he was still their friend. half of the middle eastern nations refused to help out in the gulf war II.

yes, they're changing their ways, but it's just too damn slow. they're too damn conservative. look @ the rights that women have there, NONE.

we need a catalyist in there, in some form (which i dont know)

Just the basics please: Presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, and a fair trial.

What is their status?

illegal combatents = presumed guilty until proven innocent.

even if proven innocent, some are not released.

Okay, they were presumed innocent until they started to shoot at US soldiers, which proved otherwise. The fair trial is about to happen, by military tribunals.

...but that's probably not what you mean, is it? :)

Shooting at soldiers doesn't make you guilty - thats not a damn crime. So the lonely peasant defending his homeland shoots towards a soldier they're suddenly war criminal? Nah. Hell some of them only fought because they hate foreign invaders - so that reasoning at being innocent vs. guilty is wrong.

I'd say they were taken because they were suspected of links to Al-Qaeda - now obviously there are going to be mistakes but most probably got weeded out. I'd say its unlikely those who are held don't have some ties. But again, mistakes happen out there and should be avoided.

As for the others... well thats for the tribunal to decide. Hell a lot may just go free but I'd say its those who are well known already to be part of the organization are the real ones who are in trouble.

Shooting at a US sodlier certainly raises questions though. Plus, it's a good way to get killed.

Doesn't that mean they aren't subject to various 'stuff', icluding "presumed innocent until proven guilty"? I dont know much on this topic.

I'll never get in on these in time to really have a discussion, but imho, we (america) need to start applying our own values of justice to our internation policy. We have become the policemen that we swore we would not. But, we do not act judiciously, we act on our extreme xenophobic tendancies. The idea that, "they would kill us without a thought, so lets get em," implies that we are to have control over other countries as if they were not soverign. The world doesn't end at our borders, and we need to remember that in our values of justice, it is "innocent until proven guilty."

even the un charter says that all suspects should be treated "innocent until proven guilty"

Im sorry but anyone who thinks the Military tribunal is a fair trial is a bloody idiot. Even if they are found innocent by the tribunal, there is no guarantee they will be released.

I'll agree with Wakosane in that some things the U.S. really -does- need to take a look at and see where it really is headed to. The reason so many controversies arrived lately is because of the direction of the U.S. - the "liberals" actually probably act really conservative and didn't want to see the country so drastically change direction *shrug*

'Okay, they were presumed innocent until they started to shoot at US soldiers, which proved otherwise. The fair trial is about to happen, by military tribunals. '

Im gobsmacked by this logic.

Care to explain why? Can you prove they were innocent? Can you explain why they weren't illegal combatants? And can you explain why a non-US citizen on non-US soil would get a trial based on normal US law?

No, obviously i cant prove they are innocent- thats why we have to be stringent in getting a fair and proper hearing for all of these people. If they are guilty, then lets prove in front of the world and get UN involved. This Guantanamo Bay malarchy is freaking abhorent to anyone who believes in proper justice. Shooting at an invading force of soldiers while being in your own country does not make a criminal. These guys may in fact be guilty of stuff though, but the course of justice is being manhandled by the US.

Actually... If you're not wearing a proper military uniform (as in: recognizable as a combatant instead of a civilian), then you are in fact a criminal. Only soldiers are supposed to do the shooting, and only soldiers get protection from the Geneva convention. If it were any different, how could soldiers distinguish between soldiers and civilians at all?

and how would you be certain of what they were wearing?

Its absoloutly absurd, the rules of war (referring to the clothing thing) You'd think that putting the proportionally largest amount of military might against a weaker apponent in the whole history of known civilisation, would breach some kind of law too.

Yeah, because.. uh.. people shouldn't be able to win a war, right?

Like it or not, the US is the top dog. Harbor people who attack us, and you will get the shit kicked out of you. If you think that this makes the US "meanies", then I suggest you look into teaching preschool.

I am not certain of what these particular individuals were wearing. I do, however, know that a lot of 3th world countries have a severe lack of proper military uniforms, especially rebel/terror groups.

How would you be certain they were wearing uniforms? Have you seen any TV clip about the Afghani war where any local was wearing a proper military uniform at all?

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.