Guantanamo suicides confirmed

oralloy wrote:

msolga wrote:

I'm not going to go over & over points about the Geneva convention/when is a POW not a POW, etc, that have already been covered very well by others on this thread, ob.

It seems that the reality of what the Geneva Conventions say is central to the issue you are discussing.

This is tiresome.
The US insists they are not POWs. (as defined by the Geneva Convention), therefore the US doesn't have to comply with the guidelines of the convention.

Others claim that they are POWs and they are being detained illegally.

Whatever the US government chooses call it, the treatment of the detainees has been/remains appalling & thoroughly reprehensible.

Oralloy is not big on answering questions, Ellpus. Just wait: you'll get a bunch of (one liner) questions back in response to your request for answers from him.

dlowan wrote:

Cute isn't it? The neocons and hench people and dupes are supporting these actions by "the land of the free".

They declare a war with no end, and no criteria given for winning.

Using this, they justify keeping prisoners endlessly...while, for propaganda purposes, declaring the wars in which they captured these people to be won.


They imprison large numbers of people, without even any attempt at a legal justification for it, relying on some kind of blind support from their stooges in the American populace who see any questioning of policy as immoral, or illegal or something, while their country is in a now eternal state of war.

They create situations where they do not have to answer to their own laws, or regard the human rights agreements they enthusiastically advocate for others, and where they can and do murder and torture. When criticised for it, they initually deny, then say it is a few bad apples, then say they deserved it, and it is unpatriotic to talk about it..or stupid, or whatever the neocon loony right insult du jour is. (Intellectual it is again, at present, isn't it? Or, if you stoop to the depths of the likes of Sierra Song, we are back to the show worn "terrorist supporter". Goddess, I thought they would be too ashamed to use that one any more, but there you are) All this without any proof that these people "deserve" anything, or, if some feeble attempt is to be made to justify their guilt, it is via kangaroo courts condemned by their own military's lawyers.


Ever heard of Catch 22?

4 years is now an "eternal state of war."?

What a load of BS.

dlowan wrote:

Cute isn't it? The neocons and hench people and dupes are supporting these actions by "the land of the free".

They declare a war with no end, and no criteria given for winning.

Using this, they justify keeping prisoners endlessly...while, for propaganda purposes, declaring the wars in which they captured these people to be won.


They imprison large numbers of people, without even any attempt at a legal justification for it, relying on some kind of blind support from their stooges in the American populace who see any questioning of policy as immoral, or illegal or something, while their country is in a now eternal state of war.

They create situations where they do not have to answer to their own laws, or regard the human rights agreements they enthusiastically advocate for others, and where they can and do murder and torture. When criticised for it, they initually deny, then say it is a few bad apples, then say they deserved it, and it is unpatriotic to talk about it..or stupid, or whatever the neocon loony right insult du jour is. (Intellectual it is again, at present, isn't it? Or, if you stoop to the depths of the likes of Sierra Song, we are back to the show worn "terrorist supporter". Goddess, I thought they would be too ashamed to use that one any more, but there you are) All this without any proof that these people "deserve" anything, or, if some feeble attempt is to be made to justify their guilt, it is via kangaroo courts condemned by their own military's lawyers.

Ever heard of Catch 22?

LOL. You had the Marines in Haditha tried, convicted and sentenced without so much as blinking an eye.

Hypocrite.

They can't HANDLE the questions.

but if it makes you feel better, just tell yourself that they're unlawful combatants & not POWs .....

msolga wrote:

but if it makes you feel better, just tell yourself that they're unlawful combatants & not POWs .....

My support of the Geneva Conventions does indeed make me feel better.

OK, Oralloy, a theoretical question for you.

You say "until the end of the war". As I am not sure what "war" you are referring to, I can only assume that you mean the war in Afghanistan, where the majority of these people were "caught".

If the war in Afghnistan ended tomorrow, what do you think should then happen to the relevant detainees?

(Personally, I thought the war in Afghanistan ended ages ago)

Oralloy is not big on answering questions, Ellpus.

dlowan wrote:

They can't HANDLE the questions.

You've noticed that, too, Deb? :wink:

Perhaps because they don't have any convincing responses?

Lord Ellpus wrote:

OK, Oralloy, a theoretical question for you.

You say "until the end of the war". As I am not sure what "war" you are referring to, I can only assume that you mean the war in Afghanistan, where the majority of these people were "caught".

Close. But let's call it "the war against al-Qa'ida and all their allies".

Most people refer to it as "the war on terror", but than other people take advantage of the phrase and misconstrue it to mean we are at war against a tactic, so let's stick to "the war against al-Qa'ida and all their allies".

Lord Ellpus wrote:

If the war in Afghnistan ended tomorrow, what do you think should then happen to the relevant detainees?

Presuming al-Qa'ida and all their allies were eliminated, then what should happen is a military tribunal to try all the detainees for any war crimes they might have committed.

Those found not guilty should be released as soon as the verdict is read. Those who will not be charged at all should be released upon the end of the war.

Lord Ellpus wrote:

(Personally, I thought the war in Afghanistan ended ages ago)

Nope.

msolga wrote:

Oralloy is not big on answering questions, Ellpus.

Yes I am. You just don't like what the Geneva Conventions say, so you don't like the answers.

oralloy wrote:

msolga wrote:

but if it makes you feel better, just tell yourself that they're unlawful combatants & not POWs .....

My support of the Geneva Conventions does indeed make me feel better.

Well, if you accept Bushco's interpretation of it, of course it does!

msolga wrote:

oralloy wrote:

msolga wrote:

but if it makes you feel better, just tell yourself that they're unlawful combatants & not POWs .....

My support of the Geneva Conventions does indeed make me feel better.

Well, if you accept Bushco's interpretation of it, of course it does!

I prefer the Red Cross' interpretation.

Universally agreed upon, and binding upon even America, criteria for elimation please. NOW!

oralloy wrote:

msolga wrote:

oralloy wrote:

msolga wrote:

but if it makes you feel better, just tell yourself that they're unlawful combatants & not POWs .....

My support of the Geneva Conventions does indeed make me feel better.

Well, if you accept Bushco's interpretation of it, of course it does!

I prefer the Red Cross' interpretation.

Yes? That's interesting. Could you please explain it to me?

dlowan wrote:

Universally agreed upon, and binding upon even America, criteria for elimation please. NOW!

I'm not sure what your are saying (or asking).

Clarification please??

Criteria for the war being over, please.