Detaining people without lawyers or trials seems unusual.

Quote:

However, let's ignore all that and assume that the Taliban is covered by the Geneva Convention. For the provisions of the GC to apply, the combatants must identify themselves as combatants with easily seen badges or insignia. Of course, the Taliban combatants did no such thing, preferring to dress as civilians and pose as civilians when it was to their benefit. They have no rights as combatants.

Quote:

Indeed, one could argue that they are civilians held illegally as hostages by the US.

One could also argue they wore no uniforms, attempted to pass as civilians, & could therefore be shot as spies.

Which, I must say, works for me.

Quote:

Quote:

However, let's ignore all that and assume that the Taliban is covered by the Geneva Convention. For the provisions of the GC to apply, the combatants must identify themselves as combatants with easily seen badges or insignia. Of course, the Taliban combatants did no such thing, preferring to dress as civilians and pose as civilians when it was to their benefit. They have no rights as combatants.

Quote:

Indeed, one could argue that they are civilians held illegally as hostages by the US.

One could also argue they wore no uniforms, attempted to pass as civilians, & could therefore be shot as spies.

Which, I must say, works for me.

Do you feel the same way about US special operations forces, who do the same things?

Obviously Neo Fascists don't believe in Democracy.

"What a dishonest argument. The Taliban dress as civilians, shoot at our guys, declare war on our guys, but you think they should be considered as civilian noncombatants."

The USA declared war on the Taliban and invaded their country. Now the USA does what it wants, like other rouge nations that do not adhere to Intl. Law. The Govt. of the USA is Neo Fascist and criminal.

I hate to bring this to your attention, but Al Qaeda launched an attack on America from Afghanistan that killed 3000 innocent civilians. It happenned on Sep 11, 2001. Maybe you didn't see the news that day. They threatened to do it again. You see, when a nation launches attacks on you, like Afghanistan, that makes them the aggressor. Do you see how that works?

but Al Qaeda launched an attack on America from Afghanistan

when a nation launches attacks on you, like Afghanistan

Nice try. Guantanamo is not US soil. It's Cuban. We have an agreement to lease it from Cuba for 99 years.

For someone who claims a background as an air force officer, you seem to know little about US Military installations overseas.

Rejecting treates like the Geneva Convention certainly does demonstrate that the Taliban had no intentions of abiding by it. However, we have complied with the Geneva Convention perfectly. I challenge you to cite an instance where we have not.

Do you mean other than by denying the prisonsers at Guantanamo the status of POW?

However, let's ignore all that and assume that the Taliban is covered by the Geneva Convention. For the provisions of the GC to apply, the combatants must identify themselves as combatants with easily seen badges or insignia. Of course, the Taliban combatants did no such thing, preferring to dress as civilians and pose as civilians when it was to their benefit. They have no rights as combatants

If they are not combatants, then they are being held illegally. Whether or not the Taliban was a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, the US was. We are obligated to abide by those terms.

You're catching on. They have placed themselves outside the domain of the Geneva Convention and they are also outside the domain of domestic US law. You fallaciously imply that being outside the domain of the Geneva Convention places you in the domain of domestic US law. That's a foolish argument.

Again, you are attempting to set up a strawman. They can nopt be outside of Geneva convention rules, since their captor, the US is a signatory to the conventions. Their imprisonment at a US facility makes them subject to US law.

There is no law regarding the captivity of terrorists on foreign soil who have attacked American forces. Therefore, since there is no law covering their captivity, such captivity can not violate any law. I challenge you to cite the law that covers them.

The laws of land warfare, which is part of the Geneva Conventions. In addition, international human rights treaties assure fair treatment of individuals captured in wartime.

Very few of the Gitmo captives are Afghan. They are mostly Al Qaeda combatants from a couple dozen foreign countries, mostly Saudi Arabia. They are not Talib but Al Qaeda, which vows eternal war against infidels.

No list of prisoners has ever been released. Therefore no one knows who they are.

In the literature of and press releases from Al Qaeda and related Islamist fundamentalist groups, they boast of raising the "black flag" of Islam over Washington. I am quoting them verbatim. You could educate yourself on this topic by reading their literature so you don't make foolish "corrections" like this.

Aside from having medieval Islam as one of my minor fields, I also spent the first eleven years of my life in the NEar East and South Asia. I have also visited the Near East frequently during my adult life. I speak, read, an write Arabic. I might perhaps know what I'm talking about. I think you are confused with the phrase "black flag of war."

Nice try at trying to obfuscate the issue. Half Dead Bob is not in Gitmo because our forces picked him off the street corner for having anti-American feelings. He's in Gitmo because he was a combatant in Afghanistan trying to kill Americans. His virulent statement of implacable hostility demonstrates that if released he would return to attacking America. Why do you make excuses to release him?

Because imprisoning him without trial, for his opinions is the behaviour of a totalitarian government. Occaisionally sercurity must bow to freedom. That was what I have always thought the US stood for. Obviously you do not hold this belief system.

Quote:

I hate to bring this to your attention, but Al Qaeda launched an attack on America from Afghanistan that killed 3000 innocent civilians. It happenned on Sep 11, 2001. Maybe you didn't see the news that day. They threatened to do it again. You see, when a nation launches attacks on you, like Afghanistan, that makes them the aggressor. Do you see how that works?

Again,a fallacy. Note that

Quote:

but Al Qaeda launched an attack on America from Afghanistan

Does not equal

Quote:

when a nation launches attacks on you, like Afghanistan

.

Al-Quaeda is a multinational non-government affiliated agency that was granted asylum in Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not attack the US. Sloppy word choice often belies sloppy thinking.
You are aware of the difference between the two, are you not?

What about the fact that several "detainees " appear to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time? Is it okay to kill them anyway? Let me guess, "They're Moooooooslims...they deserve to die."