NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece

*Is disgusted*

Disgusting. I can't wait to see how the Busheviks defend this one.

I think that we should threaten to declare war on the US unless they close down that concentration camp.

Really. Bush has gone too far.

:( Some as young as 14? Fucking christ.

If they were caught in combat, then sentence and convict them. Teens are probably part of the easier demograph of "To be rallied behind".

Also, :gundge: . Shove the "They might know something!" act this time. No commander would ever tell a 14 y/ old battle plans in advance, and certainly not in a Guerilla war.

I'm an US American, and while I wouldn't go so far as to declare war on the US, declaring war on Bush is fine.

*fights urge to puke*

I guess the defense will be "you do the crime, you do the time"... I've read such statements even when the "criminal" is under 10. As for what their crime is: they are terrorists, otherwise the powers that be would never have brought them to Guantanamo Bay, right? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I think that we should threaten to declare war on the US
You are joking aren't you?

While the number has changed, the news is still old. We know the US holds child prisoners. There were child prisoners in Abu Ghraib too. Some of them were tortured and you can find details of that in the US government's own investigation files released to the ACLU under the freedom of information act. There are even reputable allegations of rape of child prisoners by US contractors at Abu Ghraib.

declaring war on Bush is fine.
Thats what I meant.

You are joking aren't you?
No. Bush has gone too far.

No. Bush has gone too far.

Why doom this thread to flames?

No. Bush has gone too far.
I think you're being unrealistic. It would be physically impossible for any country to prevent them from doing this. It's all very well to talk about human rights but if the human rights violators are going to ignore it and they're too strong to stop, what can you do about it?

Well, as a friend of mine put it,

'Bush believes that America is the world's moderator. And, unfortunately, until China finishes getting its act together, he's right.'

'Course, whether China will care about human rights abuse at Guantanamo is another matter.

At least they've stopped executing child criminals, its progress; and Bush has said he wants to lose it.... just as soon as SCOTUS decides whether its military tribunal or a civilian court for the inmates.

'Course, whether China will care about human rights abuse at Guantanamo is another matter.

The Chinese Communists have nothing to learn from Guantanamo, they know it all about human rights abuses.

The Chinese Communists have nothing to learn from Guantanamo, they know it all about human rights abuses.
They can learn some excuses for such behaviour, if nothing else.

I think you're being unrealistic. It would be physically impossible for any country to prevent them from doing this. It's all very well to talk about human rights but if the human rights violators are going to ignore it and they're too strong to stop, what can you do about it?
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/Misc/f3072eae.jpg

They can learn some excuses for such behaviour, if nothing else.
I doubt the Chinese even need excuses. America needs them because they still try and make out that they're standing up for human rights across the world. But everyone knows what China's like.

Well, you see, the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay is the worst of the worst of the bad guys.
*releases 30 detainees*
They're terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama bin Laden's] bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker.
*releases 50 detainees*
They are so vicious, if given the chance they would gnaw through the hydraulic lines of a C-17 while they were being flown to Cuba.
*releases 20 detainees*
They are unlawful enemy combatants who do not share -- they are people who do not share our values, who do not respect the rule of law, and who have no regard for innocent --
*releases 30 detainees*

Yes, we have released more than 170 detainees without charging them with anything. But isn't that just proof that the system works, when they are sent home after being held away from the world for up to 4 years?

Aye, but there's a difference between needs and wants...

I cant believe anyone is surprised.

You can tell me to wear a tin foil hat, but this government is willing to torture CHILDREN.

This should be a stern warning to everyone, as a perfect example of what Bush and Co are capable of, and the depths to wich they are willing to sink.

If they will torture children, dont you think they are willing to lie to you?

Do you think they are being remotely honest anymore?

Do you think they ever where?

Wake up people!

This is the most ruthless and nasty administration ever.
There is no limit to what they wont do.

Why we arent burning the white house down and hanging that man, I 'll never know.

The Republicans are always ranting about the right to bear arms and to overthrow an oppressive government; how much more oppressive does this miserable piece of excrement have to get before they make good on that right?

Well, as a friend of mine put it,

'Bush believes that America is the world's moderator. And, unfortunately, until China finishes getting its act together, he's right.'

'Course, whether China will care about human rights abuse at Guantanamo is another matter.

If you're harboring some kind've socialist wet dream that China is going to sweep onto the world stage and act as a guardian of human rights and democracy then quite frankly you are insane. China prioritises state sovereignty above all else, treats its own citizens appallingly - and although it is moving towards a free market economy it is a long way away from developing a democratic political culture that actually gives a shit about its people.

The USA is the world's moderator and it damn well should be. But for now I'm sick and tired of the cronyism, ineptitude and outright stupidity inherent in the foreign policy of the Bush administration.

I doubt the Chinese even need excuses. America needs them because they still try and make out that they're standing up for human rights across the world. But everyone knows what China's like.
China can just shrug and go "Meh, what can you do?"

At least they've stopped executing child criminals, its progress; and Bush has said he wants to lose it.... just as soon as SCOTUS decides whether its military tribunal or a civilian court for the inmates.

Guantanamó is essential for keeping law and order. As to child executions it was a great loss to America when the SC outlawed them, the same for when the SC outlawed executing retards.

Guantanamó is essential for keeping law and order.
What, locking people up who may well be innocent? (None of those released have been tried in America or their own nation...)
As to child executions it was a great loss to America when the SC outlawed them, the same for when the SC outlawed executing retards.
Another debate, but let me say here and now, wrong.

Bush is becoming what he is fighting. If someone would assassinate him right now I'd arrange a bbq party for me and my friends. I truly would. Also...I just can't help it, but lately I've began to really dislike people who support him. If things go on I'll start to hate them I think.

How much more oppressive does this miserable piece of excrement have to get before they make good on that right?

Depends on how many white folks get sent to Guantanamo.

Guantanamó is essential for keeping law and order. As to child executions it was a great loss to America when the SC outlawed them, the same for when the SC outlawed executing retards.

You're a fucking idiot. The wonderful thing with that perfectly true statement is that I don't even have to motivate it, people will get it right away. Moron.

The USA is the world's moderator and it damn well should be. But for now I'm sick and tired of the cronyism, ineptitude and outright stupidity inherent in the foreign policy of the Bush administration.
So one of its most hypocritical violators of human rights and international standards should be the moderator thereof? You only got rid of juvenile executions last year or early this year, ffs!

Guantanamó is essential for keeping law and order. As to child executions it was a great loss to America when the SC outlawed them, the same for when the SC outlawed executing retards.

Can I execute you? I think you're a terrorist. No proof, just a 'feeling'. By the current US standards, that should be enough to sign your death warrant.

If you're harboring some kind've socialist wet dream that China is going to sweep onto the world stage and act as a guardian of human rights and democracy then quite frankly you are insane. China prioritises state sovereignty above all else, treats its own citizens appallingly - and although it is moving towards a free market economy it is a long way away from developing a democratic political culture that actually gives a shit about its people.

The USA is the world's moderator and it damn well should be. But for now I'm sick and tired of the cronyism, ineptitude and outright stupidity inherent in the foreign policy of the Bush administration.

Notice the second line. All I am saying is that the USA is currently in a position in power. When China finished getting it's act together, they may well be able to challenge that position. As I said, whether they'll care about human rights is another matter entirely. Read the post next time.

The vast majority of people in Guantanamó are captured terrorists; not even American citizens, the government has serious reasons for Americans' safety for keeping them there. In 100 years time when documents are declassified and your descendants end up reading that Bush was right and had real and excellent reasons for imprisoning people in Guantanamó, they are going to be quite embarrassed of you.

Well... I've got to agree with one of the first posters on this thread... at least in part. It may not be a good idea to go to war with the whole of America (although I'm betting even a good chunk of Americans would be willing to take up arms after this sort of thing), but Bush has got to go.

Anyone who's ever said I was wrong in saying that this administration is evil... well, here's your proof.
These people make me sick.
And if I hear a "Well, it's worse in CountryX" ......
I HATE that defense. Just because it's worse elsewhere doesn't mean you have a right to sink to 'almost' their level.

The vast majority of people in Guantanamó are captured terrorists; not even American citizens, the government has serious reasons for Americans' safety for keeping them there. In 100 years time when documents are declassified and your descendants end up reading that Bush was right and had real and excellent reasons for imprisoning people in Guantanamó, they are going to be quite embarrassed of you.

I see. And you have proof that this is so? You have, perhaps, seen these classified documents?

The vast majority of people in Guantanamó are captured terrorists; not even American citizens, the government has serious reasons for Americans' safety for keeping them there. In 100 years time when documents are declassified and your descendants end up reading that Bush was right and had real and excellent reasons for imprisoning people in Guantanamó, they are going to be quite embarrassed of you.
Captured, yes. Terrorists? God knows, because they were captured and no evidence or information has been released about them. Lets look at those who were released and repatriated into the UK. Were charges pressed against them here? No. Were they kept under surveillance? Yes. Was anything at all found on them? No. So I heavily suspect you are utterly wrong.

I see. And you have proof that this is so? You have, perhaps, seen these classified documents?

You have proof they are not?

If any one of those "children" was standing over you with a loaded weapon do you think they would hesitate to use it? If you said no then you are now dead. Children in third world war torn countries come out of the womb bearing arms and a hate on for the Infidel Americans. They have no understanding of who or what to hate but by the grace of their parents they learn. As do other factions that breed hatred.
If the shoe was on the other foot and you were comfronted with a child with a gun, rifle, or in some cases an RPG. Would you think of the childs age or shoot. Again if you hesitate I will stand at your grave and mourn you. You lose your age and right to say I/he was/is just a child when you attempt to take another persons life.

You have proof they are not?

It's called innocent until proven guilty. Burden of proof rests with the accuser. Otherwise... "You're a terrorist!"

"No I'm not!"

"Prove it!"

"But... you haven't made any specific accusations I can refute."

"That's it, off with his head!"

You have proof they are not?

Oh, brilliant counter-argument, sir. The Bush administration have incarcerated these people on charges of terrorism. It is their burden of proof to show that they are, in fact, guilty. Something known as 'Innocent Until Guilty', a precedent that I think the US legal and judicial system operates on.

You have proof they are not?
So we suspend the judicial and legal principle of "Innocent until proven guilty"?

If any one of those "children" was standing over you with a loaded weapon do you think they would hesitate to use it? If you said no then you are now dead. Children in third world war torn countries come out of the womb bearing arms and a hate on for the Infidel Americans. They have no understanding of who or what to hate but by the grace of their parents they learn. As do other factions that breed hatred.
If the shoe was on the other foot and you were comfronted with a child with a gun, rifle, or in some cases an RPG. Would you think of the childs age or shoot. Again if you hesitate I will stand at your grave and mourn you. You lose your age and right to say I/he was/is just a child when you attempt to take another persons life.

Very nice emotional argument, Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has yet to release evidence to prove that these people are, in fact, guilty of the charges they have been incarcerated for. 'Innocent Until Guilty' and all that jazz, you know.

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece


Ooooooooooh so people could not Gitmo shut down, now they are going to try using the emotional "poor children" to get it done?

If any one of those "children" was standing over you with a loaded weapon do you think they would hesitate to use it? If you said no then you are now dead. Children in third world war torn countries come out of the womb bearing arms and a hate on for the Infidel Americans. They have no understanding of who or what to hate but by the grace of their parents they learn. As do other factions that breed hatred.
If the shoe was on the other foot and you were comfronted with a child with a gun, rifle, or in some cases an RPG. Would you think of the childs age or shoot. Again if you hesitate I will stand at your grave and mourn you. You lose your age and right to say I/he was/is just a child when you attempt to take another persons life.

Again, in many cases, there is no proof that these children ever tried or suceeded to harm anybody. Also, I must have missed when Canada became a third world war torn country.

So we suspend the judicial and legal principle of "Innocent until proven guilty"?

They are not us citizens captured in the US so....I dont have a problem with it.

Ooooooooooh so people could not Gitmo shut down, now they are going to try using the emotional "poor children" to get it done?
Ah, yes, we couldn't get it shut down on other evidence of its major flaws, so we're pointing out yet another. What, do you have that much faith in your administration?

That's irrelevant, where they are and who they are is irrelevant to what they have done and what judicial principles in your nation apply to everyone, not just citizens.

Ooooooooooh so people could not Gitmo shut down, now they are going to try using the emotional "poor children" to get it done?

That argument is quite possibly the stupidest put forth so far. Because they failed to get a concentration camp shut down before, they shouldn't reveal further truths about it that should encourage people to shut it down?

Ooooooooooh so people could not Gitmo shut down, now they are going to try using the emotional "poor children" to get it done?

Again, no evidence has been provided that these children are in fact guilty of the charges brought against them. No evidence has been released by the Bush Administration or the military. Thus, with no evidence to contradict us, we presume them to be 'Innocent Until Found Guilty' by a Jury comprising of their peers.

They are not us citizens captured in the US so....I dont have a problem with it.

Because foreigners aren't real people.

Notice the second line. All I am saying is that the USA is currently in a position in power. When China finished getting it's act together, they may well be able to challenge that position. As I said, whether they'll care about human rights is another matter entirely. Read the post next time.

What you actually stated was that the US viewed itself as the world moderator and that China might challenge that position when it finishes "getting its act together". What on earth does "getting its act together" involve if not a respect for democracy and human rights, how would China act as a "world moderator" if it did not champion those things.

Your post was confused.

They are not us citizens captured in the US so....I dont have a problem with it.

It doesn't matter where they were captured, or whose country they were found in. They have been incarcerated in appaling conditions without any evidence released to prove that they are indeed guilty of the charges brought against them. Thus, 'Innocent Until Guilty'.

Well, "they" can say whatever they want but "they" are not there. So why should I take the word of some pacifist tree hugger about what may or may not be happening?

You have proof they are not?
It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the other side.

If any one of those "children" was standing over you with a loaded weapon do you think they would hesitate to use it? If you said no then you are now dead. Children in third world war torn countries come out of the womb bearing arms and a hate on for the Infidel Americans. They have no understanding of who or what to hate but by the grace of their parents they learn. As do other factions that breed hatred.
If the shoe was on the other foot and you were comfronted with a child with a gun, rifle, or in some cases an RPG. Would you think of the childs age or shoot. Again if you hesitate I will stand at your grave and mourn you. You lose your age and right to say I/he was/is just a child when you attempt to take another persons life.
But why are they at Guantanamo? How did the 13-year old become classified as one of the worst of the worst of the bad guys? Is he one of the terrorist masterminds?

Well, "they" can say whatever they want but "they" are not there. So why should I take the word of some pacifist tree hugger about what may or may not be happening?
And are you a Gitmo guard? Are you an intel analyst who has seen the proof that all those incarcerated are guilty? Because those who were there, they have made allegations of torture. That's right, the ones who were released without charge.

What you actually stated was that the US viewed itself as the world moderator and that China might challenge that position when it finishes "getting its act together". What on earth does "getting its act together" involve if not a respect for democracy and human rights, how would China act as a "world moderator" if it did not champion those things.

Since the US itself champions neither of these things one wonder how Bush can consider himself to be the world's moderator.

Well, "they" can say whatever they want but "they" are not there. So why should I take the word of some pacifist tree hugger about what may or may not be happening?

Okay. Let me try and break it down for you. These children were captured in a foreign country. They were taken to US territory and imprisoned there. They are in appaling conditions. No evidence has been provided to show that they are indeed guilty of the charges brought against them. Thus, they are 'Innocent Until Found Guilty'. Without any evidence, these prisoners are being kept illegally because of a loophole in the Geneva Convention.

What you actually stated was that the US viewed itself as the world moderator and that China might challenge that position when it finishes "getting its act together". What on earth does "getting its act together" involve if not a respect for democracy and human rights, how would China act as a "world moderator" if it did not champion those things.

Your post was confused.

Okay, let's review my post, shall we?

Well, as a friend of mine put it,

As I probably should have made more clear, not my quote.

'Bush believes that America is the world's moderator.

America being the sole super power, yahta yahta, no problems with this right?

until China finishes getting its act together This (I think) was really meant more along the lines of building up economy and millitary to a point where they could reasonable challenge US, not getting act together morally. That clear things up?

'Course, whether China will care about human rights abuse at Guantanamo is another matter

And again, here is my saying that China is not necessarily going to be the liberator.

And are you a Gitmo guard? Are you an intel analyst who has seen the proof that all those incarcerated are guilty? Because those who were there, they have made allegations of torture. That's right, the ones who were released without charge.

Wait a minute. Would you not say the same thing?

About The foks who said thier countries should declare war on U.S., you are totally wrong. Declare war on Bush. Only 30something% of we Americans like him anyway. Better yet, all of my fellow Americans should think about IMPEACHING him. *duh-

Again, in many cases, there is no proof that these children ever tried or suceeded to harm anybody. Also, I must have missed when Canada became a third world war torn country.


Where did I mention anything about Canada? Some of these children may even be the children of suspected terrorists. Sort of a "hey I have your family and if you want them..."
Casualties of war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. They do not have the last name Smith, Jones whatever. All I know is this; I would not hesitae to defend myself against any agressor be it a man, woman, child or my ninety year old grandmother if they were armed and threatening my life.

Wait a minute. Would you not say the same thing?

I don't think anyone here is claiming that these people are angels. Some may be lying or exaggerating. But there are so many that I doubt they are. It all returns to the fact they were imprisoned on charges with insufficent evidence released to provide an analysis as to whether they are guilty or not. Without any such evidence, they are presumed innocent.

Many of these people are random strangers picked up by Pakistani or Afghanistani Generals/Officers wanting to pay off grudges or look good to their US counterparts, and many seem to have no evidence towards their capture or 'Guilt' at all.

Let's take a little look at a thing I like to call the constitution. Specifically the Bill of Rights

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Amendment Five

No personshall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

Note, person, not US citizen.

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Where did I mention anything about Canada? Some of these children may even be the children of suspected terrorists. Sort of a "hey I have your family and if you want them..."
Casualties of war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. They do not have the last name Smith, Jones whatever. All I know is this; I would not hesitae to defend myself against any agressor be it a man, woman, child or my ninety year old grandmother if they were armed and threatening my life.

I'm not even sure why you're bringing this argument up. The fact of the matter is that these children have been imprisoned and assumed guilty without any evidence provided to show why. Without any evidence, they should be presumed 'Innocent Until Found Guilty', not the other way around.

Them being armed or bringing up arguements about Child Soldiers is simply pointless; it hasn't even been proved that these children are soldiers, let alone terrorists. They've just been chucked in prison.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that these people are angels. Some may be lying or exaggerating. But there are so many that I doubt they are. It all returns to the fact they were imprisoned on charges with insufficent evidence released to provide an analysis as to whether they are guilty or not. Without any such evidence, they are presumed innocent.

Many of these people are random strangers picked up by Pakistani or Afghanistani Generals/Officers wanting to pay off grudges or look good to their US counterparts, and many seem to have no evidence towards their capture or 'Guilt' at all.

Well, there are plenty of stories out there where the detainees have lied to make the US look bad. The US was vindicated but *GASP* that is not sensational news so it gets swept under the rug.

So why should I believe torture stories? Especially after all that were tried and convicted in Abu whatever the heck that place was and the Marines that are going on trial for allegedly shooting civs?

Where did I mention anything about Canada? Some of these children may even be the children of suspected terrorists. Sort of a "hey I have your family and if you want them..."
Casualties of war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. They do not have the last name Smith, Jones whatever. All I know is this; I would not hesitae to defend myself against any agressor be it a man, woman, child or my ninety year old grandmother if they were armed and threatening my life.

One Canadian-born boy,

Now granted, that particular one was the son of an al-Qa'ida commander, which still isn't sufficent evidence to imprison him, but I'd say that still shoots your theory of 'They were all born in third world war torn countries and are therefore American hating terrorists,' to hell and gone.

Oh man, if this guy (Bush) thinks striking first will stop your enemy, he's seriously mistaken. The Iraq war is a lost cause, Afghan mission has been worsening lately and this man (Bush) keeps making enemies against America. America has become an island of itself, isolated, as the news only focuses on local and domestic issues.

Well, there are plenty of stories out there where the detainees have lied to make the US look bad. The US was vindicated but *GASP* that is not sensational news so it gets swept under the rug.

So why should I believe torture stories? Especially after all that were tried and convicted in Abu whatever the heck that place was and the Marines that are going on trial for allegedly shooting civs?

Wait...

People were convicted for torture, and therefore torture stories cannot be believed? That is insane troll logic.

Well, there are plenty of stories out there where the detainees have lied to make the US look bad. The US was vindicated but *GASP* that is not sensational news so it gets swept under the rug.

So why should I believe torture stories? Especially after all that were tried and convicted in Abu whatever the heck that place was and the Marines that are going on trial for allegedly shooting civs?

You don't seem to understand. No evidence has been provided that these detainees were terrorists in the first place. Thus, they shouldn't have been in there in the first place, Even if you believe every single one of them is lying (Which is absurd; some may be, but not all), there is still the matter that they were 'Tried and Convicted' without any evidence being released pertaining to their guilt, and they have been denied the most basic of rights when tried.

Let's take a little look at a thing I like to call the constitution. Specifically the Bill of Rights

Fourth Amendment



Amendment Five



Note, person, not US citizen.

Sixth Amendment

Read the preamble...the whole damn thing.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So why should I believe torture stories? Especially after all that were tried and convicted in Abu whatever the heck that place was and the Marines that are going on trial for allegedly shooting civs?

What kind of dumbass logic are you using here? People shouldn't believe X-Ray inmated are being tortured because Abu Ghraib inmates were tortured?

Well, "they" can say whatever they want but "they" are not there. So why should I take the word of some pacifist tree hugger about what may or may not be happening?
But you are willing to unquestioningly accept whatever the government tells you, even in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Wait...

People were convicted for torture, and therefore torture stories cannot be believed? That is insane troll logic.

we are talking about 2 differnt places. I was talking about those that got convicted in Iraq...not Gitmo.

Try reading my post before labeling me a troll

Read the preamble...the whole damn thing.
Which being entirely irrelevant; that simply means it applies to the United States... meaning the USofA has to follow it.

But you are willing to unquestioningly accept whatever the government tells you, even in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Never

But then I pretty much dont trust anyone.

Never

But then I pretty much dont trust anyone.
So why exactly are we accepting that all those in Guantanamo have done wrong and are being treated impecably?

Which being entirely irrelevant; that simply means it applies to the United States... meaning the USofA has to follow it.

Indeed; it mentions 'The United States', not 'The Citizens of the United States'. And since Guantanamo Bay has been Territory of the United States since 1902 and the Platt Amendment, the Constitution applies to all those in Gitmo as well.

Which being entirely irrelevant; that simply means it applies to the United States... meaning the USofA has to follow it.

Read the post I quoted. I think that it applies to anyone. It was written for the USA. Not the rest of the world.

Bush is great at starting wars but it's quite frightening how he then looses interest in them and just starts a new one. He's like a strong, but dumb kid with a 10 second attention span. The best thing would be if the dumbass invaded Iran as well, then he'd sink the us economy all the way and perhaps even the blindest bush fanboi could retrieve his/her brain from his/her asshole.
USA championing freedom and justice? That was made into a hilarious joke a very long time ago.

Read the post I quoted. I think that it applies to anyone. It was written for the USA. Not the rest of the world.

Guantanamo Bay is US territory; thus the Constitution extends to it and is applied there as well.

we are talking about 2 differnt places. I was talking about those that got convicted in Iraq...not Gitmo.

Try reading my post before labeling me a troll

Look. This is your quote.

So why should I believe torture stories? Especially after all that were tried and convicted in Abu whatever the heck that place was and the Marines that are going on trial for allegedly shooting civs?

Why especially after Abu Gharib? Why does their conviction make other torture stories less believable? Incidentally, that was a Buffy the Vampire Slayer reference, not accusing you of being a troll yourself.

So why exactly are we accepting that all those in Guantanamo have done wrong and are being treated impecably?

Because while those people are there, no planes have been flown into any buildings that I can think of.

Read the post I quoted. I think that it applies to anyone. It was written for the USA. Not the rest of the world.
Then shouldn't the USA start following it with regards to those it is holding in Guantanamo?
Because while those people are there, no planes have been flown into any buildings that I can think of.
Right, so maybe we should put you in there, there was bombings on the underground in London while you were out! To put it another way, correlation does not imply causation.

Look. This is your quote.



Why especially after Abu Gharib? Why does their conviction make other torture stories less believable? Incidentally, that was a Buffy the Vampire Slayer reference, not accusing you of being a troll yourself.

Never watched Buffy

I made that point because after those convictions, the US is being scrutinized even more. I highly doubt that under the magnifying glass, they are going to make the same mistakes they did in Abu Gharib (thanks for the spelling by the way)

Because while those people are there, no planes have been flown into any buildings that I can think of.

How smart...
While those people have been held there no giant wasp from outer space has invaded Sweden, so I say we keep them there! I mean...it's totally beoyond doubt that is the reason.

Because while those people are there, no planes have been flown into any buildings that I can think of.

That's insane. There's been no evidence to prove that these men were terrorists. 'Innocent Until Found Guilty'. The fact that there have been no 9/11's is pointless.

Guantanamó is essential for keeping law and order.
I suppose, under the "lock everyone up, that way you'll get the criminals too" principle.

No, Guantanamó is just a prison camp containing random men bought from the incompetent Northern Alliance, in the hope that they are worthwhile prisoners. There are probably some terrorists in there that deserve to be locked away, but they're not the majority.

As to child executions it was a great loss to America when the SC outlawed them, the same for when the SC outlawed executing retards.
That's barbaric. Europe doesn't need the death penalty, and neither does America.

In 100 years time when documents are declassified and your descendants end up reading that Bush was right and had real and excellent reasons for imprisoning people in Guantanamó, they are going to be quite embarrassed of you.
So how do you have access to the documents that we don't? Or do you just have faith that Saint Bush is doing the right thing?

If any one of those "children" was standing over you with a loaded weapon do you think they would hesitate to use it?
Stop blathering. We're not talking about child soldiers, we're talking about disarmed child prisoners - and you know it. Don't try make shit up in order to justify this with self-defence.

'Course, whether China will care about human rights abuse at Guantanamo is another matter.
The Chinese probably think that Bush is going too easy on the Guantanamó inmates.

Never watched Buffy

I made that point because after those convictions, the US is being scrutinized even more. I highly doubt that under the magnifying glass, they are going to make the same mistakes they did in Abu Gharib (thanks for the spelling by the way)

They've released no evidence to prove that these people are guilty.

Never watched Buffy

I made that point because after those convictions, the US is being scrutinized even more. I highly doubt that under the magnifying glass, they are going to make the same mistakes they did in Abu Gharib (thanks for the spelling by the way)

Hmm. That is an interesting point on the one hand.

On the other, when exactly did the US start caring what the rest of the world thinks?

Ahem. I shall now explain why all of these prisoners are terrorists.

If they weren't terrorists, they wouldn't be in Guantanamo Bay. Since they are in Guantanamo bay they are terrorists.

How smart...
While those people have been held there no giant wasp from outer space has invaded Sweden, so I say we keep them there! I mean...it's totally beoyond doubt that is the reason.
Well I cant comment on the giant wasp business, but I think you're both mistaken about the kids at Gito...perfectly understandable since you dont have access to the high level info I do. The fact is never has anyone intentionally flown a plane into a US building at any time when I have been in the process of masturbating....heaven help the lot of ya's if I should come down with an unfortunate case of RSI - the sky will rain planes....

Hmm. That is an interesting point on the one hand.

On the other, when exactly did the US start caring what the rest of the world thinks?

The US as a whole does.

The US as a whole does.

The US as a whole doesn't support George Bush. However, since, due to some cruel twist of fate, Bush is in charge, I'll rephrase that question.

Since when does Bush care what the world thinks?

Ahem. I shall now explain why all of these prisoners are terrorists.

If they weren't terrorists, they wouldn't be in Guantanamo Bay. Since they are in Guantanamo bay they are terrorists.

Yes...someone got it. :D

Well I cant comment on the giant wasp business, but I think you're both mistaken about the kids at Gito...perfectly understandable since you dont have access to the high level info I do. The fact is never has anyone intentionally flown a plane into a US building at any time when I have been in the process of masturbating....heaven help the lot of ya's if I should come down with an unfortunate case of RSI - the sky will rain planes....

Cut it off I say, cut it OFF!

The US as a whole does.
Does it? And yet it elected the man who has removed many US allies from such description.

And he's referring to a circular argument far removed from sanity or logic...

Yes...someone got it. :D

At this point I'm almost convinced that this is a puppet account. That or you are completely immune to sarcasm.

Yes...someone got it. :D

You're either joking, or insane.

Because while those people are there, no planes have been flown into any buildings that I can think of.
So if I locked you up, and I din't get run over by a drunk driver for 5 years, then I did the right thing? Your logic is more flawed then my analogy!!

And:
Bali, October 12, 2002
Casablanca, May 16, 2003
Madrid, March 11, 2004
London, July 7, 2005
Dahab, April 24, 2006

just to mention a few. You don't need planes to kill people.

The US as a whole doesn't support George Bush. However, since, due to some cruel twist of fate, Bush is in charge, I'll rephrase that question.

Since when does Bush care what the world thinks?

I think he cares. He just puts what he thinks are the best US interests before the opinions of the world. And really, that is what he should be doing. However, listening to outside opinion would not hurt.

Does it? And yet it elected the man who has removed many US allies from such description.

And he's referring to a circular argument far removed from sanity or logic...

Well, IIRC Blair, the puppet of the US is still in some kind of power.

Kettle? Black?

First in my opinion, what in the world makes a reporter an authority on anything?? Read the article, it is nothing but could be's and might be's. I don't see any real evidence provided by any source of authority. A group of lawyers...oh please lawyers are not experts on US military law, nor in warfare. What you all don't seem to understand a military tribunal first and foremost does not call under our Constitution regarding rights. Do your homework.

Second, we are dealing with an enemy that does not honor or recognize any UN conventions ( such as children are not used as soldiers), where is all your criticism for that?? I find it amazing that you all can sit behind your computers and growl and gripe about our "laws" when not one of you seems to know a thing about military law, not one of you seems to care that these "children" are soldiers (the silly article even states that). Are you so foolish that you think a 15 year old isn't a soldier or terrorist?

Why don't you clean up your own back yards and leave ours alone? Not one of you has a government that is exemplary by any means. And for those of you who think reporters are the be all end all of knowledge...sheese I can only laugh at you. Most certainly since you don't seem to even have a very good ability to read for any comprehension. At least try to read with some kind of comprehension and understand that this article contains NO facts but only "could be" and "might be" and "oh we heard this".

At this point I'm almost convinced that this is a puppet account. That or you are completely immune to sarcasm.

The second one.

You're either joking, or insane.

Both

Well, IIRC Blair, the puppet of the US is still in some kind of power.

Kettle? Black?
...Your point. (Although he got less than 40% of the vote at the last election, and I can't vote for two years)
I think he cares. He just puts what he thinks are the best US interests before the opinions of the world. And really, that is what he should be doing. However, listening to outside opinion would not hurt.
So.... pissing off the UN, Europe, Russia, the Middle East... all in the name of good domestic policy.... given his reliance on some of those... is intelligent and caring?

I think he cares. He just puts what he thinks are the best US interests before the opinions of the world. And really, that is what he should be doing. However, listening to outside opinion would not hurt.

In that case, since clearly torturing children is in the best interests of the US, why wouldn't he do it? Are you starting to see how you've steadily painted yourself into a corner?

First in my opinion, what in the world makes a reporter an authority on anything?? Read the article, it is nothing but could be's and might be's. I don't see any real evidence provided by any source of authority. A group of lawyers...oh please lawyers are not experts on US military law, nor in warfare. What you all don't seem to understand a military tribunal first and foremost does not call under our Constitution regarding rights. Do your homework.

Second, we are dealing with an enemy that does not honor or recognize any UN conventions ( such as children are not used as soldiers), where is all your criticism for that?? I find it amazing that you all can sit behind your computers and growl and gripe about our "laws" when not one of you seems to know a thing about military law, not one of you seems to care that these "children" are soldiers (the silly article even states that). Are you so foolish that you think a 15 year old isn't a soldier or terrorist?

Why don't you clean up your own back yards and leave ours alone? Not one of you has a government that is exemplary by any means. And for those of you who think reporters are the be all end all of knowledge...sheese I can only laugh at you. Most certainly since you don't seem to even have a very good ability to read for any comprehension. At least try to read with some kind of comprehension and understand that this article contains NO facts but only "could be" and "might be" and "oh we heard this".

Nice post.

We the US are supposed to be bound to these silly little rules while the rest of the world apparantly is not, but when we stray from the rules we are the bad guys.

You made those rules, agreed to abide by them, and have set yourself up as defenders of them, and that is hgow you justify military actions. So if you don't uphold them... then yes, you will be reviled as both hypocrits and the bad guys.

In that case, since clearly torturing children is in the best interests of the US, why wouldn't he do it? Are you starting to see how you've steadily painted yourself into a corner?

First of all there is no proof he has.

How many times have I heard Innocent until proven guilty in this thread. Oh that only applies for the people at Gitmo? So they are innocent until proven guilty but Bush has been tried and convicted already? By reporters none the less.

I have not been painted in any corner. You have held to these rules and beliefs for everyone but Bush.

They are not us citizens captured in the US so....I dont have a problem with it.
The US Constitution and the US Judicial system apply in Guantanamo Bay.

Well, "they" can say whatever they want but "they" are not there. So why should I take the word of some pacifist tree hugger about what may or may not be happening?
I see you're attacking us now*, and not our arguments. Very solid of you.

*I am neither a pacifist nor a tree-hugger.

Since the US itself champions neither of these things one wonder how Bush can consider himself to be the world's moderator.
In the field of human rights, America leads by example.

:rolleyes:

Wait a minute. Would you not say the same thing?
If you were the US Administration, would you not make the claim that there is no torture going on at Guantanamo?

Read the preamble...the whole damn thing.
Guantanamo Bay is part of the USA. The Constitution applies to everyone who is on US soil and thus under the jurisdiction of US law.

Never

But then I pretty much dont trust anyone.
And yet you insist that the government has America's best interests at heart and is telling the truth?

Because while those people are there, no planes have been flown into any buildings that I can think of.
It's quite likely that no planes would have been flown into any buildings even if Camp X-Ray wasn't there. I would credit increased airport security for that one.

And what about all those Islamist terrorist attacks in other countries since 2001?

Yes...someone got it. :D
If you're serious and not just trolling, you're merely putting blind faith in the government to do the right thing.

Actually... Bush has been demonstrated as sanctioning torture in foreign prisons (illegal rendering); and in Guantanamo by ex-inmates, by Amnesty International, and for that matter by the UN.

Nice post.

We the US are supposed to be bound to these silly little rules while the rest of the world apparantly is not, but when we stray from the rules we are the bad guys.

That sums it up yes.

By breaking our own rules, we have dishonored the memories of those who died to help establish them.

You made those rules, agreed to abide by them, and have set yourself up as defenders of them, and that is hgow you justify military actions. So if you don't uphold them... then yes, you will be reviled as both hypocrits and the bad guys.

So when these guys hide behind women and children, killing us, we should just ask them to stop, with a piece of paper?

Yeah, that will work.

And we did not make the rules. The UN did. The UN is more than the US

So when these guys hide behind women and children, killing us, we should just ask them to stop, with a piece of paper?

Yeah, that will work.

And we did not make the rules. The UN did. The UN is more than the US
So the UN wrote your Constitution for you? That's right, the one that makes Guantanamo an affront to your nation.

First of all there is no proof he has.

How many times have I heard Innocent until proven guilty in this thread. Oh that only applies for the people at Gitmo? So they are innocent until proven guilty but Bush has been tried and convicted already? By reporters none the less.

I have not been painted in any corner. You have held to these rules and beliefs for everyone but Bush.

No. Bush is indeed innocent until proven guilty. However, I am just saying that he should be tried.

I am merely pointing out that you shouldn't assume that there is no torture going on, especially when one of the pieces of evidence you submitted was the conviction of people for torture.

So the UN wrote your Constitution for you? That's right, the one that makes Guantanamo an affront to your nation.

I was refering to the rules of warfare that were pointed out in another post.

I was refering to the rules of warfare that were pointed out in another post.
Ah, Geneva, which the US signed and ratified, under no compulsion to I might add?

I made that point because after those convictions, the US is being scrutinized even more. I highly doubt that under the magnifying glass, they are going to make the same mistakes they did in Abu Gharib (thanks for the spelling by the way)
Yeah right! The only mistakes they're not going to make again, is allowing people to take pictures of the abuse and letting the press anywhere near the camp.

First in my opinion, what in the world makes a reporter an authority on anything?? Read the article, it is nothing but could be's and might be's. I don't see any real evidence provided by any source of authority. A group of lawyers...oh please lawyers are not experts on US military law, nor in warfare. What you all don't seem to understand a military tribunal first and foremost does not call under our Constitution regarding rights. Do your homework.
Hu? What the hell are you on about?

Second, we are dealing with an enemy that does not honor or recognize any UN conventions ( such as children are not used as soldiers), where is all your criticism for that?? I find it amazing that you all can sit behind your computers and growl and gripe about our "laws" when not one of you seems to know a thing about military law, not one of you seems to care that these "children" are soldiers (the silly article even states that). Are you so foolish that you think a 15 year old isn't a soldier or terrorist?
Proof of this? Oh right - THERE ISN'T ANY!

No. Bush is indeed innocent until proven guilty. However, I am just saying that he should be tried.

I am merely pointing out that you shouldn't assume that there is no torture going on, especially when one of the pieces of evidence you submitted was the conviction of people for torture.

Nor should anyone assume there is more torture going on because OUR tribunals convicted a couple of soldiers for putting dog collars on some prisoners.

You want to condem because of a past incident. Should we all assume that English government tortures and forces false confessions simply because they did with the Guildford Four?

Yeah right! The only mistakes they're not going to make again, is allowing people to take pictures of the abuse and letting the press anywhere near the camp.


Hu? What the hell are you on about?

Proof of this? Oh right - THERE ISN'T ANY!

That reporters know of, no civilian has access to any records regarding these detainees. It is stupid to assume you know there is no reason for them being held, you do not know this.

Unlike the current American Administration we don't practice illegal rendering, or fly people out to cuntries which have notoriously bad human rights records, where they just... disappear, to CIA run jails.

I think you're being unrealistic. It would be physically impossible for any country to prevent them from doing this. It's all very well to talk about human rights but if the human rights violators are going to ignore it and they're too strong to stop, what can you do about it?
Sit and watch and do nothing? What about sanctions? What about diplomatic isolation? I think it's about time the rest of the world (the UK in particular) starts putting the US government on the spot so that more Americans realise the problems and take more responsibility for the leaders they choose. Particularly when they know how powerful the country is and how much it can represent a threat to others, if that power falls in the wrong hands.

Military war against the US is lunacy but I think diplomatic isolation is long overdue. If that didn't work, then trade sanctions should follow. Isn't that what we do to others? How long until we quit using double standards dammit?

Unlike the current American Administration we don't practice illegal rendering, or fly people out to cuntries which have notoriously bad human rights records, where they just... disappear, to CIA run jails.

Well, if this thread is right and I am wrong I can answer your post with.

"Just because there is no proof does not mean its not happening." Well other than the CIA thing.

Unlike the current American Administration we don't practice illegal rendering, or fly people out to cuntries which have notoriously bad human rights records, where they just... disappear, to CIA run jails.

You took people out of Ireland, accused them of being terrorist. Tortured and forced false confessions from them. Omitted evidence that would have cleared them, all for the sake of "security". Held them falsely in prison for what like 14 years or something?? Had the confessed terrorists in prison and still refused to clear those you held falsely.

And you want to criticize?

You took people out of Ireland, accused them of being terrorist. Tortured and forced false confessions from them. Omitted evidence that would have cleared them, all for the sake of "security". Held them falsely in prison for what like 14 years or something?? Had the confessed terrorists in prison and still refused to clear those you held falsely.

And you want to criticize?

zing

Well, if this thread is right and I am wrong I can answer your post with.

"Just because there is no proof does not mean its not happening." Well other than the CIA thing.
Exactly. There's also proof that Guantanamo has been torturing people from those who were released; that is, witness testimonials.

DM, yes, I do. For a start, we stopped that. Second, we did not claim to be a bastion and defender of human rights. And third... those rights were not guaranteed in a constitution. But other than that the parallel is perfect.

You took people out of Ireland, accused them of being terrorist. Tortured and forced false confessions from them. Omitted evidence that would have cleared them, all for the sake of "security". Held them falsely in prison for what like 14 years or something?? Had the confessed terrorists in prison and still refused to clear those you held falsely.

And you want to criticize?

So it's the old 'Person/Country X did it, so of course we can do it' excuse, then?

Sit and watch and do nothing? What about sanctions? What about diplomatic isolation? I think it's about time the rest of the world (the UK in particular) starts putting the US government on the spot so that more Americans realise the problems and take more responsibility for the leaders they choose. Particularly when they know how powerful the country is and how much it can represent a threat to others, if that power falls in the wrong hands.

Military war against the US is lunacy but I think diplomatic isolation is long overdue. If that didn't work, then trade sanctions should follow. Isn't that what we do to others? How long until we quit using double standards dammit?


Is that for every country that imprisons and tortures people , or specifically aimed at the US

<<<thinking about China, vietnam, Zimbabwe,North Korea, what ever remains of Zaire(or whatever its called now), Sudan (theres a nice one.....US/UK: "lets have sanctions on the government that sponsors genocide" China: "f**k off we get oil from there" )

Every country practises double standards, especially when their economic interests maybe harmed

You took people out of Afghanistan, accused them of being terrorist. Tortured and forced false confessions from them. Omitted evidence that would have cleared them, all for the sake of "security". Held them falsely in prison for what like 14 years or something?? Had the confessed terrorists in prison and still refused to clear those you held falsely.

And you want to criticize?
Exactly!

This is the arguement I fear that the US will be met with in the future as well.


That reporters know of, no civilian has access to any records regarding these detainees. It is stupid to assume you know there is no reason for them being held, you do not know this.
I assume there is a reason they're being held - but I fear it is for the wrong reasons!

And there is a lot of records available on the detainees, including reports from the ICRC, documents released under the Freedom of information-act, testimony from witnesses - both guards and former inmates.

Exactly. There's also proof that Guantanamo has been torturing people from those who were released; that is, witness testimonials.

DM, yes, I do. For a start, we stopped that. Second, we did not claim to be a bastion and defender of human rights. And third... those rights were not guaranteed in a constitution. But other than that the parallel is perfect.

Those rights in our Constitution are not guaranteed to enemies of the state. They are the rights guaranteed to citizens. The rights guaranteed to "soldiers" are completely different. Ask anyone in our military. An arrest of even our own military personnel does not in any form or fashion state that a prisoner is "innocent until proven guilty". That right is not inclusive in any court marshal under our military law, nor are those rights inclusive to prisoners or war. Why do you think there is such a drive to be tried in a public tribunal instead of a military one?

So we are to take your word that your government has stopped it's illegal practices? Yet you aren't interested in our words at all only reporters? Umm..ok.

So it's the old 'Person/Country X did it, so of course we can do it' excuse, then?

No its the pot calling the kettle black.

George bush is a war criminal and should be treated as such capture trial and punishment for the baby murderer.:mp5: :

So it's the old 'Person/Country X did it, so of course we can do it' excuse, then?

No, it is the "you did it once, you surely must still be doing it" argument. You all want to condem because we had a conviction regarding mistreatment of detainees, so you are convinced it must still be happening.

Using that same conclusion, since England did it in the past shouldn't we assume England is still doing it?? That is exactly the logic some of you are using.

a leopard never changes it's spots it is not americans i don't like it is their leader if they elect him again i willl lose what little respect i have left for usa

Nor should anyone assume there is more torture going on because OUR tribunals convicted a couple of soldiers for putting dog collars on some prisoners.

You want to condem because of a past incident. Should we all assume that English government tortures and forces false confessions simply because they did with the Guildford Four?

I'm not saying they should. I'm simply saying that his logic doesn't work. You can't say that because we convicted people of torture, there is no other torture.

Those rights in our Constitution are not guaranteed to enemies of the state. They are the rights guaranteed to citizens. The rights guaranteed to "soldiers" are completely different. Ask anyone in our military. An arrest of even our own military personnel does not in any form or fashion state that a prisoner is "innocent until proven guilty". That right is not inclusive in any court marshal under our military law, nor are those rights inclusive to prisoners or war. Why do you think there is such a drive to be tried in a public tribunal instead of a military one?
Um...

Incorrect.

a leopard never changes it's spots it is not americans i don't like it is their leader if they elect him again i willl lose what little respect i have left for usa

I have no problem with that.

all those who believe that bush is a war criminal send an email in supportbudhameister332@hotmail.com

Um...

Incorrect.

No that is not incorrect. Military courts of law do operate the same as civillian courts of law.

I'm not saying they should. I'm simply saying that his logic doesn't work. You can't say that because we convicted people of torture, there is no other torture.

Nor can you say because we did, there still is.

military courts of law do act the same as civilian but they are bias because they do not want to be known as the judge who sent military men to jail regardless of what the did

So when these guys hide behind women and children, killing us, we should just ask them to stop, with a piece of paper?
No, you can capture them and disarm them. But you cannot imprison them indefinitely without trial, and you cannot torture them.

And we did not make the rules. The UN did. The UN is more than the US
The rules were made when the US dominated the UN.

You took people out of Ireland, accused them of being terrorist. Tortured and forced false confessions from them. Omitted evidence that would have cleared them, all for the sake of "security". Held them falsely in prison for what like 14 years or something?? Had the confessed terrorists in prison and still refused to clear those you held falsely.

And you want to criticize?
I'm sure Maggie Thatcher approves of Guantanamo Bay, but that still doesn't make it OK.

Those rights in our Constitution are not guaranteed to enemies of the state. They are the rights guaranteed to citizens.
No, they apply to all persons on US soil. The US Constitution never mentions citizens.

No its the pot calling the kettle black.
Except that Eritrita did not support the illegal actions of the UK Government. You are supporting the illegal actions of the US Government.

my government (canada) along with the rest of the world do stand up to the usa because we fear reprisal . as for the war in iraq usa troops are being shot with american made weapons that the us goverment supplied to iraq and saddam hussien when they were fighting iran (irony at it's best)

No, they apply to all persons on US soil. The US Constitution never mentions citizens.




No.

Military Law, in the United States, term used to designate the body of statutes, rules, and regulations governing military personnel and also certain civilians during wartime. Unlike martial law, which applies to all persons and property in the district in which it prevails, military law in peacetime applies to military personnel alone. Military law differs from military government in that the latter refers particularly to the military jurisdiction exercised by an army of occupation over the territory and inhabitants of an enemy country.

The basis of the military law of the United States is contained in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, by which Congress is empowered "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"; the law is embodied in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which became effective in 1951.

The statutes of military law establish systems of military courts and include penal codes defining the offenses for which persons subject to the code may be punished. Such offenses include mutiny, insubordination, neglect of duty, unbecoming conduct, theft, robbery, rape, and murder. Military personnel charged with crimes of a civil nature may be tried by military courts if the crime is service-connected or of military significance, or if it occurs outside the United States or its possessions. Similarly, military personnel are subject to trial by civil courts if they commit a civil offense. Punishments vary according to the nature of the offense and range from restriction within certain limits, confinement, loss of pay, or reprimand, to the death penalty for such offenses as murder, treason, and desertion in time of war. Trials before military courts are conducted without a grand jury or a petit jury; for the composition and operation of such courts.


http://www.jbtlaw.com/military_law.asp

I think you're being unrealistic. It would be physically impossible for any country to prevent them from doing this. It's all very well to talk about human rights but if the human rights violators are going to ignore it and they're too strong to stop, what can you do about it?

Its not physically impossible,ever heard of Nulear Missles? If the US(the world moderator/leader) doesnt want to take a stand for whats right then i say we the people should take to the streets and riot untill they listen:mp5:

No.

Military Law, in the United States, term used to designate the body of statutes, rules, and regulations governing military personnel and also certain civilians during wartime.

War time?

Who did you offically declare war on?

Its not physically impossible,ever heard of Nulear Missles? If the US(the world moderator/leader) doesnt want to take a stand for whats right then i say we the people should take to the streets and riot untill they listenusa does not have the right to shove democracy down the throats of countries that do not have it regardless of what a bunch of lone rednecks think

War time?

Who did you offically declare war on?

Terrorists and terrorism. That has been the declaration from the beginning of this.

Nor can you say because we did, there still is.

I'm not. As I said, all I am doing is pointing out the flaws in his logic.

Terrorists and terrorism. That has been the declaration from the beginning of this.

Sorry. We're not officially at war.

Terrorists and terrorism. That has been the declaration from the beginning of this.

Congress declared war on that?

Sorry. We're not officially at war.

Yes we are.

Terrorists and terrorism. That has been the declaration from the beginning of this.
that does not justify the murder of civilians who have been caught in the middle

Yes we are.

No. Congress gave the president the power to take millitary action. But Congress never declared war. Unless you can find the declaration of war that I missed somehow...

Congress declared war on that?

Congress declared war, yes beginning with Saddam and his terrorists activities. If you recall, Bush had full backing to go after him as a terrorist.

No. Congress gave the president the power to take millitary action. But Congress never declared war. Unless you can find the declaration of war that I missed somehow...
we are at war but it has never been officialy reconized because bush fears retaliation

Congress declared war, yes beginning with Saddam and his terrorists activities. If you recall, Bush had full backing to go after him as a terrorist.except for any intelligent person in the world duh!

that does not justify the murder of civilians who have been caught in the middle

What murder of civillians? You are calling casualties of war murder?

we are at war but it has never been officialy reconized because bush fears retaliation

Oh sure, we're at war, yes. But not officially. Which means that you can't drag in 'during wartime' legalities.

Congress declared war, yes beginning with Saddam and his terrorists activities. If you recall, Bush had full backing to go after him as a terrorist.

Saddam and his terrorist activites?! BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

What a mismash of facts that is!

Repeat the lie enough and you begin to believe it. Fantastic. :D

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece
all I can say is its about damn time. Just because they are under 18 doesnt mean they know any less about hurting America and our freedom.

all I can say is its about damn time. Just because they are under 18 doesnt mean they know any less about hurting America and our freedom.

I was wondering when you'd show up.

What murder of civillians? You are calling casualties of war murder?yes they are uneeded deaths to make the job of soldiers easier

yes they are uneeded deaths to make the job of soldiers easier

Like those in the towers?

Saddam and his terrorist activites?! BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

What a mismash of facts that is!

Repeat the lie enough and you begin to believe it. Fantastic. :D

So you feel genocide in Iraq was alright to go unchecked?

Like those in the towers?
shooting iraqies so they do not need to arrest them

shooting iraqies so they do not need to arrest them

Proof?

So you feel genocide in Iraq was alright to go unchecked?
genocide is never acceptable if other countries can't do it nethier can usa

genocide is never acceptable if other countries can't do it nethier can usa

USA and genocide? Again proof???

So you feel genocide in Iraq was alright to go unchecked?

Hilarious. Thats all I got to say.

Using today's 'terrorist' situation in Iraq to justify linking the original invasion 3 years ago to the War on Terror (not an offical War may I add- like the War on Drugs, its just a catchy tag line). Backwards engineering the War on Terror to suit the goals today.

Still haven't found me that proof that you are offically at war then no?
Because that military law crap you spouted earlier doesn't apply if Congress hasn't offically declared war.

genocide is never acceptable if other countries can't do it nethier can usa
thats good since were not

Proof?
turn on they news raiding a taliban camp and they all somehow die but when canadians do it they are all captured

Hilarious. Thats all I got to say.

Using today's 'terrorist' situation in Iraq to justify linking the original invasion 3 years ago to the War on Terror (not an offical War may I add- like the War on Drugs, its just a catchy tag line). Backwards engineering the War on Terror to suit the goals today.

Still haven't found me that proof that you are offically at war then no?
Because that military law crap you spouted earlier doesn't apply if Congress hasn't offically declared war.

You are funny.

On July 15, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Bush administration on the use of military commissions to try prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The unanimous decision of the three-judge appeals court panel overturned a November, 2004 ruling by US District Court Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Hahmed Hamdan v. Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/guan-j19.shtml

You are funny.

On July 15, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Bush administration on the use of military commissions to try prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The unanimous decision of the three-judge appeals court panel overturned a November, 2004 ruling by US District Court Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Hahmed Hamdan v. Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/guan-j19.shtml
you are a wackjob

So you feel genocide in Iraq was alright to go unchecked?

look closer to home, remember rummy gave him the gas....

why was the genocide not 'checked' in the early 80's when it happened?

Still haven't found me that proof that you are offically at war then no?

You are funny.
On July 15, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Bush administration on the use of military commissions to try prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The unanimous decision of the three-judge appeals court panel overturned a November, 2004 ruling by US District Court Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Hahmed Hamdan v. Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/guan-j19.shtml

So thats a "No, I haven't found you evidence that Congress officially declared war."

look closer to home, remember rummy gave him the gas....

why was the genocide not 'checked' in the early 80's when it happened?
we all can agree on one thing war is bad regardless of who dies

you are a wackjob

Ah yes, the retort of the uneducated.

First in my opinion, what in the world makes a reporter an authority on anything??
Study, experiance, more usually an admixture of the two...same kinds of things that makes other people experts I should expect...

Read the article, it is nothing but could be's and might be's.
It's a firmer case than the one made for an active WMD programe in Iraq, of course that only justified an invasion of a country, nothing as serious as Bush-criticism...

I don't see any real evidence provided by any source of authority.
Either you need to re-read, re-reason or perhaps it's simply that you need to learn the distinction between proof and evidence. Evidence is cited throughout, proof perhaps not, evidence most certainly.

A group of lawyers...oh please lawyers are not experts on US military law, nor in warfare.
Right, and I'm not an expert in acrobatics, which of course doesnt interfere with my ability to work out a person's age based on their date of birth....
I rather expect whether or not the lawyers concerned are experts on US military law (and there is no reason to suppose that they are in fact not expert), this wouldnt impair their ability to ascertain if someone was under 18...

What you all don't seem to understand a military tribunal first and foremost does not call under our Constitution regarding rights. Do your homework.

What you dont seem to understand is that whether it is legal, illegal or legally ambiguous, it's still wrong. I do not require laws to indicate what is ethical and right, I'm capable of working that out for myself.

Second, we are dealing with an enemy that does not honor or recognize any UN conventions ( such as children are not used as soldiers), where is all your criticism for that??
Criticism of that is not the point. In the first place what proof is there of which enemy using child-soldiers? In the second place Jack the Ripper's conduct is not all good on account of the fact that Stalin caused the death of a great many more people. We are discussing the conduct of the US, the US is responsible for the conduct of the US, not the US's enemies.

I find it amazing that you all can sit behind your computers and growl and gripe about our "laws" when not one of you seems to know a thing about military law, not one of you seems to care that these "children" are soldiers (the silly article even states that). Are you so foolish that you think a 15 year old isn't a soldier or terrorist?
One of us is confused, what laws are being complained about? There is no US laws that I am aware of that explicitly prove the lawfullness of the conduct in regard to Gito detainees under 18yrs of age...

As it happens I most certainly do care all the more in the case of a detainee being a child soldier (as opposed to a kid that happened to commit aggresive acts against the US military during the US's mid East invasions). You see the UN convention states children may not be soldiers, not because they are ' not entitled' or dont have the 'right' but because they are not competent to make such a decision (legally not one child has decided, chosen or consented to be a soldier), they are also too vulnerable to exploitation, to manipulation - to being either forced through physical or compelled through psychological means. Further they are not expected to be able to cope with the hardships of war including fighting, capture and detention.
So prima facie we have children who are not either legally or ethically responsible for whatever they may have done during the time they were victimised by those responsible for the children being made to act out the role of soldiers. They have either been detained without any cause, reason or justification, or they have been detained due to being the victim of a terrible crime. I most certainly care about that!

Why don't you clean up your own back yards and leave ours alone? Not one of you has a government that is exemplary by any means.
Really, care to point out to me where I ought to start with that? More to the point care to point out why my neighbour should be allowed to murder because as I am often not punctual I dont meet the standard of being 'exemplary'? Care to explain why whatever imperfections my government may or may not have renders citizens of some other country deserving of their fate at the hands of your own?
Surely your own 'rationale' is as transparent to me as it is to you...I wont insult you by assuming that you or anyone else is sucked in by the notion 'since no one is perfect, anything is permissable...'

And for those of you who think reporters are the be all end all of knowledge...sheese I can only laugh at you.
Who would those people be? Anyone in particular?

Most certainly since you don't seem to even have a very good ability to read for any comprehension.
Please state one miscomprehension or failure to comprehend that I have made in my efforts to read and comprehend the text concerned....

At least try to read with some kind of comprehension and understand that this article contains NO facts but only "could be" and "might be" and "oh we heard this".
Er the artical cites evidence and the case made is more convincing than the case for say there being a current active WMD programe in Iraq contemporary to the US invasion on the balance of all the facts that I am aware of...

I'm not even sure what it is you alledgedly find no evidence of whatsoever, nor why the non-existent facts as per how you consider we ought to interpret the text are funnily treated exactly as though they were facts by you when it suits you.

So thats a "No, I haven't found you evidence that Congress officially declared war."

We are at war whether you want to believe that or not. Ask the Islamic radicals. They declared the gihad.

Ah yes, the retort of the uneducated.
i speak four languages and have a masters in history including WARS

This is a quote from a mother of an Iraqi prisoner

"As long as he didn't really help them," "He just fooled them. I don't mind it. If he really did something, I'd be ashamed of him, because Islamically, you're not allowed to co-operate with the enemy. It'll cost you your life."

Second, we are dealing with an enemy that does not honour or recognize any UN conventions (such as children are not used as soldiers), where is all your criticism for that?? I find it amazing that you all can sit behind your computers and growl and gripe about our "laws" when not one of you seems to know a thing about military law, not one of you seems to care that these "children" are soldiers (the silly article even states that). Are you so foolish that you think a 15 year old isn't a soldier or terrorist?

being retired military I have a good knowledge first hand about military laws.


Stop blathering. We're not talking about child soldiers, we're talking about disarmed child prisoners - and you know it. Don't try make shit up in order to justify this with self-defence.

Who is to say these children were not armed at one point. I am almost positive you were not standing there when they were being detained. Where did self defence come into play? Were any military pers. injured or killed in the detaining of these children. Just because you are not in uniform or actually carrying a weapon does not mean you are not a potential soldier.
You sit all comfy in your chair spewing crap while others are out there taking crap from the enemy. Reverse the roles for one day, lose a friend, relative, or loved one and believe me your veiws would be different. I don't justify the abuse of children by any means but the media has a was of sensationalizing events to sell papers magazines whatever the case. What they see and hear is changed ten different ways to sell.

And in ending I leave you with this little item: An Iraqi tennis coach and two of his players were shot to death this week in Baghdad because they were wearing shorts, authorities said Saturday, reporting the latest in a series of recent attacks attributed to Islamic extremists

We are at war whether you want to believe that or not. Ask the Islamic radicals. They declared the gihad.
So thats a 'No' again then.

Here by the way: A much more up to date story:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/05/white-house-to-un-guantanamo-fully.php

White House to UN: Guantanamo 'fully within the boundaries of American law'
...
President Bush's statement that he hopes to close it at some point, and insisting that "everything that is done in terms of questioning detainees is fully within the boundaries of American law"...

If it is within US law, then the people there are protected by the Constitution, and as Congress has not officically declared war, the constitution trumps 'military/war time law'.

So thats a 'No' again then.

Here by the way: A much more up to date story:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/05/white-house-to-un-guantanamo-fully.php



If it is within US law, then the people there are protected by the Constitution, and as Congresss has not officically declared war, the constitution trumps 'military/wat time law'.

You are free to not like what is going on, which you have made clear. No one is saying you aren't.

But you are wrong, as the courts have upheld. You aren't the authority in the matter, so your opinion is nothing more than an opinion.

We are at war whether you want to believe that or not. Ask the Islamic radicals. They declared the gihad.

bullshit, legally you aren't. you cant cherrypick what laws you obey, especially when the stakes are this high.

back to the original point, think how this looks to the rest of the world. the us kidnapps children, sneaks them across aliies territory and presumably tortures them. the optics are appaling and i find it very hard to believe any 13 year old is dangerous enough/useful enough for the spooks for this level of incarceration

i speak four languages and have a masters in history including WARS

I'd like to hear 'you're a wackjob' in those four languages.

You are free to not like what is going on, which you have made clear. No one is saying you aren't.


Still not backing up your claim then?

Fair enough. Don't expect anyone to actually pay attention to you then.

But you are wrong, as the courts have upheld. You aren't the authority in the matter, so your opinion is nothing more than an opinion.
Then pray tell, why have the so called 'Tipton Taliban' been successful in bringing a law suit against the US infringment of religious rights? (while being detained in G.Bay for 4 years without charge, and then being released.)

Clearly, the courts are in several minds about this.

bullshit, legally you aren't. you cant cherrypick what laws you obey, especially when the stakes are this high.

back to the original point, think how this looks to the rest of the world. the us kidnapps children, sneaks them across aliies territory and presumably tortures them. the optics are appaling and i find it very hard to believe any 13 year old is dangerous enough/useful enough for the spooks for this level of incarceration
It looks bad us canadian are laughing at bush and hundreds other redneck jokes that seem to never end you all get laughed at on the news we do not live in igloos regardless of what people think and when we say something people listen we are a powerful friend or enemy depending on how you treat us

bullshit, legally you aren't. you cant cherrypick what laws you obey, especially when the stakes are this high.

Where is the court that says we are cherry picking laws to obey? The only courts I see are upholding the stance. Do you know think that there are enough Bush haters in this country alone that IF there was a legal stance they wouldn't have already done so?

back to the original point, think how this looks to the rest of the world. the us kidnapps children, sneaks them across aliies territory and presumably tortures them. the optics are appaling and i find it very hard to believe any 13 year old is dangerous enough/useful enough for the spooks for this level of incarceration

You do understand that these "children" are taught from birth to hate and the goal of the gihad right? So to assume that these "children" are not trained (at least mentally) to be soldiers is naive at best. These are not "children" by western standards.

Where is the court that says we are cherry picking laws to obey? The only courts I see are upholding the stance. Do you know think that there are enough Bush haters in this country alone that IF there was a legal stance they wouldn't have already done so?



You do understand that these "children" are taught from birth to hate and the goal of the gihad right? So to assume that these "children" are not trained (at least mentally) to be soldiers is naive at best. These are not "children" by western standards.
don't be naive just because it is on the news does not make it true

Clearly, the courts are in several minds about this.

Have any of those with "several minds" won?

Bringing charges does not indicate a correct stance legally.

No that is not incorrect. Military courts of law do operate the same as civillian courts of law.
What? I don't understand you. You said the opposite before didn't you? :confused:

don't be naive just because it is on the news does not make it true
operation iraqi liberation OIL coincidence i think not

What? I don't understand you. You said the opposite before didn't you? :confused:

No, the contention by several on this thread was that our civillian systems rights are extended automatically to military detainees. Our military court system is the authority, and is not conducted in the same manner. Sorry for the confusion.

Have any of those with "several minds" won?:rolleyes:
*Sigh*
It meant that the courts keep changing their minds on a case by case basis.


Bringing charges does not indicate a correct stance legally.
But by the courts allowing them to, does. They threw out a previous case, but authorised them to bring one regarding infringment of their religious freedoms.

operation iraqi liberation OIL coincidence i think not

You are aware that less than 25% of our oil comes from the Middle East?

:rolleyes:
*Sigh*
It meant that the courts keep changing their minds on a case by case basis.


But by the courts allowing them to, does. They threw out a previous case, but authorised them to bring one regarding infringment of their religious freedoms.

Which is an entirely different legal issue, and does not address any issue regarding holding "children" as detainees as suspected terrorists.

Which is an entirely different legal issue, and does not address any issue regarding holding "children" as detainees as suspected terrorists.
Which...has... nothing to do with what we were debating.

So, you resolved to the fact that you are not officially at 'war' then? Unless Congress just passed it right now, I mean.

Which...has... nothing to do with what we were debating.

So, you resolved to the fact that you are not officially at 'war' then? Unless Congress just passed it right now, I mean.

I dont' have a reference, and am not going to look one up. I will take your word. But don't confuse a declaration of war with a military action and assume the military tribunals do not apply, they do....again as the courts have upheld.

I dont' have a reference, and am not going to look one up. I will take your word. But don't confuse a declaration of war with a military action and assume the military tribunals do not apply, they do....again as the courts have upheld.

No, when not in a state of war, military tribunals do not apply. They do not override the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

This is exactly why the courts have changed their minds in recent years, and why they are in several minds about what to do.

You are aware that less than 25% of our oil comes from the Middle East?

And less than 5% from Iraq...even today after we allegedly stole it.

Someone please explain to me why I should accept this story as fact ?

Also point out the " torture" aspect...what type of torture and when ?


Is taking away the childrens toys...like their AK 47 's..and sending them to bed without supper..." torture " ?

Or is being involved in a terrorist activity and shooting at people limited to those over 18 ?


And when exactly did this " Bush " fellow everyone is wanting to declare war on send these " children " over to be " tortured " ?




Please help me understand your point...I am tring very hard .

Someone please explain to me why I should accept this story as fact ?


Because its your closest ally saying these things.

They are not us citizens captured in the US so....I dont have a problem with it.
so, are americans superior to everyone else on earth.Just beacause a person isnt american doesnt make them any more or less human with rights.Maybe that is why terrorists have attcked america-these terrorists were not born in a vacuum and I think america should realise that by treating non american citezens as less worthy than citezens actually breeds terrorism.I am not saying that it is right to blow yourself and others up but judging by the way america treats others I can understand why.What happened to all men are born equal under God, or does this apply only to americans.
when a person says to me 'we need guantanimo to protect america' are they so oblivios to the fact that guantanimo any adds to the feeling that america are acting illegally and should be stopped.Before complaining about the atrocities in other countries they should look on their own doorstep,a country cannot uphold the principles of freedom and justice while abusing peoples human rights-lead by example .

We need to stick by our President and not criticize him over decisions we don't have security clearance to know about.

HAIL TO THE CHIEF

No, when not in a state of war, military tribunals do not apply. They do not override the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

This is exactly why the courts have changed their minds in recent years, and why they are in several minds about what to do.

Please cite me one case where the courts have ruled against "children" being held as detainees is illegal and a violation of "their" Constitutional rights. Anyone for that matter, not just children.

i speak four languages and have a masters in history including WARS

I speak 5 and I teach history.

so, are americans superior to everyone else on earth.Just beacause a person isnt american doesnt make them any more or less human with rights.

We are not superior, but when a group threatens attack it is the duty and obligation of our Commander-in-Chief to defend American citizens and interests both at home and abroad and if this means locking up a few juvenile al-Qaeda operatives then so be it.

No it is not..it is that newspaper..and its alleged


ALLEGED ....look it up..... it has not been proven .


But hey ...lets look into it.....

OK from 2003.....


Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
US Detains Children at Guantanamo Bay


The US military has admitted that children aged 16 years and younger are among the detainees being interrogated at its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a US military spokesman, yesterday said all the teenagers being held were "captured as active combatants against US forces", and described them as "enemy combatants".

The children, some of whom have been held at Guantanamo for over a year, are imprisoned in separate cells from the adult detainees, Lt Col Johnson said. He would say only that the teenagers are "very few, a very small number" and would not say how old the youngest prisoner is.

So for three years at least this has supposedly beeen going on ....and suddenly three years later its " news " ?


Hmmm lets look into it a bit more ....

Please cite me one case where the courts have ruled against "children" being held as detainees is illegal and a violation of "their" Constitutional rights. Anyone for that matter, not just children.

If the children are not American citizens then they have no constitutional rights.

Because its your closest ally saying these things.

It's one opinion of an ally. There are also conflicting opinons from the very same ally.

Please cite me one case where the courts have ruled against "children" being held as detainees is illegal and a violation of "their" Constitutional rights. Anyone for that matter, not just children.

You're asking me:

Please tell me when the courts have said holding a child prisoner, is illegal?

And also, please tell me when it has been said that holding a child prisoner is breaking their Constitution Rights?

Wow.

It looks bad us canadian are laughing at bush and hundreds other redneck jokes that seem to never end you all get laughed at on the news we do not live in igloos regardless of what people think and when we say something people listen we are a powerful friend or enemy depending on how you treat us

hahahaha

It's one opinion of an ally. There are also conflicting opinons from the very same ally.

True. If it was coming from China or Iran, then you could be excused for laughing it off. When it comes from the country with the 'Special Relationship', your ears should prick up.

Is that for every country that imprisons and tortures people , or specifically aimed at the US

<<<thinking about China, vietnam, Zimbabwe,North Korea, what ever remains of Zaire(or whatever its called now), Sudan (theres a nice one.....US/UK: "lets have sanctions on the government that sponsors genocide" China: "f**k off we get oil from there" )

Every country practises double standards, especially when their economic interests maybe harmed
My opinion is that the same rules should apply to everyone. I have nothing against Americans, Chinese or even Koreans; only against hypocrites...

don't be naive just because it is on the news does not make it true

SO then tortured children at Gitmo is not true because it was reported.

Thanks for clarifying that.

oh wait, you think the news is always right when its anti Bush and anti US but any other time its wrong?

You're asking me:

Please tell me when the courts have said holding a child prisoner, is illegal?

And also, please tell me when it has been said that holding a child prisoner is breaking their Constitution Rights?

Wow.

No, I will go slower for you. You keep stating that the detainees Constitutional rights are being violated. Please cite any case (whether it be children or adult detainees) that has been won, that says detainees US Constitutional rights have been violated.

I would like to see any case where their US Constitutional rights have been violated and our judicial system has upheld their rights. You keep claiming they have Constitutional rights, please show me a citing of such a case that has been won.

I see a bunch of left wing web sites repeating the same allegations from the same source...

No proof is ever offered only ...well read for yourself...

« Previous | Main | Next »
Thursday :: April 24, 2003
Teens Being Held At Guantanamo
The U.S. has acknowledged that three teens, ages 13 to 15, are detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The Government says they did not know the youths were teens until after a medical examination


The government says...what government ? and when ? and who ?


http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002505.html


Ari Berman



The Daily Outrage aims to shine a spotlight on the forces that corrupt our democracy. The outrages come from all over these days: lobbyists stifling reformers in both parties, defense contractors profiting off pre-emptive war, the mainstream media echoing government deceptions, and a rightwing attack machine defending neo-imperialists and distorting progressive values. These stories rarely make the front-page, penetrate talk-radio, or appear on the evening news. So let The Daily Outrage guide you through the tangled web of media, money and politics at home and abroad. And click here to let us know of any outrages you think we should be covering. :D

The daily Outrage ...I like that :D

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=917

Guantanamo Kids at Risk
Human Rights Watch
April 24, 2003

The detention of children at Guantanamo poses grave risks to their well-being, Human Rights Watch said today, in response to the U.S. military's acknowledgement that at least three children, ages 13 to 15, are among the detainees at Guantanamo. In a letter sent today to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch urged the United States to strictly observe international children's rights standards regarding the detainees.

"Secretary Rumsfeld called those detained at Guantanamo the "worst of the worst,"" said Jo Becker, child rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "It's hard to believe that a 13 year old could fit that category."

A Pentagon spokesperson has said that the children are being questioned to obtain possible intelligence. "Simply providing the United States with military intelligence does not justify the detention of children," said Becker. "If these children have committed offenses, they should be provided with counsel and adjudicated in accordance with standards of juvenile justice. Otherwise, they should be released immediately."

The conditions at Guantanamo pose particularly serious risks to children. Child detainees should never be held together with adults, but because there are so few children, they are held for long periods in virtual isolation. They have no access to lawyers, limited or no access to their families, and are subject to interrogation.



When will I find the sixty ??????

Just the same three keep popping up !!!

Dammit I am 57 short !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html

so, are americans superior to everyone else on earth.Just beacause a person isnt american doesnt make them any more or less human with rights.Maybe that is why terrorists have attcked america-these terrorists were not born in a vacuum and I think america should realise that by treating non american citezens as less worthy than citezens actually breeds terrorism.I am not saying that it is right to blow yourself and others up but judging by the way america treats others I can understand why.What happened to all men are born equal under God, or does this apply only to americans.
when a person says to me 'we need guantanimo to protect america' are they so oblivios to the fact that guantanimo any adds to the feeling that america are acting illegally and should be stopped.Before complaining about the atrocities in other countries they should look on their own doorstep,a country cannot uphold the principles of freedom and justice while abusing peoples human rights-lead by example .

Americans are not superior. Just me.

No, I will go slower for you. You keep stating that the detainees Constitutional rights are being violated. Please cite any case (whether it be children or adult detainees) that has been won, that says detainees US Constitutional rights have been violated.

There are some ongoing. i.e The 'Tipton Taliban'.


I would like to see any case where their US Constitutional rights have been violated and our judicial system has upheld their rights. You keep claiming they have Constitutional rights, please show me a citing of such a case that has been won.

They are trying. It takes a while to actually get a case together and sue the world's strongest governemt you know.

By the way, someone please take a trip to Columbine and tell me teenagers cannot be terrorists or murderers.

There are some ongoing. i.e The 'Tipton Taliban'.



They are trying. It takes a while to actually get a case together and sue the world's strongest governemt you know.

So trying in your mind makes it so? So if I try to declare my Constitutional rights have been violated I am automatically right and the laws don't matter? What is the point of a court then?? Surely because I think it is so, it must be? Love that logic.

Or any war torn third world country.

I see a bunch of left wing web sites repeating the same allegations from the same source...

No proof is ever offered only ...well read for yourself...

When will I find the sixty ??????

Just the same three keep popping up !!!

Dammit I am 57 short !
I beg to differ, I think it's the kid's parents that are short on 3 children, not you who's short on 57...

You say there are 57 missing in Guantanamo, I say there are at least 3 too many (thanks for proving them). Since they had denied the existence of children before, the government has lost all credibility on this matter... Give me one good reason we should we trust them now, if they say there are no more children?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Checklandia
so, are americans superior to everyone else on earth.Just beacause a person isnt american doesnt make them any more or less human with rights.Maybe that is why terrorists have attcked america-these terrorists were not born in a vacuum and I think america should realise that by treating non american citezens as less worthy than citezens actually breeds terrorism.I am not saying that it is right to blow yourself and others up but judging by the way america treats others I can understand why.What happened to all men are born equal under God, or does this apply only to americans.
when a person says to me 'we need guantanimo to protect america' are they so oblivios to the fact that guantanimo any adds to the feeling that america are acting illegally and should be stopped.Before complaining about the atrocities in other countries they should look on their own doorstep,a country cannot uphold the principles of freedom and justice while abusing peoples human rights-lead by example .



Sure we all know putting those captured by the military in jail instead of just shooting them or hanging them ...like the good old days of guerilla war...is a BAD thing..

Please explain to me how a person who is captured while in the act of war against another country is being deprived of his or her civil rights and human dignity by being sent to prison ?

What human right do they have to be involved in the war ?

Whats missing here is any sense of reality and perspective.

So trying in your mind makes it so?
How can I comment on the validity of something that hasn't finished yet?!


So if I try to declare my Constitutional rights have been violated I am automatically right and the laws don't matter?
If you can prove it or it can be corroborated by witness, yes.

In these cases, because their credibility is shot to hell (from the very fact of being held there, not being charged mind), most of the evidence comes for others veryifing their claims.

Hence it takes time.

Unlike you, I prefer to wait until the cases are complete until forming my opinion on their validity.

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece

From the independent, as fine an example of a tabloid I've ever seen. So, where are they finding these 4 year olds with guns their supposedly torturing this time, Manchester?

Ahem. I shall now explain why all of these prisoners are terrorists.

If they weren't terrorists, they wouldn't be in Guantanamo Bay. Since they are in Guantanamo bay they are terrorists.

so the britains held in guantanimo and released without charge were terrorists-for Gods sake, they were captured because they were Britains in pakistan-but one of the guys captured was there to get married.Perhaps tehy should release that as a film -four weddings and a suicide bomber-maybe then the americans can change history to suit themselves like they have with every other aspect of history.

Please explain to me how a person who is captured while in the act of war against another country is being deprived of his or her civil rights and human dignity by being sent to prison ?

Prove it.


Whats missing here is any sense of reality and perspective.
No, what's missing here is the law.

I am making progress here...

I found ten...or seven more...

only fifty more to go ...

Global Lawyers and Physicians
Working Together for Human Rights


Recent news and related stories
Conference Summary
About the Children
Human Rights
Legal Proceedings
Write letters
Contact Information
Links
Guantanamo Bay main
GLPHR main

free hit counter
To some, Guantanamo is a bastion of freedom, guarded by a few good men; to others, it is a prison camp with no freedom left at all. The first captives arrived at the US Naval Base on Cuba’s Southern coast in January of 2002. It is estimated that currently more than 500 people from over 43 different countries are still being detained there. By holding them in Cuba (deemed outside of US jurisdiction) and by classifying them as "unlawful enemy combatants" (a military term not used in international laws), the US Government is evading humanitarian and human rights duties and both public and judicial scrutiny. Although the three youngest children were released in January 2004, and five more have since turned eighteen, two juveniles under the age of eighteen remain imprisoned in Guantanamo. Despite greater national and international media reports of torture, hunger strikes and force feedings, public outcry remains inaudible. Regardless of the wrangling over prisoner of war status, a case can be made that today’s intricate safety net of human rights treaties and humanitarian laws leaves no one unprotected, least of all children.

Initially ten, now seven children still remain imprisoned in Guantanamo; after being held for four years, only one teenager has been charged and has had a pre-trial hearing. They remain without any access to family.
The U.S. is party to the Geneva Conventions, which afford children special protection whether or not they are deemed POWs.
The U.S. recently ratified the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, committing to expeditious demobilization and social reintegration of child soldiers.
The U.S. promised in an UN resolution to comply with international human rights and humanitarian laws while combating terrorism.
Leave No Child behind in Gitmo's prisons




http://www.glphr.org/guantanamo/

So if I locked you up, and I din't get run over by a drunk driver for 5 years, then I did the right thing? Your logic is more flawed then my analogy!!

And:
Bali, October 12, 2002
Casablanca, May 16, 2003
Madrid, March 11, 2004
London, July 7, 2005
Dahab, April 24, 2006

just to mention a few. You don't need planes to kill people.

or are these cases un countable because the people killed were not american.

Well wait according to the latest report by the lawyers tying to free the detained JUVENILES...or get them charged or whatever...

There are only TWO....

two juveniles under the age of eighteen remain imprisoned in Guantanamo. Despite greater national and international media reports of torture, hunger strikes and force feedings, public outcry remains inaudible. Regardless of the wrangling over prisoner of war status, a case can be made that today’s intricate safety net of human rights treaties and humanitarian laws leaves no one unprotected, least of all children.


So who is to be believed ...these weasle lawyers or the newspaper dude from the UK ...that claims SIXTY children are being held... ??????


http://www.glphr.org/guantanamo/

So who is to be believed ...these weasle lawyers or the newspaper dude from the UK ...that claims SIXTY children are being held... ??????


http://www.glphr.org/guantanamo/

Tough call

How can I comment on the validity of something that hasn't finished yet?!



If you can prove it or it can be corroborated by witness, yes.

In these cases, because their credibility is shot to hell (from the very fact of being held there, not being charged mind), most of the evidence comes for others veryifing their claims.

Hence it takes time.

Unlike you, I prefer to wait until the cases are complete until forming my opinion on their validity.

Actually you don't wait. You have been all over this thread declaring US Constitutional rights apply to detainees, and they have been violated. Yet, by your own admission it has not been found to be so. So how about you do just that, and wait to see instead of ranting about something you THINK is so but hasn't been shown at all in reality thus far.

If you can prove it or it can be corroborated by witness, yes.

Too funny, of course this is NOT how it works. First you are going have to prove the application of US Constitutional law is appropriate. Which thus far is not applicable. Witnesses have no bearing on whether something is qualified as a case regarding US Constitutional law.

You may want it to be, but it does not mean it is.

snip
Ah, so its the numbers that bothers you. Imprisoning 10 kids (or any) is fine by you.

And because it already happened means that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Ok.

Honestly, I'd expect that kind of logic from China, not the self proclaimed Champion of Freedom and Democracy.

Guess I was mistaken.

Prove it.


No, what's missing here is the law.



prove what exactly ?

When you can prove they are even being held...maybe then we will have a basis for determining why .

The law isnt missing its all over the place . So are the lawyers...the human rights groups..amnesty international....etc....etc....

I see unfounded allegations .

Show proof of anything but blah blah blah ....????

I guess the poor little buggers were just picked up for shoplifting and taken all the way to Cuba....to be housed fed and tortured unmercifully by the monster in the closet ..or the evil american imperialist guards . or Bush himself..for all you know .

Sure we all know putting those captured by the military in jail instead of just shooting them or hanging them ...like the good old days of guerilla war...is a BAD thing...
"Just shooting them or hanging them"... "Just"?! Somehow I feel the truth just slipped out of your tongue about what you think should be done with these children, but that's "just" me speculating...
Please explain to me how a person who is captured while in the act of war against another country is being deprived of his or her civil rights and human dignity by being sent to prison?
First, this thread is about children. Don't use the word "person" when we're talking about children. Makes it look like you're avoiding the subject. Second, when the war (in Afghanistan) ended and people were still kept in prison. Just one example...
What human right do they have to be involved in the war?
The same as everybody else's?
Whats missing here is any sense of reality and perspective.
I agree you are...

Actually you don't wait. You have been all over this thread declaring US Constitutional rights apply to detainees, and they have been violated. Yet, by your own admission it has been found to be so. So how about you do just that, and wait to see instead of ranting about something you THINK is so but hasn't been shown at all in reality thus far.
I'll wait until you edit this. It doesn't make much sense.



Too funny, of course this is NOT how it works.
What, statements from eye witnesses are no longer valid?

First you are going have to prove the application of US Constitutional law is appropriate.
Territory controlled by the US government, are subject to US laws. therefore, as it is subject to US laws, it must therefore be subject to the US Contitution.

Witnesses have no bearing on whether something is qualified as a case regarding US Constitutional law.

I never said they did. I said witness statements can corroborate testimony, espeically in the event of filing of charges/a case. The veryfact that the courts allow such charges to be brought forward, indicate that the case it applicable to US law, and also the Constitution.

Ah, so its the numbers that bothers you. Imprisoning 10 kids (or any) is fine by you.

And because it already happened means that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Ok.

Honestly, I'd expect that kind of logic from China, not the self proclaimed Champion of Freedom and Democracy.

Guess I was mistaken.


I see nothing wrong with putting a person in jail for commiting a crime while under the age of 18.

I also see nothing wrong with taking a CAPTURED ENEMY COMBATANT and placing him or her in detention ...they get no free ride because they are under 18.


So again where is your perspective ?

If I can be shown proof that these " children " were somehow NOT involved IN ARMED CONFLICT..or TERRORIST activity...and were mistakenly just picked up for no good reason...well maybe then I could muster some seriouse whoop ass outrage ..

But I cant even find much proof they are even there .

And I am looking .

what are you doing besides being a parrot and an apologist ?

I'll wait until you edit this. It doesn't make much sense.



What, statements from eye witnesses are no longer valid?


Territory controlled by the US government, are subject to US laws. therefore, as it is subject to US laws, it must therefore be subject to the US Contitution.



I never said they did. I said witness statements can corroborate testimony, espeically in the event of filing of charges/a case. The veryfact that the courts allow such charges to be brought forward, indicate that the case it applicable to US law, and also the Constitution.

The constitution is domestic. Its in the preamble for it. Foreign land, even held by us is a territory...not domestic.

I'll wait until you edit this. It doesn't make much sense.

I edited the NOT I forgot. Happy now?



What, statements from eye witnesses are no longer valid?

Eyewitness statements have no bearing on determining if a case even applies to the application of Constitutional law. Somewhere you have made the assumption that detainees are subject to our civil court systems. They aren't, thus far. You consistently make the assumption they are. Witnesses will only come into play after a case is determined whether it will even be heard.


Territory controlled by the US government, are subject to US laws. therefore, as it is subject to US laws, it must therefore be subject to the US Contitution.

Not if the military has jurisdiction. Which at this point in time they do.



The veryfact that the courts allow such charges to be brought forward, indicate that the case it applicable to US law, and also the Constitution.

Wrong, cases are brought all the time and dismissed for a lack of application. In other words cases are pursued daily in the US that are thrown out because they are not valid under the law or the Constitution. A judge makes a ruling whether a case has any validity. Just because someone files does not automatically make it valid as a case.

The constitution is domestic. Its in the preamble for it. Foreign land, even held by us is a territory...not domestic.
Think about it.

Land that is controlled by the United States must be governed under the rule of law.

This law must stem from somewhere. (ie the Contitution)

By saying it only applies to the 'domestic' United States, you are in fact saying that the rule of law does not apply to US territory that is not domestic.

That is plain stupid.

The Consitution applies to all United States holdings, domestic and abroad.

What, statements from eye witnesses are no longer valid?
Didn't you know? All statements from eye witnesses that accuse the US government are considered to be biased against the US and anti-American. Therefore, unless you find a statement that accuses the US government without being negative, the statement isn't valid... :rolleyes:

Think about it.

Land that is controlled by the United States must be governed under the rule of law.

This law must stem from somewhere. (ie the Contitution)

By saying it only applies to the 'domestic' United States, you are in fact saying that the rule of law does not apply to US territory that is not domestic.

That is plain stupid.

The Consitution applies to all United States holdings, domestic and abroad.

Show me where it says that. You all want to follow the constitution to the letter, show me where it says anything about applying abroad.

[I edited the NOT I forgot. Happy now?
Yes. Thank you.




Wrong, cases are brought all the time and dismissed for a lack of application. In other words cases are pursued daily in the US that are thrown out because they are not valid under the law or the Constitution. A judge makes a ruling whether a case has any validity. Just because someone files does not automatically make it valid as a case.

Ugh. And the case of the 'Tipton Taliban' has being ruled as valid, because the fucking judge said so. That is why it is free to continue to be brought to trial, because the judge found it to be!

"Just shooting them or hanging them"... "Just"?! Somehow I feel the truth just slipped out of your tongue about what you think should be done with these children, but that's "just" me speculating...


well you keep on speculating you seem to be good at it .

First, this thread is about children. Don't use the word "person" when we're talking about children. Makes it look like you're avoiding the subject. Second, when the war (in Afghanistan) ended and people were still kept in prison. Just one example...

We all know that its ok for those under 18 ...these children you speak of ...to commit whatever act they care to without consequence...so what if they are involved in an act of war ...they are only children...like the ones in Darfur...the ones with the machetes cutting peoples heads off ?
but because these particular " children " were involved in acts of war against the US its ok ...they need special treatment .
The TAliban never ended the war in Afghanistan...you have not been paying much attention...maybe you ahave been speculating too much .


The same as everybody else's?

Right and they have the same rights to suffer the consequences of the actions .

I agree you are...

I am only speculating...but I think you need to get a clue .

Show me where it says that. You all want to follow the constitution to the letter, show me where it says anything about applying abroad.

So, you're saying that US holdings abroad are in a legal limbo?

This means embassies and consulates.

Where is the court that says we are cherry picking laws to obey? The only courts I see are upholding the stance. Do you know think that there are enough Bush haters in this country alone that IF there was a legal stance they wouldn't have already done so?



You do understand that these "children" are taught from birth to hate and the goal of the gihad right? So to assume that these "children" are not trained (at least mentally) to be soldiers is naive at best. These are not "children" by western standards.

so they are not children then judging by you inverted commas
if they are in fact taught from birth then it is those who teach them should be punished-a child is not responsible for what an adult chooses to teach them-we should have sympathy for these 'children' as you call them, not ship them across the world are punish them, they did not ask to to taught the doctrine of hate that the MINORITY of muslims are teaching them.

Yes. Thank you.





Ugh. And the case of the 'Tipton Taliban' has being ruled as valid, because the fucking judge said so. That is why it is free to continue to be brought to trial, because the judge found it to be!

Ok a trial is going to take place, yet that proves nothing as far as guilt of anyone. Where is your wait and see attitude now? Interesting that these guys were picked up in Taliban territory where we were engaged in combat, English authorities have also been engaged in their detainment, or did you forget that?

Tell me again what Constitutional rights they are pursuing? Please, I would like to know which ones.