Guantanamo Bay, another stain on the US.

**Butterfly** · 07-07-2006, 12:01 PM

^ you are seeing ghosts everywhere, SK.

I think that's a sign that something is not right up there. Maybe your "brain" is trying to tell you something.

**ChiangMai noon** · 07-07-2006, 12:04 PM

I've become very suspicious of CMN

Who else am I then SK??

**Storekeeper** · 07-07-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

I've become very suspicious of CMN

Who else am I then SK??

This is one of the reasons I miss the old posters like KK and IJWT. They were very keen on spotting the multiple nick posters.

**ChiangMai noon** · 07-07-2006, 01:12 PM

SK.
i have only ever been chiangmai noon across several forums, save for a very brief and rudely curtailed spell as kate 'o dor on thaivisa.

I am actually thinking about trying out a new nick for size, but seems like rather a balls ache to me.

**stroller** · 07-07-2006, 01:56 PM

Ok, I confess - no point pretending, as SK has spotted my game: I also post as CMN.

**Lady Hawk** · 07-07-2006, 02:15 PM

Suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area under the surveillence of US military police at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. EPA/EMPICS
Starting Monday 28 February 2005
Post 9/11, the interrogation methods the US administration are using in their 'war on terror' are said by human rights groups to be nothing short of illegal torture. From Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to the shadowy presence of a global network, over four programmes Channel 4 looks at how US actions are betraying the very values they claim to be defending.
This site details the methods used, debunks the euphemisms used to describe them and some of the excuses made. You can join the campaign trail, or air your views on the Dispatches forum.
Credits
Top.

A stain on the USA ...YES

**Covertjay** · 07-07-2006, 02:34 PM

^^You fuckin' bet.

**friscofrankie** · 07-07-2006, 02:49 PM

Who are the prsioner in Guantanamo? Where dothey come from?
Are they POWs or criminal detainees?

If they are classified as POWs then There is no need for defense attornies, ACLU types or calls for "Due process." They would simply be detained until the hostilities cease (

) and repatriated to the home countries. If they are POWs then they would come under the "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" would they not?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Now, if they are suspected criminal deatainees, what country are they accused of commiting these crimes in and why aren't they detained, charged and tried there?

From reading this site, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/16/usdom13015.htm (excuse me for not reading every single, middle-of-road, radical left, or radical right so-called 'analysis' of the 'situation' out there)
The bulk of the detainees were captured on foreign soil during an "International Armed Conflict" thus affording them the status of POWs. BUT the Administration in the US is toutling some sort of criminal investigation? Or is it?

Has teh US government defined their status in any difinitive manner? If this is the case can someone provide I link i'd like to read the "Official Definition." If they have not?
Well then, the US governement and military is no less guilty of international criminality than the Nazis in Eroupe in the years prior to WWII.

This situation is beyond belief, that the US is perceived as some sort of mad-dog criminal regime imprisoning people simply because they are members of a target group without Due Process, or burden of evidence. If the detainees are not being afforded speedy and fair trials in an abomination and against everything my country stands for in my eyes.

I was raised to believe that the US stood for Justice and fairness to all regardless of race religion or national origin. Was all that a sham?

To me, it looks like this fiasco is just another case of the current US administration not looking beyond the first six months of the conflict, Diving in without thought of the consquences or the nature of the thing it is they were trying to do. Rushing in while the hype and paranoia were at a fever pitch in the US and the citizenry were willing to allow these type of acts heated by the fires fear stoked by said administration.

If after 3 - 4 years of conflict the detainess have had no clear definition of their status then the current administration is absolutely guilty of it's own form of international terrorism and should be jailed and tried in an international court of law, then shot.

The US is being attacked on all fronts for it's policies and actions since The moronic puppet was placed into office (an act that might be defined as a "coup by fear of oral sex"). Many of the attacks are well founded and I can find no plausable defense against them. This distresses me no end, at the end of the day I am a US citizen and the acts that have been carried out in the name of my country is sickening me.

The question is unanswered in mind, what is the status of the detainees in Guantanamo?

**stroller** · 07-07-2006, 10:28 PM

I don't have a link to a gov site, but they are referred to as "enemy combatants" or "hostile combatants" by the US gov, according to secondary sources.

It means they're neither soldiers nor civilians in this inofficial war, nor ordinary criminals. They got no rights whatsoever, so the media and officials keep pointing out they're treated well considering...

A slick way of circumventing domestic as well as international law.

**Storekeeper** · 10-07-2006, 10:04 AM

OK Stroller ... make a decision ... should they be classified as detainees or POWs ?

You notice ole FF straddled the fence with his response up there don't you ?

**stroller** · 10-07-2006, 11:01 AM

As I stated several times, the prisoners are not a uniform group of people nor nationality.
The cases need to be looked at individually, those captured in Iraq or Afghanistan should be treated as POW, the others be charged with what they are supposed to have done.

The US have created this quadrime by abducting people and detaining them in GITMO.
Creating an international court may be the answer.

**Storekeeper** · 10-07-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

those captured in Iraq or Afghanistan should be treated as POW,

Not meaning to nit pick but this won't work either ... those three Brits who were released from GITMO were caught in Afghanistan.

So then if they are classified as POWs then you agree they can be detained for the duration of the war ?

Didn't you say there is no war ? If you said that then how can there be any POWs ?

**Storekeeper** · 10-07-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

The US is not at war.

Yeah you did ... here it is.

**stroller** · 10-07-2006, 11:40 AM

They should be treated as POWs. There sure is armed conflict in Afghanistan, and, if I understand correctly, some of the Gimto prisoners were "armed forces in the field". Iraqi insurgents are arguably not part of any armed forces as defined by the Geneva convention.
But I am hardly an expert, nor a lawyer.

The US is not at war with anyone in a legal sense - my comment was in response to you nuttering on about emergency legislation in relation to the war on terror. The last official declaration of war of US congress dates back to WW2. Afghanistan and Iraq are "military engagements", often referred to as 'world police actions'.

Frankly, I would expect a navy officer to be better informed about this.

**friscofrankie** · 10-07-2006, 12:47 PM

THe geneva convention makes no distinction between "declared" or "undeclared" war. It is very clear in defining POWs as people taken as prisoner in an "armed, international conflict." It is illegal to confine POWs with criminal detainees. If it is not a "Declared War" then Does the administration have internal legal difficulties calling them POWs? This is really of no consquence to the llegality of the situation (internationally).

Plain and simple the situation is a complete mess that the administration has once again sucked the US into due to a lack of foresight.

Whatever, the situation their (the 'detainees') status is unclear and should be defined. Whatever it may be. This half-assed criminal/political/POW grey area that they seem to occupy makes our country look like some kind of Nazi regime with our own private concentration camp parked in the never-never land of Guantanamo.

Come out and declare them POWs then some of the folks would have to be released or charged and MOVED. There appears to be no international court interested in charges so now the current administration has in fact set itself up as some sort of "World-Police" forcing it's own brand of "law" on the rest of the world.

Call it what you want, right or wrong. This situation is a blemish on the reputation of the USA; brought about by men who's motives and methods are suspect. The detention of comabtants and (uncharged) non-combatants in an offshore prison is a violation of international laws that we (US) are singnatories to. As a US citizen I resent the actions taken by the administration and would appreciate a definitive declaration of the detainees status and then direct action on that declaration.

**Butterfly** · 10-07-2006, 12:55 PM

^ I think that's the whole point of this administration. Keeping that blurred line send two messages: one on the legal front that they can't be challenged, and the other to their ennemies that they mean serious business. Likewise terrorists like to saw heads off to send the same kind of messages to this administration. They are playing games with each other, that's the whole point of this. How long will it last ? how long did the Cold War last ? just remember how long the 100 years last during the middle age.

**Storekeeper** · 10-07-2006, 01:04 PM

I believe the prudent thing to do is exactly what President Bush did and that is to detain them. I don't care how long they hold them without charging them. However, I do believe they all should have been identified to their "claimed" country of residence. Then that country should have been able to to take up the case of their citizen. I don't think the US should spend one cent trying to prove they aren't guilty.

Nothing is shameful except for the attitudes of the people who think people are being tortured at GITMO or that Abu Ghraib was torture. Complete and utter bollocks. There is no blemish ... PERIOD. President Bush is one of the greatest leaders we could have hoped for. Glad to see a grown man who is willing to ask for forgiveness instead of permission.

It's ridiculous what people keep clinging to:

1. The war is legal ... period.
2. GITMO violates no international law ... period.
3. Bush WON and did not steal the election.

As usual lots of complaints and no answers.

**Mr Earl** · 10-07-2006, 01:17 PM

And note that is was the jihadists who declared war on the USA. That should be a very important distinction for any reasonable mind.
Also note that the jihadists don't seem to have a copy of the Geneva convention or neglected to read it prior to 9/11/01. The rules have changed.

Also note how the jihadists are playing the free press against us. Any rational objective human being can see that.

**Marmite the Dog** · 10-07-2006, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

2. GITMO violates no international law ... period.

What about tresspass, or were the Seppos invited there?

**Mr Earl** · 10-07-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

2. GITMO violates no international law ... period.

What about tresspass, or were the Seppos invited there?

No the US marine corps has clear title to that thorn in Castros ass.

**stroller** · 10-07-2006, 01:25 PM

And note that is was the jihadists who declared war on the USA. That should be a very important distinction for any reasonable mind.
Also note that the jihadists don't seem to have a copy of the Geneva convention or neglected to read it prior to 9/11/01.

logic fallacy again. It doesn't matter who started for determining prisoners status, nor does the 'Jihadists' behavior excuse the treatment of prisoners by the US.
And which 'war' are you two talking about now?
The armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called war on terror, or the war a bunch of fanatics declared against the US?

**Storekeeper** · 10-07-2006, 01:38 PM

Detainees in Guantánamo Bay Should Not Have the Same Rights as Prisoners of War
Andrew Apostolou and Fredric Smoler
Andrew Apostolou is a historian at Oxford University and a writer for the Economist Intelligence Unit. Fredric Smoler is a professor of history at Sarah Lawrence College and a contributing editor at American Heritage magazine.

http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet...56&bConts=7945

Frisco ?????? What do you think of this essay ?

**Mr Earl** · 10-07-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

And note that is was the jihadists who declared war on the USA. That should be a very important distinction for any reasonable mind.
Also note that the jihadists don't seem to have a copy of the Geneva convention or neglected to read it prior to 9/11/01.

logic fallacy again. It doesn't matter who started for determining prisoners status, nor does the 'Jihadists' behavior excuse the treatment of prisoners by the US.
And which 'war' are you two talking about now?
The armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called war on terror, or the war a bunch of fanatics declared against the US?

Like I said the rules have changed and and are presently being evaluated by the USA. It's far from a perfect solution but history has shown time after time that pandering and pacifying terrorists is a not a winner.

**Butterfly** · 10-07-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

1. The war is legal ... period.
2. GITMO violates no international law ... period.
3. Bush WON and did not steal the election.

Links to substantiate 1, 2 ?

3 we already know the answer, the supreme court made the case, still he wasn't elected using the standard procedure

**Butterfly** · 10-07-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Like I said the rules have changed

who is to say that the rules changed ? do you seriously think the rules have changed ??? the rules have never changed, they are still the same, you just found about them a little bit late and you don't like them, so you don't want to play anymore and trying to make new ones so you have a better chance of winning. Guess what ? it's not working

Thread: Guantanamo Bay, another stain on the US.

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions