1) i'm not certain about what they were wearing. maybe if we had a public trial, we would all know.

2) dont stereotype on what soldiers in third world countries wear. as a matter of fact, a lot of third world countries concentrate a large amount of govt spending on the military.

I could not resist this one having seen plenty of third world countrie's militaries as both friend and foe.
They can barely afford guns and ammo let alone a conforming uniform.
It is more wear what you have but try to stay away from bright colors:D .

I came into this a bit late, but it's still going strong so might as well get my feelings out there...

On the international law stuff, the US has given the large finger to things like the international criminal court, treaties on the welfare of children and other such 'soft lefty' things. The US has no legal responsibility to provide things like lawyers and a fair trial to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. They can do whatever the hell they want.

I am fairly certain that as of right now, most of the people in the Guantanamo Bay holding facility are probably fairly bad people, but we don't know that for sure. That's where the problems lie.

Beyond this, I think the creation of a third class of prisoner, detainee, is a pretty dangerous thing to do. Criminals have rights and PoW's have rights. Detainees seem to have none but the whim of the administration/military. So what happens when someone decides that it's really quite a bit cheaper to detain say, suspected murderers and rapists instead of charging them criminally? Or, instead of paying expensive lawyers, when we're pretty sure that someone has committed an armed robbery, might as well just detain them indefinatly, if you're wrong, who cares, the family? If you're right, well, a dangerous person is off the street. Of course, the family might end up making a lot of noise if they think that the detained is innocent, might as well just get rid of them as well. Really easier for all involved.

Paranoid delusions? Probably, but I really don't want to start walking down that road, violating one person's rights makes it easier to take away another's and another and...

One last thing on the topic of the non-uniformed combants=evil murderers. Does anyone out there know how partisians have been dealt with by various forces on either side since and including WWII? Were they called PoW's or just held then executed? (not including Nazi Germany and Russia under Stalin for what should be obvious reasons) Far as I'm aware, the civilian with the gun shooting at invaders if (s)he survived, was considered a PoW up until now.

Closing thoughts for those who like the Bay and what it stands for.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller

If the gov. gets away with it there how long till they try it here?

yes, i can see that.

but i'm not lookin at the same countries as u are.

maybe i should've rephrased it as "third world countries with nuclear weapons"

Yeah Human, amen. Agree completely. Abolition of the basics is bad for everyone.

Ah, but then we're not talking about terrorists, because officially Pakistan does not support terrorism, so they certainly wouldn't give them uniforms. India is of course totally against terrorism (*cough*), as is China. Any other third world country I missed? Oh yeah, North-Korea... I have never seen a North-Korean Islamic terrorist yet.

Face it, Dude, these people in Afghanistan were probably *not* wearing official colors, nor were they upholding the Geneva convention. Therefore, they are not POWs subject to said convention.

so, we're gonna stoop down to the level of the terrorists??

Earlier posts in the thread have already pointed out that Taliban members (who are/were members of Afghanistan's government) are being held in detention. Every media picture I've seen clearly indicates all of those Taliban members were wearing a recognizable uniform.

POW or not, they deserve better trials than they are currently getting.

You call blue suits like every one of their tribe wears a "uniform"? That's like calling jeans a US uniform. However, if they did wear a uniform, and were upholding the Geneva convention (which they usually did not), they would have been imprisoned in Afghani POW camps, like many of their colleagues.

Oh, and Dude, we're not stooping to their level. If we were, they'd have been tortured and killed by now.

Im just trying to understand the rationale for not upholding the international law with these detainees(?). Im happy to see them prosecuted or whatever, if its done with the world watching, rather than some clandestine mockery.

We are upholding international law, there's no legal issue here unless you want to question whether or not they qualify as illegal combatant under the geneva convention. That requires they wear a uniform and other such things (it's somewhere here in the thread) for them to be a POW (who get the rights you're probably assuming they're entitled to).

The people who we pick up aren't neccisarily prone to wear these things (in large part being from Afghanistan/Pakistan area and being civilians) but technically you're going on an honor system of sorts since there's no way to tell what made the army pick them up and take them to Cuba, what they were wearing and doing, etc. it's just highly improbable a person from the places we're picking them up from would qualify as POW.

first nice quote btw

On the part of partisans - it depends on the situation and person(s) involved.

For example, Hitler made the order to execute all captured commandos and resistance fighters - of course Hitler is.. uh.. Hitler

But once Rommel was the commander involved and he let the prisoners live - he didn't believe in Hitler's style and saw it quite differently (as did a lot of other commanders though lesser known).

That being said, the context is a bit off on this - spies for Germany were sometimes executed, as were saboteurs, but the thing is - many were hired by the government they worked for (duh) and at the time, it was a total war.

This is hardly a total war - WW2 was one of desperation early - and it doesn't really work because the Allies -always- had the advantage in intelligence and counterintelligence.

That is infact a misquote! read the "quotation with a life of its own part"

http://www.liv-coll.ac.uk/pa09/europ.../neimoller.htm

Yes I've got to agree with that. Oh and by the way America has supported lots of terrorism in the past. For example the IRA - someone blows up some women and children, they then go to America and do not get arrested.

Macheath - David Hicks is there because, from the articles I've read and listened to, Little Johnny told George W. that he didn't want to deal with him. (wish I had the quotes to send you, a search on ABC archives might find it).

Why would the yanks want the expense of housing this guy and putting him to trial if they could have shipped him off to be dealt with by his home country?

probably another instance of Little Johnny not being able to deal with anything other than sticking his tongue up Gerge W. arsehole.

Oh, and us Aussies - we don't have many civil rights, not in the same way as they're actually stated in ammendments to the US constitution anyway.

Ever hear of the King Alfred plan? Basically it was a conspiracy theory by black radicals in the early 70's that a detainment center was being set-up similar to the Japanese internment camps. Of course nobody believed them, but it resurfaced as Guantanamo Bay. Listen to Gil Scott-Heron's King Alfred Plan to see what I'm talking about.

Maybe the detainees at Gitmo aren't entitled to Constitutional Rights because they aren't citizens of the U.S. and aren't technically in the U.S.. And maybe they aren't entitled to the same rights as POWs because terrorists (our call) aren't entitled to rights set out in international conventions. But, they are human beings and ought to be entitled to receive some basic "human rights".

After all, we are the U.S. and, although we didn't invent the concept of human rights, we have been the most ardent promoters of the idea that all people are entitled to receive certain basic humane treatment, including some level of elemental justice.

Forgetting for the moment whether they deserve to be imprisoned, are the detainees being treated with what we as Americans would generally consider to be consistent with receiving their basic human rights? How we treat these guys informs the world who we are.

I think its odd that the inhuman conditions of G Bay include buying each prisoner a new pair of pants and they are gaining an average of 13 lbs. Sounds like torture.

Those prisoners get better food than what I have to pay for (they get pissed if you bring in Dunkin Donuts those rat bastards) from the early morning break cart/mobile stand.