by Abaddon 85 Replies latest social current
Yeru,
One more time:The U.S. invaded a foreign country. It attacked locals and took many of them captive and shipped them to Cuba. They are being held in a PRISON CAMP AGAINST THEIR WILL.
Are you saying that the US can just walk into any country and take people hostage? If not, then how do you justify what is happening with these detainees?
You keep referring to them as terrorists and murderers. You have not the slightest shred of evidence for using these terms.
It's quit simple, if the US isn't treating prisoners according to international law, why should any other country treat american pow's any better, under international law. Do I say, not as I do, seems very hypocritical, and gives any other country justification in treating american pow's anyway they seem fit. Yeru, why do you expect to be treated any better, if you were captured? How in all logic, could you expect better treatment?
Are you saying that the US can just walk into any country and take people hostage? If not, then how do you justify what is happening with these detainees?
Apparently yes. Because these people are not American citizens they have no rights under the US constitution, and therefore according to Yeru, no rights at all.
NO,
Try this one out, please, you said,
One more time:The U.S. invaded a foreign country. It attacked locals and took many of them captive and shipped them to Cuba. They are being held in a PRISON CAMP AGAINST THEIR WILL.
Ummm, the majority of these nut cases aren't "locals" they're from out of town, out of state, a whole different country. There are about 680 people being held in Cuba so it doesn't sound like we took many of them captive and shipped them to Cuba.
Generally, when peope are detained, it is against their will, that's why the place has bars, wires, and guards, DUH!
Let's see. we invaded a foreign country (Afghanistan) because why? Oh, that's right, they were hosting a bunch of terrorists. You remember, the whole Usama bin Ladin thing, right? Yeah, and ummm, some of the guys in Cuba were at this neat place called Mazar E Sharif where they, being held as prisoners of war by the real Afghanis, killed a bunch of guards, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Then ya have the fact that the rest of these guys were shooting at American and Free Afghani forces, especially around that fun little region called Tora Bora, and that they freely admit to being part of Al Qaeda. But sure, you're right, we don't know what their status is, these Arabs in a none Arab country, these Pakistanis miles from home, these australians that were shooting at us, send em back down under.
Are you saying that the US can just walk into any country and take people hostage? If not, then how do you justify what is happening with these detainees?
These guys are not hostages, we're not holding them for ransom or protection, we're detaining them so they stop killing people. How do I justify what happened to the detainees? They were shooting at our soldiers.
You keep referring to them as terrorists and murderers. You have not the slightest shred of evidence for using these terms.
Actually,. yes, I do, aside from having lost several friends over in Afghanistan, I spend the last 7 weeks with a friend who didn't die, who took some of these guys into custody. Not a one of them has denied being part of Al Qaeda, everyone of them has expressed a willingness to kill US soldiers and citizens at every opportunity. That's enough proof for me to hold these guys till hell freezes over.
TRAUMA HOUND,
THere is no international law that covers how to treat terrorists, it's just NOT ON THE BOOKS. T H, If I'm ever taken as a POW I don't expect to be treated better, I expect to be treated far worse, I expect to be treated the way all other American POW's have been treated.
Now tell me this, what specifically under International Law, isn't being done for them that should be? Then consider the safety factors to avoid what happened at Mazar E Sharif, and the fact that these guys have threatened to kill the guards (yep, I'm taking the word of my friends that are dealing with these killers on that issue). Considering all this, what is it that the US should be doing that they aren't SPECIFICALLY!
FUNKDUNK
Apparently yes. Because these people are not American citizens they have no rights under the US constitution, and therefore according to Yeru, no rights at all.
Show me where I said these guys have no rights at all. They aren't protected by the US constitution, the courts have already said so. These guys are given food, water, shelter, clothes, are allowed to practice their religion, etc etc etc, what more rights do you expect them to be given?
These aren't guys we picked up off the street, these are guys who were shooting at Americans who admit to being part of Al Qaeda, and who have threatened to continue to kill people, what more do you want. International Law? It's quite on the subject of Terrorists treatment...The US is writing the play book on it.
Nice try Yeru, but no cigar;
We're not saying they are being tortured, so your requests for details of the inhuman treatment are just straw men.
They are being denied the same level of rights as an Americn prisoner detained in the same manner for the same charges on the grounds of their nationality. I call that racist. It's what Nazi's did to Jews. ANd before you say that the Jews were inoccent, yes of course they were: the prisoners in Guantanomo Bay are being denied the presumption of innocence central to most modern legal systems.
They will be tried in a closed court without recourse of appeal. They could be executed. As the USA has a well known record for excuting mental incompetants, abused grandmothers, and people who were minors when they commited the crime, one could reasonably say the lack of outside observers and the fact there is no appeal is cause for concern.
Now, YOU can feel happy people are treated like this. YOU can feel that there are reasonable arguments for their denial of basic human rights.
The majority of the International community and many posters here disagree. The majority of the International community feels they should fall under the standard POW provisons of the Geneva convention.
The US can ignore the majority. And by doing so, the USA will further convince people that America is not to be trusted; a nation breaking way from the International community and giving the finger to values the majority hold dear; hold so dear that they feel they should be applied to everyone, not just the people who the US say can have rights.
I hope you are proud living in such a country.
AND, you still haven't answered regarding Americn complicity in what would now be described as terrorist activity, which reduces your defences to meaningless posturing.
If you are not honest enough or capable of criticising the USA when this is obviously needed, then how on Earth can we respect your opinion in other areas?
Your country right or wrong... pah!
Yeru,
The violations of International Law perpetrated by the Bush Administration aren't new. The U.S. has broken treaties and violated International Law throughout the years too many times to mention. Yet, under the Bush Administration, this disregard for long-standing judicial processes and the human rights of adversaries has taken on a unique, in-your-face, art-form.
There is no doubt that, by capitalizing on the fear generated by 9-11 and bolstered by unprecedented approval ratings of a fawning populace, this Administration is going into territory previously unexplored by any other president in this or any other era. I once thought that Bush alone was the spearhead behind this insidious agenda and others were simply following *his* orders. Now I believe that his delusion—"god is with us"—has been co-opted by others who are behind the scenes and are generally unknown to us and Bush has become nothing more than a puppet for *their* agenda.
That something wrong is going on at Guantanomo is clear. Why else would the Red Cross, one of the most benevolent and apolitical of all organizations, be denied entry? The remarks of Administration officials themselves tell the world that there are "a lot of farmers" that have been unfairly detained in Cuba for a year and a half. You are free to keep your head buried in the sand and miss the implications of what the U.S is doing – but others don't.
For example, do you realize that, armed with the Patriot Act, agents of your government are now secretly taking note of the reading habits—in libraries—of innocent U.S citizens? And library workers are not at liberty to inform those using the library that their reading habits are being reviewed? Do you realize that agents of your government are seizing American citizens and detaining them without access to counsel -- just like those innocents in cuba -- in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments?
Once upon a time prior to the passage of Civil Rights legislation, there was a certain segment of the U.S citizenry in the Deep South who were totally unaffected by the barbarity of Jim Crow. Nevertheless, from the comfort of their living rooms out in suburbia they learned that people -- people vastly different from them in many ways -- were being unfairly abused and whose basic human rights were being violated. These people out in suburbia were faced with a decision. Perhaps a number of them realized that, if the weakest of us aren't safe - if the rights of the powerless can be violated with impunity - then eventually those same horrors would spread like cancer to the population at large. So they stood up, and America became a better place.
Insidiously, the government is now blatantly encroaching further and further into what has long been for 200 years sacred ground – supposedly for the sake of "Homeland Security." At some point next year or ten years from now, that incursion into long-standing, Constitutionally protected rights will come home to Yeru. Maybe then you'll get the point.
Abaddon and TeeJay
You sir are absolutely ridiculous and ill informed. You said,
They are being denied the same level of rights as an Americn prisoner detained in the same manner for the same charges on the grounds of their nationality. I call that racist. It's what Nazi's did to Jews. ANd before you say that the Jews were inoccent, yes of course they were: the prisoners in Guantanomo Bay are being denied the presumption of innocence central to most modern legal systems.
NONE of these people are being held on account of race. There are Arabs, Caucasions, Pashtus, etc being held there. They are being held for one reason, they were KILLING PEOPLE. This doesn't seem to matter to you.
Now, YOU can feel happy people are treated like this. YOU can feel that there are reasonable arguments for their denial of basic human rights.
WHICH specific BASIC human rights of theirs are being violated?
No, I've not set up a straw man. Several people have commented on this thread that the rights of these people have been violated and they are being treated inhumanely, so I ask again, IN WHAT WAY SPECIFICALLY!
The majority of the International community and many posters here disagree. The majority of the International community feels they should fall under the standard POW provisons of the Geneva convention.
THANK GOD the US doesn't govern by world opinion, if we did, Hitler would still be in charge.
The US can ignore the majority. And by doing so, the USA will further convince people that America is not to be trusted; a nation breaking way from the International community and giving the finger to values the majority hold dear; hold so dear that they feel they should be applied to everyone, not just the people who the US say can have rights.
The Majority of the world holds WHAT values dear? Tell me how dear China, Russia, Cuba, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc etc etc hold these "values" dear. That's such a bullsh*t statement as to be laughable if you didn't really believe that. Germany holds these values dear? Right. Germany where there's no such thing as police brutality laws. When the World whose opinions you hold so dear start to try to live by the values of law and order half as much as the US does now...let me know.
AND, you still haven't answered regarding Americn complicity in what would now be described as terrorist activity, which reduces your defences to meaningless posturing.
What terrorist activity? Get real. When you've done something to criticize those who oppose us, let me know.
If you are not honest enough or capable of criticising the USA when this is obviously needed, then how on Earth can we respect your opinion in other areas?
I am quite capable of criticizing the governement of the US, when I think it's wrong. For instance... the US is screwing the pooch in post war Iraq. You and your ilk, however seem to me and many like myself to HATE AMERICA first BLAME AMERICA first, and hold the US to a standard you wouldn't dream of holding others too. I can't recall reading one thing in a post by you or Realist, Trauma Hound, and others that give the US and the Bush administration support. If you can't be honest enough or capable enough to support the US occasionally then how on Earth can we respect your opinion in ANY area. Intellectual honesty is called for.
There is no doubt that, by capitalizing on the fear generated by 9-11 and bolstered by unprecedented approval ratings of a fawning populace, this Administration is going into territory previously unexplored by any other president in this or any other era. I once thought that Bush alone was the spearhead behind this insidious agenda and others were simply following *his* orders. Now I believe that his delusion—"god is with us"—has been co-opted by others who are behind the scenes and are generally unknown to us and Bush has become nothing more than a puppet for *their* agenda.
Perhaps we are moving in to previously unexplored territory is because 9-11 is unique in our history. What "agenda" is this? More conspiracy theories? Is it the Men In Black swooping around in Black Helicopters on Stealth mode?
That something wrong is going on at Guantanomo is clear. Why else would the Red Cross, one of the most benevolent and apolitical of all organizations, be denied entry? The remarks of Administration officials themselves tell the world that there are "a lot of farmers" that have been unfairly detained in Cuba for a year and a half. You are free to keep your head buried in the sand and miss the implications of what the U.S is doing – but others don't.
The Red Cross has no standing, is not a governmental agency, and doesn't have a "RIGHT" to be in Guantanemo. These "farmers" were killing people and have vowed to continue to kill people, this seems unimportant to you. My head isn't buried in the sand at all, I'm quite a realist on these issues. How many friends of yours were killed in Afghanistan?
For example, do you realize that, armed with the Patriot Act, agents of your government are now secretly taking note of the reading habits—in libraries—of innocent U.S citizens ? And library workers are not at liberty to inform those using the library that their reading habits are being reviewed? Do you realize that agents of your government are seizing American citizens and detaining them without access to counsel -- just like those innocents in cuba -- in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments?
Have you actually read the Patriot Act? This stuff is done under the supervision of a judge. Besides which, this has been challenged in court and lost. The judicial process is part of the Constitution. Not happy with the decision, CHALLENGE IT AGAIN. Basically, the government now has the same right to investigate terrorists that it had to investigate organized crime and the pro-life movement.
Insidiously, the government is now blatantly encroaching further and further into what has long been for 200 years sacred ground – supposedly for the sake of "Homeland Security." At some point next year or ten years from now, that incursion into long-standing, Constitutionally protected rights will come home to Yeru. Maybe then you'll get the point.
I'll ask you what I ask all the whiners...which right of yours has been specifically violated? So far no one has pointed one out to me. Your lack of faith in the Supreme Court and the US Constitution amazes me.
Your country right or wrong... pah!
Ever study that statement? The way we studied it in High School went like this..."My country right or wrong, if right to KEEP it right, if wrong to MAKE it RIGHT, my country now forever and always."
Your motto seems to me to be, My country right or wrong...will be criticized cuz it's never right.
last question for all of you. Have you met any of these people being held in Guantanemo? Neither have I. I got one up on most of you though, several friends of mine, including a very dear friend who I trust impecabbly (because his life has been in my hands and mine in his more than once) these guys in Guantanemo are bad people. They've killed and continue to threaten to kill. They threaten to kill the guards if given a chance. To a man these guys are bad news. Like I said, I trust the opinion of my friends who have put a large number of these people there. I've not based my opinion on this issue solely on what the Administration is saying, but one info the people who fought these guys, captured these guys, and detained these guys have told me...the terrorists held in Cuba are trully dangerous people. International Law has nothing that covers this, you got an idea that won't get people killed, lets hear it. So far all I've heard is criticism, not suggestions.
Yeru,
Prisons throughout America are filled with dangerous people who threaten guards and have killed innocent people who should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives....but have they got more of a right to a lawyer, a public trial and a fare sentance than those held in camp X ray?
The law should apply to ALL.
Just because they are being held outside the US, doesn't mean that the US can change the rules of international law by changing the name of the prisoner that were arrested in a war situation.
The terrorists should be tried and have the book thrown at them, but what about any that were just trying to defend there homes from an outside army? Would you stand and fight against an army that came to your country? I know you would! What if you were arrested by this army and incarcerated with a bunch of terrorists with no means to express your innocence?
Fair? Just? No, scandalous!
Search,
You said,
Just because they are being held outside the US, doesn't mean that the US can change the rules of international law by changing the name of the prisoner that were arrested in a war situation.
Once again, International Law doesn't cover this situation.
The terrorists should be tried and have the book thrown at them, but what about any that were just trying to defend there homes from an outside army? Would you stand and fight against an army that came to your country? I know you would! What if you were arrested by this army and incarcerated with a bunch of terrorists with no means to express your innocence?
These guys weren't defending their homes against and invading army. Most of the Al Qaeda nut jobs were foriegners. If I stood and fought for my home I would do it in accordance with international law. If I were arrested by the invaders I would suffer the consequences of my action. This would be like you and me going to Columbia, fighting as Guerrillas and outside of the norms of the Geneva Convention, and launching attacks against Argentina, being captured by the Argentinians, and then expect to be treated as POW's. AGAIN International Law just doesn't cover this. These guys were not defending their homes, they were killing people, and planning on killing hundreds more.
I'll ask it again...Have you met any of these people being held in Guantanemo? Neither have I. I got one up on most of you though, several friends of mine, including a very dear friend who I trust impecabbly (because his life has been in my hands and mine in his more than once) these guys in Guantanemo are bad people. They've killed and continue to threaten to kill. They threaten to kill the guards if given a chance. To a man these guys are bad news. Like I said, I trust the opinion of my friends who have put a large number of these people there. I've not based my opinion on this issue solely on what the Administration is saying, but one info the people who fought these guys, captured these guys, and detained these guys have told me...the terrorists held in Cuba are trully dangerous people. International Law has nothing that covers this, you got an idea that won't get people killed, lets hear it. So far all I've heard is criticism, not suggestions.
I'll make one concession in this discussion, I might be biased as friends of mine have been killed by these guys, others physically maimed for life, still others scarred emotionally for life.
Yeru,
Can you please explain why International law doesn't cover this situation?
When the British soldiers arrested Terrorists in Northern Ireland they treated them as criminals to avoid the 'prisoner of war' title because the British government refused to accept that the IRA were fighting a war against the British, so they were called Terrorists.
They were still provided with legal representation and were jailed for their crimes.
What do you think would have happened if the British had arrested these terrorists and imprisoned them without trial or legal representation?
The world, especially the Irish-American supporters of the IRA would have been up in arms and Britain would not have been allowed to do it.
So doesn't international law cover these 'terrorists' ?
They are either :
1. Terrorists...so they should be tried for there crimes under international law.
2. Prisoners of war....geneva convention should apply
3. Criminals...so they should be tried for there crimes.
There is no such term as 'Battlefield Detainees' or 'Enemy Combatants' these are just other terms to describe Prisoners of War.
