NationStates Jolt Archive

While I agree that it's not right to keep detainees locked up indefinately without a trial, it's also a tragic mistake to release detainees who will then go out and kill people in the name of their cult's ideology.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20051116.aspx

So what's the answer here? Anybody got a good idea?

Advanced electronic tagging. Tag them and then moniter their activites.

Technically, if you run across people in the heat of combat who try to surrender, you are not required to accept surrender.

Once you accept surrender, you're responsible for them. So, perhaps we should limit the number of surrenders that we accept, and stop taking people captured by bounty hunters (who may just be dumping bodies on us for the cash).

If they fight, shoot them. If they try to surrender, shoot them.

Technically, if you run across people in the heat of combat who try to surrender, you are not required to accept surrender.

Once you accept surrender, you're responsible for them. So, perhaps we should limit the number of surrenders that we accept, and stop taking people captured by bounty hunters (who may just be dumping bodies on us for the cash).

If they fight, shoot them. If they try to surrender, shoot them.

I don't think people have a problem with the 'heat of combat' detainees. Its the blindly believing the warlords when they go
"Yep, this guys a Taliban too"
"Got any proof?"
"Do you need any?"
"..em.. no, I suppose not. Ok"

Its the 'suspected' ones that cause outrage- they might be innocent and yet they are treated like they are stone cold guilty.

I'd err on the side of keeping them in longer. I wonder if it would be possible to calculate a percentage of released detainees who play a part in later attacks.

I don't think people have a problem with the 'heat of combat' people. Its the blindly believing the warlords when they go
"Yep, this guys a Taliban too"
"Got any proof?"
"Do you need any?"
"..em.. no, I suppose not. Ok"

It the 'suspected' ones that cuase outrage- they might be innocent and yet they are treated like they are stone cold guilty.

That's still a lower PR risk than having them at Guantanamo.

Look at it this way. Right now, the International Red Cross is at Guantanamo. Let's say we allowed Amnesty International unfettered access. And HRW.

If we treated the detainees as nicely as all those people demanded, and they gave the US a clean bill of health, and we gave all those guys due process in US courts, and they all ended up being detained ANYWAY...

critics of the US would say, "Amnesty International has been corrupted by the US" or "Human Rights Watch is a tool of the US"

In a very real sense, to a lot of the critics of the US, it doesn't matter what we do, or how hard we try. What they really object to is the fact that we invaded Afghanistan at all - or that we captured anyone - or that we did anything at all in response to 9-11.

That's still a lower PR risk than having them at Guantanamo.

Look at it this way. Right now, the International Red Cross is at Guantanamo. Let's say we allowed Amnesty International unfettered access. And HRW.

That is what I would ask. Its... uncomfortable... that they are forbidden to go some places and to talk alone with detainees.

I personally, would NEVER call either the IRC or HRW a 'tool' of the US. And those that do say that, are purely anti-American, lets-hop-on-anything-that-we-can-to-discredit-anyone-who-says-the-US-isn't-Satan crap.

Thats the big problem- by hiding things away, it looks REALLY suspicious! If there is nothing wrong then why NOT let the world see whats really going on in there. It could be good PR for the States.... maybe.

That is what I would ask. Its... uncomfortable... that they are forbidden to go some places and to talk alone with detainees.

I personally, would NEVER call either the IRC or HRW a 'tool' of the US. And those that do say that, are purely anti-American, lets-hop-on-anything-that-we-can-to-discredit-anyone-who-says-the-US-isn't-Satan crap.

Thats the big problem- by hiding things away, it looks REALLY suspicious! If there is nothing wrong then why NOT let the world see whats really going on in there. It could be good PR for the States.... maybe.

IIRC, the International Red Cross has access to the detainees (to talk alone with them). They also have witnessed some (but not all) of the interrogations.

IIRC, the International Red Cross has access to the detainees (to talk alone with them). They also have witnessed some (but not all) of the interrogations.
Oh, didn't know that. Thanks for saying.

Again, if the reports come back saying 'Everything is ok there', a lot of people - Europeans (Continental and non) and maybe some Americans would take their word at face value.

Again, the only ones that go 'tool of the US' aren't happy unless someone agrees with them that the US is some kind of uber-demon hell bent on the Apocalypse blah blah blah.

Just do what you espouse- and no one has a problem with you :)

While I agree that it's not right to keep detainees locked up indefinately without a trial, it's also a tragic mistake to release detainees who will then go out and kill people in the name of their cult's ideology.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20051116.aspx

So what's the answer here? Anybody got a good idea?

All they need is a decent vacation.

We send them for two weeks in Cancun. You know, some sand, sun and drinks with umbrellas in them. Before you know it, they go home relaxed, mellow and not even thinking of blowing crap up. Because Heaven may be groovy, but really, what can be better than Cancun?!?

Advanced electronic tagging. Tag them and then moniter their activites.

Dont tell them they are tagged. Guarateed they are up to no good within a week.

Or-
Just release them all. They have to leave the island no matter what.

Or shoot them all and feed them to the sharks

All they need is a decent vacation.

We send them for two weeks in Cancun. You know, some sand, sun and drinks with umbrellas in them. Before you know it, they go home relaxed, mellow and not even thinking of blowing crap up. Because Heaven may be groovy, but really, what can be better than Cancun?!?
But we've already sent them to a tropical carribean island paradise! Cuba was one of the best vacation spots ever under Batista. It's still pretty cool (from what I've heard) under Castro.

Oh, didn't know that. Thanks for saying.

Again, if the reports come back saying 'Everything is ok there', a lot of people - Europeans (Continental and non) and maybe some Americans would take their word at face value.

Again, the only ones that go 'tool of the US' aren't happy unless someone agrees with them that the US is some kind of uber-demon hell bent on the Apocalypse blah blah blah.

Just do what you espouse- and no one has a problem with you :)

The Red Cross has raised the issues of some of the abuses. Which to me indicates that the US is open enough to let the IRC in there to see it and monitor it and make accusations when necessary.

But I never hear people say that's the way it is now at Guantanamo - all I hear is how secret the whole place is.

It's far more open than most people on this forum would know.

But we've already sent them to a tropical carribean island paradise! Cuba was one of the best vacation spots ever under Batista. It's still pretty cool (from what I've heard) under Castro.

Bah! Cuba is nice and all, but it's no Cancun. :p

While I agree that it's not right to keep detainees locked up indefinately without a trial, it's also a tragic mistake to release detainees who will then go out and kill people in the name of their cult's ideology.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20051116.aspx

So what's the answer here? Anybody got a good idea?

We could use them to form a coral reef. :p

Bah! Cuba is nice and all, but it's no Cancun. :p

Think of the great rum and cigars in Cuba...

Think of the great rum and cigars in Cuba...
Yeah, but Cancun has drunken spring break girls going wild. LG might have a point.

Bah! Cuba is nice and all, but it's no Cancun. :p

Cuba must be a real cesspool, then, considering that Cancun was submerged by Hurricane Wilma, or Alpha or Beta or all three. :p

That's still a lower PR risk than having them at Guantanamo.

Look at it this way. Right now, the International Red Cross is at Guantanamo. Let's say we allowed Amnesty International unfettered access. And HRW.

If we treated the detainees as nicely as all those people demanded, and they gave the US a clean bill of health, and we gave all those guys due process in US courts, and they all ended up being detained ANYWAY...

critics of the US would say, "Amnesty International has been corrupted by the US" or "Human Rights Watch is a tool of the US"

In a very real sense, to a lot of the critics of the US, it doesn't matter what we do, or how hard we try. What they really object to is the fact that we invaded Afghanistan at all - or that we captured anyone - or that we did anything at all in response to 9-11.

The "we-don't-need-to-give-them-unfettered-access-because-they-would-still-hate-us"-argument is ridiculous. First of all, claiming everyone else are paranoid US-bashers who would who would scream bloody murder no matter what the US does is not an excuse to go ahead as one pleases.
Secondly, claiming everyone else are paranoid US-bashers who would scream bloody murder no matter what the US does is an absurd generalization.

. First of all, claiming everyone else are paranoid US-bashers who would who would scream bloody murder no matter what the US does is not an excuse to go ahead as one pleases.
.

It isn't?

The "we-don't-need-to-give-them-unfettered-access-because-they-would-still-hate-us"-argument is ridiculous. First of all, claiming everyone else are paranoid US-bashers who would who would scream bloody murder no matter what the US does is not an excuse to go ahead as one pleases.
Secondly, claiming everyone else are paranoid US-bashers who would scream bloody murder no matter what the US does is an absurd generalization.

The International Red Cross has been down there since the opening, and has had solitary access to detainees, and has reported violations or suspected violations, and has even witnessed some interrogations.

Yet people are still saying that the US hasn't done anything to let anyone know what's going on there.

If you consider that the IRC has their own staff there and their own building, and file regular reports, it's kind of hard to say it's a really secret prison.

I've even heard an NPR story filed from an interrogation at Guantanamo.

So reporters and others have seen the place as well, inside and out.

Still say people would give the US credit for doing that? No one has.

Still say people would give the US credit for doing that? No one has.
Whoa whoa whoa.... give credit for doing what they claim to stand for in the first place?

What do they want, a medal everytime they stand up? :rolleyes:

Whoa whoa whoa.... give credit for doing what they claim to stand for in the first place?

What do they want, a medal everytime they stand up? :rolleyes:
How about just telling the truth and not saying that nobody has access to the prison?

How about just telling the truth and not saying that nobody has access to the prison?
Well, thats not entirely true. Recently (past 3wks), an ex-army officer turned analyst was asked by the Irish Times to head over to G.Bay for an indepth article.... it turned into a series (3 I think).

He wasn't anti war or anything like that, but while he was over there- the 2 conditions he had to agree to were 1: Do not mention the word 'torture' in referring to the Camp in the article. (He got around that by emphasising 'forced coercion'

And 2: Do not ask to go into certain areas, because you would not be allowed. (Now, I don't have the article to hand so I can't say off my head which exact areas they were, but you can sure they weren't the Mess hall)

You get slapped on the wrist if you do something you shouldn't. You DON'T get a treat for doing something you should already be doing.

While I agree that it's not right to keep detainees locked up indefinately without a trial, it's also a tragic mistake to release detainees who will then go out and kill people in the name of their cult's ideology.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20051116.aspx

So what's the answer here? Anybody got a good idea?I don't dig the idea of jailing ten innocents rather than letting one guilty man get away. I don't remember the days when that was common practice where I live, but my grandfather does...

While I agree that it's not right to keep detainees locked up indefinately without a trial, it's also a tragic mistake to release detainees who will then go out and kill people in the name of their cult's ideology.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20051116.aspx

So what's the answer here? Anybody got a good idea?
They all like Allah, yes? I prefer the "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out" approach! Mwahahahaha! :D

They all like Allah, yes? I prefer the "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out" approach! Mwahahahaha! :D
Actually, serious question.

ARE they all Muslim? Or is that just a common false generalisation?

Actually, serious question.

ARE they all Muslim? Or is that just a common false generalisation?
I would think that they are. I mean if you're not muslim the taliban and al quaeda aren't really going out of their way to recruit you. Kill you, maybe, but not recruit you.

I would think that they are. I mean if you're not muslim the taliban and al quaeda aren't really going out of their way to recruit you. Kill you, maybe, but not recruit you.

Yeah but there might be some 'anti-US imperialist' fighters there too? Maybe disaffected Westerners that aren't Muslim?

I would think that they are. I mean if you're not muslim the taliban and al quaeda aren't really going out of their way to recruit you. Kill you, maybe, but not recruit you.We're talking about detainees. They don't have to be affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban or an Iraqi insurgent group to be arrested.

We're talking about detainees. They don't have to be affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban or an Iraqi insurgent group to be arrested.
I thought that was the whole point of arresting them.

Yeah but there might be some 'anti-US imperialist' fighters there too? Maybe disaffected Westerners that aren't Muslim?
Maybe, but I doubt it. The only westerners I've heard of who were detained were Muslim citizens of western nations. Of course just because I haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

To those of you saying that the Red Cross (which is the only human rights group allowed into Gitmo) says everything is fine or else would have said something you're missing two points:
The International Red Cross does not publish it's reports to the press which is part of an agreement with governments which allows them great access into hundreds of different bases across the world. Secondly, a report which was leaked to the press stated that Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture."
However, The United States Government has reportedly rejected the Red Cross findings. No surprise there.

We're talking about detainees. They don't have to be affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban or an Iraqi insurgent group to be arrested.
I suspect that almost all, if not all of them are Jihadists.

I suspect that almost all, if not all of them are Jihadists.
Well, there's only one way to find that out for sure isn't there?

Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners.
None of which constitute "torture."

I truly am astounded any people can countenance releasing the interned fellows in Guantanamo Bay on principle. The Amnesty Internation Society (there's no smiley for a derisive, scornfilled sneer on NS) at my sixth form has formed a petition for the unconditional release of all inmates of British citizenship, and yet are incapable of answering why beyond the cliched "its wrong" bilge espoused by many. People ought to appreciate that such fellows are not incarcertated without justifiable reason, and granted, bi-annual reviews ought to be conducted on all cases, however, it is irrefutable that they are an inherent threat to western society, therefore I ask the following;why are we compelled to defend and fight legal cases for them?

None of which constitute "torture."
Please. You wouldn't allow U.S. citizens to be treated this way if they were placed in prison would you? Imagine living like the prisoners who are held in small, mesh-sided cells with little privacy, and lights are kept on day and night. On top of this, they are also subject to isolation most of the day and when not in isolation are allowed to confer in groups of three or less only.

Also, the Geneva convention states that prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. So you tell me that them being exposed to sleep deprivation, water boarding, truth drugs, beatings, being forced to maintain uncomfortable and humiliating positions, as well as other forms does not constitute torture, nor is morally wrong at all?

None of which constitute "torture."

You don't find temperature extremes uncomfortable? You must be a really tough nut. I know I find them uncomfortable. Also, there are a whole range of positions I would not want to be standing in for a very long time. Surely you don't think they mean that inmates are forced to sit really really quiet on chairs?

While I agree that it's not right to keep detainees locked up indefinately without a trial, it's also a tragic mistake to release detainees who will then go out and kill people in the name of their cult's ideology.
And that's why you try them in a fair and normal court to establish their guilt, and the risk factor.
And if they are found to be dangerous, you can lock them away just like you would any other criminal.

You don't find temperature extremes uncomfortable? You must be a really tough nut. I know I find them uncomfortable. Also, there are a whole range of positions I would not want to be standing in for a very long time. Surely you don't think they mean that inmates are forced to sit really really quiet on chairs?
temperature extremes is exactly that... uncomfortable... Now, would you rather that? or them pulling out the fingernails and toenails. Putting out cigarettes on their arms or whatever fancies the torturer....

You have a weak definition of torture.

You have a weak definition of torture.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Please. You wouldn't allow U.S. citizens to be treated this way if they were placed in prison would you?
hell, i wish they were treated this way. mebbe they'd realize a life of crime doesn't lead to a cushy prison where you get cable t.v. for free, a gym membership for free, etc. Prison is a bad place, but it's not as bad as it needs to be.
Imagine living like the prisoners who are held in small, mesh-sided cells with little privacy...
i don't think they've done that since they first started using Guantanamo(sp) Bay.

Also, the Geneva convention states that prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened <snip>
You may not have heard of a nice little loophole... it's called these aren't POWs but enemy combatants, and from what has been repeated on here many a time; enemy combatants don't fall under the Geneva convention.
So you tell me that them being exposed to sleep deprivation, water boarding, truth drugs, beatings, being forced to maintain uncomfortable and humiliating positions, as well as other forms does not constitute torture, nor is morally wrong at all?
Water boarding? is that like chinese water torture? I will tell you it doesn't constitute torture... and if it helps save lives. I don't think it's morally wrong (remembers having this argument w/ Sinuhue a while back)

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
being uncomfortable doesn't equate to severe pain... and i would rather go w/ dictionary.com's definition rather than a UN site.

tor·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.

Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.

The things described previously doesn't constitute severe pain or anguish. You said it yourself: "uncomfortable"

*edit*
or someone said it. :P

I truly am astounded any people can countenance releasing the interned fellows in Guantanamo Bay on principle. The Amnesty Internation Society (there's no smiley for a derisive, scornfilled sneer on NS) at my sixth form has formed a petition for the unconditional release of all inmates of British citizenship, and yet are incapable of answering why beyond the cliched "its wrong" bilge espoused by many. People ought to appreciate that such fellows are not incarcertated without justifiable reason, and granted, bi-annual reviews ought to be conducted on all cases, however, it is irrefutable that they are an inherent threat to western society, therefore I ask the following;why are we compelled to defend and fight legal cases for them?

innocent until proven guilty?

being uncomfortable doesn't equate to severe pain... and i would rather go w/ dictionary.com's definition rather than a UN site.
Note however the spirit in which the Geneva Convention was written, and the spirit in which your country was founded.
No "cruel or unusual punishment" - in other words: treat them like you'd want to be treated.

If you are at war, and you take prisoners, they are prisoners of war. It is so completely and utterly irrelevant what you or your government call them, or whether or not they wear a uniform.

And finally, what do you think of "Rendition"? Are you going to claim that doesn't constitute torture either?

Note however the spirit in which the Geneva Convention was written, and the spirit in which your country was founded.
No "cruel or unusual punishment" - in other words: treat them like you'd want to be treated.
o, so if the reverse is true, can we cut their heads off?
we're already being treated badly by the enemy. true, two wrongs don't make a right, but giving someone "truth serum" isn't bad compartively is it?

If you are at war, and you take prisoners, they are prisoners of war. It is so completely and utterly irrelevant what you or your government call them, or whether or not they wear a uniform.
true, unfortunately the powers that be want to play it the way they have. Although i don't have sypmathy for joe al-qaeda who has been captured, i feel that the innocents will be released. But they were caught in a compromising situation to begin with, so any uncomfortable postions they're in is of their own making.

And finally, what do you think of "Rendition"? Are you going to claim that doesn't constitute torture either?
not at all. I think it sucks. Sending someone to a country that allows torture? It's stupid. and undermines the US's position in world politics. Some people will just break so you'll stop torturing them.

o, so if the reverse is true, can we cut their heads off?
we're already being treated badly by the enemy. true, two wrongs don't make a right, but giving someone "truth serum" isn't bad compartively is it?
This is where the idea of the "moral high ground" comes in.
Do you really want to be on the same level as them (on principle that is)? Yes, most of the things the US does isn't as bad as some of the things AQ does. But that has never been an excuse.

On principle you are sending the message that it is okay to use corporal punishment and both physically and mentally put stress on people - people against which there are no charges, where there are no trials, who have been captured with usually shady methods and of whom some already turned out to be innocent.

Rendition fits into that mindset perfectly, and if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to okay one thing and denounce another.

This is where the idea of the "moral high ground" comes in.
Do you really want to be on the same level as them (on principle that is)?
i don't see us ever being on the same level.
Yes, most of the things the US does isn't as bad as some of the things AQ does. But that has never been an excuse.
so you're saying some of the things the US does is as bad as some of the things AQ does?
On principle you are sending the message that it is okay to use corporal punishment and both physically and mentally put stress on people
i have no problem w/ corporal punishment.
- people against which there are no charges, where there are no trials, who have been captured with usually shady methods and of whom some already turned out to be innocent.
as i said, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Guilty by association. I would think it's more like a regular prison. Where there are a few innocents, but the majority is not.
Rendition fits into that mindset perfectly, and if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to okay one thing and denounce another.
I don't believe that what the US is doing in Guantanamo Bay is torture, therefore i can easily denounce rendition since it is approving of torture.

i don't see us ever being on the same level.
Well, you have to behave accordingly - simply stating it isn't enough.

so you're saying some of the things the US does is as bad as some of the things AQ does?
There have been reports of people being beaten to death in US detention in Afghanistan, of bodies being mutilated by US Forces, of wounded people being shot - and then there is Abu Ghraib.
As far as combat is concerned, today things have calmed down a little, although using Cluster Bombs and DU Ammunition without cleaning up afterwards is not exactly fine manners either.

i have no problem w/ corporal punishment.
Well, I do. Many European countries have it outlawed in their constitutions, and it is hardly befitting a country that so often claims to pretty much embody the ideas of the Enlightenment.

as i said, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Guilty by association. I would think it's more like a regular prison. Where there are a few innocents, but the majority is not.
Are you aware of the people kidnapped of the streets in Europe? Or people who simply travelled through Pakistan?
It depends what you call "innocent". Since there are absolutely no charges, and absolutely no rules determining when you go to Guantanamo, "innocent" is poorly defined at best.

Note however the spirit in which the Geneva Convention was written, and the spirit in which your country was founded.
No "cruel or unusual punishment" - in other words: treat them like you'd want to be treated.

Spirit? Spurious at best. As for the idea that if you treat prisoners humanely, the enemy will do the same, I think you should look at history, about the only people who have come close to treating US prisoners in a humane manner is your people.

If you are at war, and you take prisoners, they are prisoners of war. It is so completely and utterly irrelevant what you or your government call them, or whether or not they wear a uniform.

That is a purely personal opinion, with no basis in law. According to the law, a captive is only a prisoner of war is he:


Wears a uniform of some type (even an armband will do)
Bears arms openly
Has a chain of command which is clearly defined
and, respects the rules of war


1) They dress as civilians
2) Terrorists don't bear arms openly, they hide among the civilian population
3) The cellular structure of terrorist gangs means no clearly definable chain of command
4) They don't, never have, and never will.

If you are at war, and you take prisoners, they are prisoners of war. It is so completely and utterly irrelevant what you or your government call them, or whether or not they wear a uniform.

Ahem. I direct your attention to Convention I, Article 2

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

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

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

The Taliban were not a high contracting party, nor did they agree to be bound by the Convention, neither did they accept or apply the provisions thereof. Neither did al-Qaeda.

Therefore, the Convention does not apply to them.

An argument can be made that the Convention applies to Iraqi insurgents (but not to foreign fighters not in uniform in Iraq, especially if they are paid).

Wears a uniform of some type (even an armband will do)
Bears arms openly
Has a chain of command which is clearly defined
and, respects the rules of war


1) They dress as civilians
2) Terrorists don't bear arms openly, they hide among the civilian population
3) The cellular structure of terrorist gangs means no clearly definable chain of command
4) They don't, never have, and never will.

Isn't that an oxymoron if ever there was? Surely the 'gentlemenly' war went out the window with the First World War? Very few states abide by these so called 'rules' of war.

The list you gave is comparable to the original IRA and the French Resistance during World War II. Both were seen as legitmate groups yet defined as 'terrorists' by their respective opposing sides.

Clearly that list has no place in the modern era of warfare.

Isn't that an oxymoron if ever there was? Surely the 'gentlemenly' war went out the window with the First World War? Very few states abide by these so called 'rules' of war.

The list you gave is comparable to the original IRA and the French Resistance during World War II. Both were seen as legitmate groups yet defined as 'terrorists' by their respective opposing sides.

Clearly that list has no place in the modern era of warfare.

Then renegotiate the Geneva Convention and Hague Conventions.

Until then, stop saying it's a violation of international law. You may not like it, but it's legal.

Until then, stop saying it's a violation of international law. You may not like it, but it's legal.

Whats a violation of international law?
Both of the instances I posted happened pre UN/Geneva Convention but still within the 'Thats not fair. You can't do that! Stay still so we can shoot you!!' aspect of 'fair' war.

The list posted does not clarify a: whether all detainees are combatants- we can only assume they are. And b: Does not legitimise his case for saying 'anyone who meets the requirements of said list deserves their rights to be taken away'.... as the two cases I pointed out are deemed 'good groups' in historical terms.

Whats a violation of international law?
Both of the instances I posted happened pre UN/Geneva Convention but still within the 'Thats not fair. You can't do that! Stay still so we can shoot you!!' aspect of 'fair' war.

The list posted does not clarify a: whether all detainees are combatants- we can only assume they are. And b: Does not legitimise his case for saying 'anyone who meets the requirements of said list deserves their rights to be taken away'.... as the two cases I pointed out are deemed 'good groups' in historical terms.

Go back and read my post. I make an easy case that the detainees at Guantanamo are not covered, by a straightforward reading of Convention I, Article 2, of the Geneva Conventions.

Go back and read my post. I make an easy case that the detainees at Guantanamo are not covered, by a straightforward reading of Convention I, Article 2, of the Geneva Conventions.
I'm not disagreeing with the Taliban aspect of it, nor the Iraqi.

I'm debating Disraeliland's piece about the list that encompasses what a prisoner of war is and is not. If not, therefore the rules of the Geneva Conv don't apply- grand.

But again, thats assuming everyone in there is in fact from the Taliban (or associates in Afghanistan) or Iraq.

Yet even with the Iraqi case, there is no difference to the insurgents and the French Resistance and the 1916-1920 IRA. Does that mean it would have been ok to to likewise to captured or suspected French Resistance members or IRA operatives?

We do not know whether everyone in Camp X ray/Delta is in fact a 'non combatent'. Thats the point... isnt it? :confused:

Its not that the non combatents might be innocent, but that there might be people in there who are not 'non combatents' or 'combatents'... just innocents caught up in a nasty web.

I'm not disagreeing with the Taliban aspect of it, nor the Iraqi.

I'm debating Disraeliland's piece about the list that encompasses what a prisoner of war is and is not. If not, therefore the rules of the Geneva Conv don't apply- grand.

But again, thats assuming everyone in there is in fact from the Taliban (or associates in Afghanistan) or Iraq. Yet with Iraq, there is no difference to the insurgents and the French Resistance and the 1916-1920 IRA.

We do not know whether everyone in Camp X ray/Delta is in fact a 'non combatent'. Thats the point... isnt it? :confused:

Its not that the non combatents might be innocent, but that there might be people in there who are not 'non combatents' or 'combatents'... just innocents caught up in a nasty web.


If I pick you up in Afghanistan after you've been shooting at us, and you're still holding an empty rifle, not in a uniform, and you're from Australia, I figure you're not there for a holiday trip. I figure that either a) you're a mercenary, and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions (in fact, I can rip your balls off on the spot and kill you later), or b) you're an armed member of a force that is not a signatory to the Conventions. (in which case you aren't protected either, and if I decide to be nice to you in any way, count yourself lucky).

We've already sent home hundreds from Guantanamo - on the idea that we've reviewed the available information and determined that some people WERE innocents.

If I pick you up in Afghanistan after you've been shooting at us, and you're still holding an empty rifle, not in a uniform, and you're from Australia, I figure you're not there for a holiday trip. I figure that either a) you're a mercenary, and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions (in fact, I can rip your balls off on the spot and kill you later), or b) you're an armed member of a force that is not a signatory to the Conventions. (in which case you aren't protected either, and if I decide to be nice to you in any way, count yourself lucky).

We've already sent home hundreds from Guantanamo - on the idea that we've reviewed the available information and determined that some people WERE innocents.

Ah! But if you get a warlord who picked up a 'Taliban' and delivers him straight to his local US base in Afghanistan. The 'Taliban' says he is a simple farmer who didn't want to pay protection money to this warlord and is then shackled into a jeep and driven away...

The warlord says he's a liar, asks for his bounty and drives off leaving the 'Taliban/farmer' in US custody. Who is the US going to believe? A suspected 'Taliban' or the trustworthy warlord?

BAM. Hello, Camp X ray.

Ah! But if you get a warlord who picked up a 'Taliban' and delivers him straight to his local US base in Afghanistan. The 'Taliban' says he is a simple farmer who didn't want to pay protection money to this warlord and is then shackled into a jeep and driven away...

The warlord says he's a liar, asks for his bounty and drives off leaving the 'Taliban/farmer' in US custody. Who is the US going to believe? A suspected 'Taliban' or the trustworthy warlord?

BAM. Hello, Camp X ray.

That might explain why so many have been released from Camp X-Ray.

Until we have some other corroborating evidence that you're a Taliban or al-Q guy, we might have to let you go.

Obviously, they've let hundreds go. But you never hear the complainers mention that, do you?

That might explain why so many have been released from Camp X-Ray.

Until we have some other corroborating evidence that you're a Taliban or al-Q guy, we might have to let you go.

Obviously, they've let hundreds go. But you never hear the complainers mention that, do you?

They shouldn't have been held in the first place!! Especially without access to a lawyer or other rights guaranteed under the US constitution (which applies to all on US soil does it not?, and technically G. Bay is US soil.)

Shipped away without evidence, proof, probable cause.. sorry, apart from the word of a local warlord :rolleyes: , into a foreign country- possibly a secret location (doesn't have to be G. Bay), without contact to family, friends, lawyers, aid in general...

Thats the problem. You can hold people indefinetly- without proof.

They shouldn't have been held in the first place!! Especially without access to a lawyer or other rights guaranteed under the US constitution (which applies to all on US soil does it not?, and technically G. Bay is US soil.)

Shipped away without evidence, proof, probable cause.. sorry, apart from the word of a local warlord :rolleyes: , into a foreign country- possibly a secret location (doesn't have to be G. Bay), without contact to family, friends, lawyers, aid in general...

Thats the problem. You can hold people indefinetly- without proof.

There wasn't a facility to do any of that screening over there.

And you believe that most of them were shipped away on the word of a local warlord? Hardly.

IIRC, the International Red Cross has access to the detainees...Do they have acces to all the detainees?

Do they have acces to all the detainees?

All the ones at Guantanamo, since Day One.

All the ones at Guantanamo, since Day One.:rolleyes:
LOL..the Red cross doesnt even know how many POW are there in Guantanamo...

:rolleyes:
LOL..the Red cross doesnt even know how many POW are there in Guantanamo...
Prove it.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/C5667B446C9A4DF7C1256F5C00403967

Ahem. I direct your attention to Convention I, Article 2

The Taliban were not a high contracting party, nor did they agree to be bound by the Convention, neither did they accept or apply the provisions thereof. Neither did al-Qaeda.

Therefore, the Convention does not apply to them.

An argument can be made that the Convention applies to Iraqi insurgents (but not to foreign fighters not in uniform in Iraq, especially if they are paid).

It is irrelevant that the Taliban was not a high contracting party, the question is whether or not Afghanistan was a party to the treaty. If the country was counted as a "high contracting party", then the people of Afghanistan (including the Taliban) falls under the protection if the Geneva Conventions.

innocent until proven guilty?

would they be interned purely upon the whim of the law?

they would inevitably, if free, sponsor or prosecute terrorism, and accordingly deserve everything they recieve.

Prove it.
We already had this debate when you were WhisperingLegs...Remember?

You tried to prove that the Red Cross knows the number of POWs at Guantanamo.....and you failed miserably.

At one point..I even called the Red cross office at Washington...remember?
The RedCross didnt know how many Children are jailed...or how many women...all they knew is that they visit whatever POW the US gov allows them to visit.

do you really wanna bite the dust all over again?