Guantonamo Bay

Magnolia_Fan

I heard recently that the U.S isn't breaking the laws inforced by the Geneva convention by keeping suspected terrorists in GITMO because the Geneva convention only applys to war between 2 or more nations and Al Queda is a terrorist organisation and not a nation. Could anyone tell me if this is true.

I'd also imagine they'd be breaking some human rights laws.But then again who enforces them? because they aren't doing too good a job. China, North Korea, Thailand, Uganda etc. Anyone else also hear whilst waiting to enter Najaf in Iraq the troops played Enter Sandman on loud speakers to scare would be attackers. Sounds like a pretty lame tactic. Why not just bang a pan with a stick.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Magnolia_Fan
I heard recently that the U.S isn't breaking the laws inforced by the Geneva convention by keeping suspected terrorists in GITMO because the Geneva convention only applys to war between 2 or more nations and Al Queda is a terrorist organisation and not a nation. Could anyone tell me if this is true.

No it is not true. The US are bending the law rather then following the spirit of the law.

For example. There are Taliban at GITMO. They are not terrorists but a reconised army of Afganistan (reconised by the US before the war). The US is claiming that they don't apply because they were not wearing uniforms, but the Taliban army don't have uniforms.

Secondly, the US is doing it to deny even the basic rights of the prisoners. Like the right to a fair trial. A large number of prisoners (most released after 2 years there) were not even Taliban or AQ. Instead the Northern Alliance were rounding up strangers and getting $5,000 reward per person from the US.

With the introduction of a death row, secret trials and now the US refusing to even say who they have there, the place is turning into a concentration camp.

Wrestlemania

"Enter Sandman" good choice they did the same thing with Noreaga in Panama, PsyOps, did you ever see Apocalypse Now and the Air Cavalary going in for Attack playing the Valkrye I think.

As with the Detainees in Cuba, yes some of them are not even combatants but the other's can they really be released back into society they will be more hatred filled now than they were before, alas they will die there by age or the firing squad.

Anyone who is a "real" member of either the TBN or AQ, well they got there just deserts in my opinion.

Gurgle

Originally posted by Wrestlemania:
Anyone who is a "real" member of either the TBN or AQ, well they got there just deserts in my opinion.

Do you understand the concept of human rights ?
How about innocent until proven guilty ?

Wrestlemania

A lot of them did'nt either, they oppressed the women of afghanistan and did henious things to the people.

Oh and sept.11 was most likely planned there.

If they understood human rights there would be no need for them to be in Prision.

But GTO is one place you won't be getting undiginified pics from that I know.

Orion

Originally posted by Magnolia_Fan
I heard recently that the U.S isn't breaking the laws inforced by the Geneva convention by keeping suspected terrorists in GITMO because the Geneva convention only applys to war between 2 or more nations and Al Queda is a terrorist organisation and not a nation. Could anyone tell me if this is true.

What they've actually said is that the Genevan Convention doesn't apply because they are not prisoners of war but are "unlawful combatants". This is a term that the US completely made up to avoid any requirement for human/civil rights. Unlasful combatants does not exist anywhere in international law so basically making up a meaningless term like that gives Bush & co. free rein to do what they want - that includes torture, sensory deprivation, humiliation, shackles - pretty much what they're doing in the prison in Iraq which is subject to international law.

Orion

Originally posted by Wrestlemania

Oh and sept.11 was most likely planned there.

Says who - the CIA? Besides the mastermind behind it, the money funding it and 9 of the terrorists were Saudi. Why not lock up the Saudi royal family then? Instead during the week after Sept.11 the US Air Force rounded up members of the Saudi royal family (relations of Osama in case you didn't know) and flew them out of the country without asking any questions whatsoever!

Lemming

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
A lot of them did'nt either, they oppressed the women of afghanistan and did henious things to the people.

Oh .. well that's ok then I guess isn't it? :rolleyes:
After all I mean, we can throw out eveything that we claim to be the 'right thing to do' or the 'decent thing' because we consider these people not to have the same values as us ....

So we're as bad as them in the end.

Oh and sept.11 was most likely planned there.

Irrelevant.

If they understood human rights there would be no need for them to be in Prision.

Funnily enough, HR has nothing to do with why they're in Gitmo. And what about all those in Gitmo (or have been released) who were innocent eh?

But GTO is one place you won't be getting undiginified pics from that I know.

Because they don't allow cameras

Kali

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Oh and sept.11 was most likely planned there.

9/11 was planned and carried out within the US along with all necessary training.

Wrestlemania

I am warey of people who have been released.

Explain me this, how can someone be doing a computer course in Afghanistan is all computers were banned and Tv's aswell ??


What person in there right mind would be "innocently" walking around afghanistan and be from say here or the UK.

Mecenaries maybe, people on an Islamic Jihad most likely.

GTO will be there when we are old and dead as these men locked up there have no useful role in society anymore.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
A lot of them did'nt either, they oppressed the women of afghanistan and did henious things to the people.

Oh and sept.11 was most likely planned there.

If they understood human rights there would be no need for them to be in Prision.

But GTO is one place you won't be getting undiginified pics from that I know.

Firstly, there is no doubt that the women in Afghanistan are oppressed, by western thinking.

Your point on Sept 11 is total and utter speculation. Remember that most of the terrorists who took the aircraft were Saudis, not Afghans.

What of the children in Guantanamo Bay, do they understand human rights?
Do the American's understand human rights? Can you only fully 'understand' human rights when you can convince yourself it's ok to deny them?

Wrestlemania

What Children??

To me these people are locked up there should stay there apart from the persons who were picked up in error.

Do I think the likes of Sadam of Osama should have Human Rights the Answer is no, as much as Hitler should have been tortured. Murphys Law.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
I am warey of people who have been released.

Yes, well, thats part of the problem isn't it - the readiness with which people cast away any illusion of "innocent until proven guilty."

We have increasing reports that people were picked up in random sweeps and/or handed over by the NA for the easy cash.

We have not a single conviction, but dozens (over a hundred now?) of "really bad men" who have been released without charge. Bear in mind as well that many people argued that military trials were necessary for these bad men because the burden of proof was less. And they still let them go without charge.

And you still look at this and think....Hmm...lower burden of proof, allegations it was a "really bad man" of whom his guilt was no doubt when he was captured, and now released without charge when there is no onus on the US to release anyone until they're sure - as is evident from the numbers still held there without charge.

"Clearly" these people are untrustworthy.

Explain me this, how can someone be doing a computer course in Afghanistan is all computers were banned and Tv's aswell ??

Sure, just as soon as you explain how people were growing opium poppys when the same people who banned the computers banned the poppy growing too.

What person in there right mind would be "innocently" walking around afghanistan and be from say here or the UK.

So now they're guilty of having poor judgement. Aha! You're dead right...thats a heinous crime. Lock them up for the rest of their lives.

Mecenaries maybe, people on an Islamic Jihad most likely.

Thats a very balanced and enlightened view you have there.

Someone makes bare-ass assumptions about Israeli soldiers in questionable circumstances on other threads and you fly into an outrage.

But if its Muslims (or just people in a predominantly Muslim country) we're talking about in questionable circumstances....hey....then its perfectly reasonable to make bare-ass assumptions, decide they shouldn't be trusted, etc.

But let me guess. Its not about religion. Obviously anyone in Afghanistan was there to aid the Taliban.

GTO will be there when we are old and dead as these men locked up there have no useful role in society anymore.

Even the innocent ones?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
What Children??

The chlidren locked up in Gitmo.

Do your research.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
To me these people are locked up there should stay there apart from the persons who were picked up in error.

Progress!!! We've gone from them all being untrustworthy because they could have no valid rason for being where they were without supporting the Taliban to the acknowledgement that some were picked up in error.

Excellent.

Do I think the likes of Sadam of Osama should have Human Rights the Answer is no, as much as Hitler should have been tortured. Murphys Law.

So you don't agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Duly noted.

Given that you've just acknowledged that they exist though......do you think the people picked up in error should have human rights given to them? If so, then how can you continue to say that denying HR to the inmates of Gitmo is in any way just?

But Hey, its only a couple of innocents. Right? You can probably live with denying a couple of innocent people their Human Rights so that you can treat them and the guilty in the same manner that you are persecuting them for having done to others.

jc

jc

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
What Children??

To me these people are locked up there should stay there apart from the persons who were picked up in error.

Do I think the likes of Sadam of Osama should have Human Rights the Answer is no, as much as Hitler should have been tortured. Murphys Law.

Well that's all the proof I need that you're talking out of your hat.

So they should stay in prison even though they have not been convicted of any crime?
I'd love to live in your world.


All humans are due human rights, there can be no exceptions. It is one of the basic requirements of civilisation.
Hitler was one who decided that some people weren't due any rights, just like Bush is doing now.
So how can he have been wrong but America is right for doing exactly the same thing?

Murphy's Law? what the hell does that mean?

Gurgle

The Omagh bombing was planned, financed and carried out by a small group of irish republicans.
By your logic Wrestlemania, a few thousand irishmen should be picked up off the streets, locked away, interrogated, tortured and held indefinitely without charge or trial because they share their nationality with these murderers.

apart from the persons who were picked up in error

Which is determined how in Guatemano ?
Torture ? Interrogations ? Evidence ?

Do you have any memories of your former life as a spanish inquisitor ?
If she floats shes a witch and we burn her, if she drowns shes not a witch and gets a christian burial
I'll bet you came up with that law!
I thought the western world had moved past that kind of shìt. The last few years have shown just how much we've really progressed.

Murphy's law - Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Related how

Originally posted by Sleipnir:
Hitler was one who decided that some people weren't due any rights, just like Bush is doing now.

Comparing 21st century USA to Nazi Germany......
:dunno:
Hitler came to power in 1934, four years before WW2. You would nearly have to give Bush a second term to see just how far he goes.

Wrestlemania

Hitler and Bush the same or similar man you got a problem.

Bush has many bad points but has not set out to wipe out millions of Jews,Gipsys,Poles, Russians, Homosexuals and whatever did not meet his criteria.

Sleipnir

you brought Hitler into it, not me.

You haven't answered the question?

Who has the right to decide who is due human rights and who is not?

Hitler decided that Jews were subhuman, he decided they were not due any human right. He denied them their human rights ok agreed?

Bush decided that the inmates of guantanamo bay could be imprisioned without reason and denied the right to a fair trial.

Even Hitler's cronies were given a fair trial.


you also haven't explained your "Murphy's Law" comment?

Gurgle

Originally posted by Wrestlemania:
Hitler and Bush the same or similar man you got a problem.

1. Megalomaniacs, both of them
2. Invading foreigh countries / empire building
3. Persecution of a particular religious group

Biggest difference - Hitler got elected, Bush cheated.

Wrestlemania

it's a phrase.


Human rights question, sometimes humans rights have to be denied in order to get information that will help the great good ie. 1 person to die for 1000, yes hard decision but in the militarys eyes legitmate and I would agreee with them.

Is that your questioned answer, Bonkey as for Israel that is another thread that we can battle it out in the future, I look foward to it as you have some very interesting points and there is nothing like a good debate whichever way it goes. !

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
it's a phrase.


Human rights question, sometimes humans rights have to be denied in order to get information that will help the great good ie. 1 person to die for 1000, yes hard decision but in the militarys eyes legitmate and I would agreee with them.

Is that your questioned answer, Bonkey as for Israel that is another thread that we can battle it out in the future, I look foward to it as you have some very interesting points and there is nothing like a good debate whichever way it goes. !

Well then that gives me a warm fluffy feeling that this is the type of civilisation/democracy they are building in Iraq.


So you can deny human rights to children if you need information? You can do whatever you want basically as long as you believe there is a reason?

Jesus, we were better off as apes if that is the case.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
it's a phrase.

It usually means "what can go wrong, will go wrong" - it's hard to see what you mean by it.

1 person to die for 1000, yes hard decision but in the militarys eyes legitmate and I would agreee with them.

Would you be as quick to agree if it was your life? or that of someone close to you?

Wrestlemania

Maybe not but that is the way I see it, maybe wrong but that is me!

Sleipnir

well maybe you should open your mind to other possibilities and other thinking.

That's exactly the problem with Americans today, they just refuse to think for themselves preferring to rely on Fox and CNN to create views for them to believe in.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Human rights question, sometimes humans rights have to be denied in order to get information that will help the great good ie. 1 person to die for 1000, yes hard decision but in the militarys eyes legitmate and I would agreee with them.

Really? Then why doesn't teh US have the moral fibre to actually come out and legitimise torture in their own facilities and admit that Human Rights are being cast aside?

Why did the US consider sending people "for interrogation" to nations who didn't have such a problem with torture, if not because they wanted to maintain a double-standard of pretending to care, whilst not really giving a crap.

And just how far are we going to go? The US locked up Japanese in WW2, "just in case". Was this a reasonable abrogation of Human Rights? If not, then why is Gitmo any different?

its one thing to make a conscious decision that one innocent must die to save many. Its another thing to decide that an unknown number of innocents must suffer/die/be denied Human Rights, in order to possibly gain unknown benefits.

as for Israel that is another thread that we can battle it out in the future,

Agreed. Lets not get sidetracked. I was simply trying to point out that you are - again - apparently creating a double standard by doing to others what you object about having done to yourself.

jc

Gurgle

Wrestlemania again:
Human rights question, sometimes humans rights have to be denied in order to get information that will help the great good ie. 1 person to die for 1000, yes hard decision but in the militarys eyes legitmate and I would agreee with them.

The end justifies the means ?
Whose greater good ?

The whole point in a constitution is that the rights of human beings which cannot be superceeded by the 'greater good' are set down clearly and cannot be changed without the agreement of the majority

The various international agreements / conventions etc. are there to protect people internationally from being abused for the 'greater good' as determined by those on one of the sides in a war.

Wrestlemania

Whilst I agree Bonkey there are some and I will say some merits to having "SOME" of these people in detension.

Mighty_Mouse

Maybe not but that is the way I see it, maybe wrong but that is me!

Cry havoc ..dogs of war bla bla bla

Fantastic stuff!! You don't have a problem with yourself because you were just "born that way"!!! Oh Oh Oh Oh oh U.S.A, U>S>A............................:)

Wrestlemania

Your slagging on my Quote

I am defo not any Yank excuse me !

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Whilst I agree Bonkey there are some and I will say some merits to having "SOME" of these people in detension.

Absolutely, and I would have no objections whatsoever if those some were identified and remained in detention in a manner which still respected their Human Rights (we differ on that last one perhaps).

The means of such identification, as you're well aware, is typically called a trial, which is in rather short supply in Gitmo, nor is anyone in any apparent rush to get things sorted out.

jc