US plans death camp in Guantanamo - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 06-06-2003, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
Why doesn't common sense enter into any of these arguments. The fact that they are still alive speaks volumes in itself. And just what exactly are we supposed to do with them? Let them all go? Will the ACLU take responsibility for their actions if they come back later and kill another 3,000 innocent people? Who's the flippin' genius that knows all the answers? Not me. But here's the real question- do YOU want the responsibility to decide their fate? Next time I think the military should take no prisoners. Is that a better idea? "Is Gitmo a death camp?" I think the question is a tremendous oversimplification of the matter.

LOL, common sense? How about this for a novel solution: give them representation and try them in court!

*gasp* the genius in it all...

btw, if you want to prevent another 3,000 deaths maybe we should be scouring Saudi Arabia.

Liquor Dealer · 06-06-2003, 09:29 AM

He said absolutely nothing about lol! He said try using a little common sense.

smooth · 06-06-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
He said absolutely nothing about lol! He said try using a little common sense.

ROTFLMAO, oh, the irony of it all...

...I want to believe you're jesting...

geep · 06-06-2003, 10:10 AM

And what exactly are we trying them for? Did they all get their Miranda rights? If we do what you ask are we really serving justice or will we only know that after they do or don't kill someone else? What will we find in Saudi Arabia? What can we do about what we find? Any fool can make a decision or stand by any ideal. Sheer genius will not give you the answers. You have to be willing to make mistakes because you WILL make mistakes either way. The only thing to do from this point is decide which kind of mistakes you are willing to ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILTY for.

mirevolver · 06-06-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Article 5 of the convention states that, "should any doubt arise" as to whether detainees fit these categories, they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention" until "their status has been determined by a competent tribunal".

-------------

Additional Protocol

According to Article 43 of Additional Protocol I, "any combatant... who falls into the power of an adverse party shall be a prisoner of war".

Article 44 then clarifies the definition of the term "combatant".

According to paragraph 2, while all combatants are obliged to comply with the laws of war, violations of these rules "shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or... to be a prisoner of war".

The only exceptions to this are in relation to the use of clothing and symbols to make combatants identifiable.

Paragraph 3 recognises that it is not always possible for combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population, as they are obliged to do under international law.

It states that a fighter "shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly" during each military engagement and while visible to the adversary while preparing to attack.

According to paragraph 4, if he fails to do this, he forfeits his status as a POW, but "shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war".

Precedents

Uniform and identification
Viet Cong fighters captured during the Vietnam War were eventually given POW status, despite the fact that they wore nondescript black clothing with no insignia.

Recognised regimes
Although the US did not recognise the Chinese regime diplomatically, it still treated Chinese captives from the Korean War as POWs.

Some legal experts have suggested that a distinction should be made between al-Qaeda and Taleban prisoners, as the Taleban were the military force of the de facto government of Afghanistan - even though it was only recognised by three governments - while al-Qaeda are a stateless militia.

Rules of war
While some German air squadrons broke the rules of war by attacking civilian targets during World War II, this did not discount all captured members of the country's air corps from POW status.

--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1787511.stm (emphasis added)

Article 5 is irrelevant because of the term "should any doubt arise." Al-Qaeda members do not meet any of the terms outlined in article 4, section A, item 2. Therefore, there is no doubt, they are not prisioners of war.

As far as the term "combatant," the Geneva convention is describing legal combatants. Legal combatants are required to carry their arms openly and remain visible to the advarsary while preparing the attack. Al-Qaeda does neither, therefore they are not legal combatants, but illegal combatants. Hence the term being used by the US Government.

Viet Cong fighters were the officially recognized militia of North Vietnam, so they actually fell under article 4, section A, item 1 of the Geneva convention.

Quote:

Geneva Convention
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Even though the United States didn't recognize the Chinese Regime during the Korean war, Chinese soldiers were POWs because they were protected by article 4, section A, item 3.

Quote:

Geneva Convention, Article 4, Section A
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Yes, German bomber pilots did break the rules of war by bombing civilian targets, but the Geneva Convention was adopted on August 12th, 1949. Germany surrenderded on May 8th 1945 so that precedent would be obsolete under the current convention.

mirevolver · 06-06-2003, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Orginally posted by smooth
Some legal experts have suggested that a distinction should be made between al-Qaeda and Taleban prisoners, as the Taleban were the military force of the de facto government of Afghanistan - even though it was only recognised by three governments - while al-Qaeda are a stateless militia.

Quote:

Orginally posted by Daval
What about the Taliban? The Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan and should recieve legitimate POW status. Yet they are not.

A distinction was made between Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. The Taliban fighters were given POW status and were kept in Afghanistan. Only Al-Qaeda was brought to Gitmo.

At the end of formal hostilities, the Taliban POWs were handed over the the new Afghan government. Shortly afterward, most were set free.

The_Dude · 06-06-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mirevolver
A distinction was made between Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. The Taliban fighters were given POW status and were kept in Afghanistan. Only Al-Qaeda was brought to Gitmo.

At the end of formal hostilities, the Taliban POWs were handed over the the new Afghan government. Shortly afterward, most were set free.

actually, taliban prisoners are being held in guatanamo as "illegal combatant"

http://www.karenfranklin.com/guantanamo-post.htm

Quote:

Deep on the list of criteria for sending suspected al Qaeda and Taliban fighters to the U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba was one guideline that seemed innocuous alongside the allegations that they were dangerous terrorists. It dictated, according to U.S. military officials, that any captured soldiers believed to be suicide risks would be detained at Guantanamo, where U.S. troops could monitor them 24 hours a day.

and here is a quote from the charter

Quote:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted three years later, enumerated certain essentials to the achievement of individual dignity and social order. It affirms that everyone is entitled to the equal protection of the law; that the accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, in a fair and public hearing, by an "independent and impartial" tribunal; and that no one should suffer arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

hmm....arent those people in guatanamo treated guilty until proven innocent?

when are proven innocent, they are let out and allowed to return to their home country right?

EDIT : here's the link to the charter
http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1837e.htm

Ian Macdonald · 06-06-2003, 05:04 PM

I don't feel too sorry for the prisoners right now but we certainly should set some roadmap for how some these people can get free. Perhaps in a double agent capacity for the willing or give severe sentances (20 years) to at least give them some hope. Our society has decided that most of our US prisoners are entitled to a parole hearing in most cases. We should have a similar process for these prisoners. (I do admit to softening up as time goes on)

The_Dude · 06-07-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ian Macdonald
I don't feel too sorry for the prisoners right now but we certainly should set some roadmap for how some these people can get free. Perhaps in a double agent capacity for the willing or give severe sentances (20 years) to at least give them some hope. Our society has decided that most of our US prisoners are entitled to a parole hearing in most cases. We should have a similar process for these prisoners. (I do admit to softening up as time goes on)

well, they're being held indefinately now.

geep · 06-09-2003, 07:41 AM

The Al-Qaeda being held at Gitmo are mercenaries. Why does no one argue for the release of mercenaries held elsewhere in the world?

The_Dude · 06-09-2003, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
The Al-Qaeda being held at Gitmo are mercenaries. Why does no one argue for the release of mercenaries held elsewhere in the world?

taliban is also being held there

Sparhawk · 06-09-2003, 08:05 AM

This US Citizenship is becoming more and more handy. All sorts of things that are unheard of in the U.S. are labelled as okay because, hey, they aren't citizens. They don't matter. As far as I'm concerned, they are still endowed with the same unalienable human rights as the rest of us, they were just unlucky enough to be born outside the states.

geep · 06-09-2003, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
taliban is also being held there

Taliban are not regular Afghan military either but private militia.
Whether they are paid or not is irrelevant. They are still mercenaries.

The_Dude · 06-09-2003, 08:31 AM

taliban was the official government of afghanistan, whether or not we recognized it.

geep · 06-09-2003, 10:33 AM

The taliban warriors being held at Gitmo are not regular Afghan army. The Taliban also had their own private militia as is common in many third world countries. Consider the case of Johnny Walker. He was never a part of the regular Afghan army. This was partly due to fact that he was not Afghani. Yet he fought alongside the Taliban against the coalition forces.

I still haven't heard condemnation from you for the Cuban mercenaries who were shot on the spot in Rhodesia. Is it O.K. for everyone else to treat people bad? And what exactly will you charge these people with. What section of the Civil Code have they violated? Compare for me the teatment of the prisoners in Cuba with the recent purge of Cuban citizens with the same "inalienable rights" by Castro. How come he gets away with it? Don't give me the tired line that we claim to treat people better because it sure seems to me that we DO!

The_Dude · 06-09-2003, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
The taliban warriors being held at Gitmo are not regular Afghan army. The Taliban also had their own private militia as is common in many third world countries. Consider the case of Johnny Walker. He was never a part of the regular Afghan army. This was partly due to fact that he was not Afghani. Yet he fought alongside the Taliban against the coalition forces.

I still haven't heard condemnation from you for the Cuban mercenaries who were shot on the spot in Rhodesia. Is it O.K. for everyone else to treat people bad? And what exactly will you charge these people with. What section of the Civil Code have they violated? Compare for me the teatment of the prisoners in Cuba with the recent purge of Cuban citizens with the same "inalienable rights" by Castro. How come he gets away with it? Don't give me the tired line that we claim to treat people better because it sure seems to me that we DO!

so, are you putting the US government and Cuban government on the same level??

geep · 06-09-2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
so, are you putting the US government and Cuban government on the same level??

I didn't say the comparisons were parrallel. If you had to be in prison in Cuba, which side of the fence would you rather be on?

The_Dude · 06-09-2003, 12:48 PM

i dont know, depends on what crime i'm there for.

and are you saying that just because castro did something, it is justiciable for the US to do the same?

MacGnG · 06-09-2003, 01:00 PM

HEY IT WOULDNT BE THE FIRST TIME...
(japanese, WWII)

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
taliban was the official government of afghanistan, whether or not we recognized it.

It certainly seems to me that whether or not we recognized it seems to be a large factor, and as far as I know, we did not officially recognize it.

geep · 06-09-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i dont know, depends on what crime i'm there for.

and are you saying that just because castro did something, it is justiciable for the US to do the same?

No. I'm simply looking for the condemnation of even more cruel and inhuman treatment that gets dished out elsewhere. It seems that we hold the U.S. to higher ideals than we expect of the rest of the world. Let me reiterate my call for justice to the rest of the mercenaries being held indefinitely by other governments. Bring them to the U.S. for a fair trial, too. Maybe the prisoners at Gitmo should be charged with hating Americans? Shouldn't we then apply that same crime to everyone else who hates America? And even after you figure out what you're going to try them for, are you going to imprison them if they're guilty? If they are not are you going to let them go? And if you let them go and they kill someone are you going to step forward and take responsibility for their actions? Or are you just going to shake your head and say "Gee that's to bad." Don't get so hung up on what's happening now until you figure out just exactly what it is you're GOING to do.

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
It seems that we hold the U.S. to higher ideals than we expect of the rest of the world.

I understand your points geep, and agree with you, but the above is just what happens. The US is the most powerful country in the world (mwahaha

) and so it becomes acceptable to critisize anything that may possibly be considered an injustice. I don't think that it is a bad thing, as it opens up a channel for communication and a chance to think about how right or wrong our actions really are. Yes, if you're talking to someone who is fanatically anti-America it gets old quickly, but most people are not that ignorant.

The_Dude · 06-09-2003, 02:30 PM

the world has different standards for different nations.

nations around the world look up to the US, (not to cuba) and when the leader of the world does something like this, all the attention gets focused.

Tom Thumb · 06-09-2003, 04:17 PM

As always, the truth about how they're treated is somewhere in-between the "best" stories and the "worst" ones.

They should tried with juries and courts and their choice of lawyers and such, if nothing else, to prove that our system is above theirs. We should show that we're civilized enough that we give our criminals, even war criminals, food, water, and fair trials. The US is undoubtedly the most powerful country in a world they want to be just, and should act accordingly.

06-06-2003, 09:29 AM	#42 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	He said absolutely nothing about lol! He said try using a little common sense. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

06-09-2003, 08:05 AM	#52 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	This US Citizenship is becoming more and more handy. All sorts of things that are unheard of in the U.S. are labelled as okay because, hey, they aren't citizens. They don't matter. As far as I'm concerned, they are still endowed with the same unalienable human rights as the rest of us, they were just unlucky enough to be born outside the states. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

06-09-2003, 08:31 AM	#54 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	taliban was the official government of afghanistan, whether or not we recognized it. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-09-2003, 12:48 PM	#58 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i dont know, depends on what crime i'm there for. and are you saying that just because castro did something, it is justiciable for the US to do the same? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal Last edited by The_Dude; 06-09-2003 at 01:10 PM..

06-09-2003, 02:30 PM	#63 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	the world has different standards for different nations. nations around the world look up to the US, (not to cuba) and when the leader of the world does something like this, all the attention gets focused. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-06-2003, 10:10 AM	#44 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	And what exactly are we trying them for? Did they all get their Miranda rights? If we do what you ask are we really serving justice or will we only know that after they do or don't kill someone else? What will we find in Saudi Arabia? What can we do about what we find? Any fool can make a decision or stand by any ideal. Sheer genius will not give you the answers. You have to be willing to make mistakes because you WILL make mistakes either way. The only thing to do from this point is decide which kind of mistakes you are willing to ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILTY for.

06-06-2003, 05:04 PM	#48 (permalink)
Ian Macdonald Upright	I don't feel too sorry for the prisoners right now but we certainly should set some roadmap for how some these people can get free. Perhaps in a double agent capacity for the willing or give severe sentances (20 years) to at least give them some hope. Our society has decided that most of our US prisoners are entitled to a parole hearing in most cases. We should have a similar process for these prisoners. (I do admit to softening up as time goes on)

06-09-2003, 07:41 AM	#50 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	The Al-Qaeda being held at Gitmo are mercenaries. Why does no one argue for the release of mercenaries held elsewhere in the world?

06-09-2003, 10:33 AM	#55 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	The taliban warriors being held at Gitmo are not regular Afghan army. The Taliban also had their own private militia as is common in many third world countries. Consider the case of Johnny Walker. He was never a part of the regular Afghan army. This was partly due to fact that he was not Afghani. Yet he fought alongside the Taliban against the coalition forces. I still haven't heard condemnation from you for the Cuban mercenaries who were shot on the spot in Rhodesia. Is it O.K. for everyone else to treat people bad? And what exactly will you charge these people with. What section of the Civil Code have they violated? Compare for me the teatment of the prisoners in Cuba with the recent purge of Cuban citizens with the same "inalienable rights" by Castro. How come he gets away with it? Don't give me the tired line that we claim to treat people better because it sure seems to me that we DO!

06-09-2003, 01:00 PM	#59 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	HEY IT WOULDNT BE THE FIRST TIME... (japanese, WWII)

06-09-2003, 04:17 PM	#64 (permalink)
Tom Thumb Crazy Location: In a self portrait	As always, the truth about how they're treated is somewhere in-between the "best" stories and the "worst" ones. They should tried with juries and courts and their choice of lawyers and such, if nothing else, to prove that our system is above theirs. We should show that we're civilized enough that we give our criminals, even war criminals, food, water, and fair trials. The US is undoubtedly the most powerful country in a world they want to be just, and should act accordingly. __________________ My name is marketing. Now buy my product.