N04290115_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-GUANTANAMO-KORAN-DC.XML)