What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

Scrat

my post is based on many interactions of McGentrix's and I stand by my remarks.

Besides which this is not an attack. McGentrix is proud of how he feels. I merely reinforce.

0 Replies

Have you noticed that there are no detainees in Gitmo from our victory in Iraq? That's because the prisoners that we took and may continue to take were actual prisoners of war. They wore uniforms and followed the rules of warfare. The prisoners of war that we have/had have been treated accordingly.

How many times must it be explained that teh detainees in Gitmo are NOT POW's? Therefore they do not get to be treated like POW's.

0 Replies

Yes, and I noticed that you said, ALL were held in Guantanamo because they were trying to murder Americans.

0 Replies

Ok, I will recant that and say "suspected of taking part in terrorist activity" - Better?

0 Replies

Which makes a difference of some years in prison or to be set free - it seems.

0 Replies

An older article, but still relevent it seems.

The Bush administration considers the captured fighters to be "unlawful combatants" and "detainees" because their method of terror violates internationally accepted laws and specifically targets civilians.

The distinction is significant because under the Geneva Convention, written after World War II, a POW has certain legal rights that would govern the U.S. military's interrogations of the detainees and would require that they be released when the hostilities in Afghanistan are over.

If there is any ambiguity about whether a captive should be considered a prisoner of war, the Geneva Convention says a special three-person military tribunal should be convened to decide.

Rumsfeld said that is irrelevant at Guantanamo Bay.

"There is no ambiguity in this case," he said.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that officials agree the detainees aren't prisoners of war. But administration lawyers are debating whether the Geneva Convention, which has provisions that deal with unlawful combatants, applies in this case.

"These are the worst of a very bad lot," Cheney told Fox News Sunday. "They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans, innocent Americans, if they can, and they are perfectly prepared to die in the effort. And they need to be detained, treated very cautiously, so that our people are not at risk."

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The Bush administration considers the captured fighters to be "unlawful combatants" and "detainees" because their method of terror violates internationally accepted laws and specifically targets civilians.

A lot of warfare specifically targets civilians, stupid enough. Enough soldiers - US soldiers, too - have targeted civilians (think Vietnam). If thats even true for something as specific and horrific as that, its certainly true for the more vague "violating internationally accepted laws". Now the question here is, do POWs only get to be POWs if they havent "violated internationally accepted laws" - in the view of their enemy's government? According to this piece of text, yes - these people are not POWs but "detainees", because of exactly that reason - because their enemy's minister of defence has decided - without letting any judge look into it - that they "violated internationally accepted laws".

I especially like the irony of the "internationally accepted laws" bit in there. Of course, judging on the variety of voices from governments and institutions around the world claiming so, the American detention of these combatants beyond any legal rights is itself a violation of "internationally accepted law".

McGentrix wrote:

If there is any ambiguity about whether a captive should be considered a prisoner of war, the Geneva Convention says a special three-person military tribunal should be convened to decide.

Rumsfeld said that is irrelevant at Guantanamo Bay.

"There is no ambiguity in this case," he said.

So the Geneve Convention prescribes a tribunal in case of "any ambiguity" - but its the victor's minister of defence who gets to decide whether there is any ambiguity.

(Mr. Kafka, are you there?)

McGentrix wrote:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that officials agree the detainees aren't prisoners of war.

The officials of the victorious party, that is.

McGentrix wrote:

"These are the worst of a very bad lot," Cheney told Fox News Sunday. "They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans, innocent Americans, if they can, and they are perfectly prepared to die in the effort. And they need to be detained, treated very cautiously, so that our people are not at risk."

Thing is - and here we really get to the bottom line of our whole argument (if you've made it this far) - for all we know, he may be right. But we'll never know - because he insists we should believe him - and approve of imprisoning these people for years - purely on his blue eyes. Because he wont actually let any court or tribunal prove any of what he's saying here.

Basically, I call you a terrorist - and deny you any right to defend yourself against the allegation, or even face a judge to decide on the allegation - on the argument that you're too much of a terrorist to be allowed that. Its a truly totalitarian bit of judicial logic.

0 Replies

"You may object that it is not a trial at all; you are quite right, for it is only a trial if I recognize it as such"
Franz Kafka-The Trial

0 Replies

Nimh,

Are you asking the American citizenry to take the word of a taliban detainee over the word of Donald Rumsfield? While not everyone may agree with Rummy's views or politics, I am pretty sure most believe he is doing what he thinks is best for America.

If we put these detainees on trial then we are puuting our national interests at unreasonable risk. Right now the detainees compatriots and fellow terrorists have no idea who is alive and who is dead from the war. They don't know who has given what information to the Americans. The detainees family's are not at risk from retalliation because no one knows who is actually there.

I am sorry you don't see the ned for what is happening to those detainees, but i would rather have then there, instead of home planning attacks on our troops.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
In the end, I look at this one and think we could do worse, and I've not heard anything better suggested, so I have to come down on the side of what we are doing now.
Scrat

There are a LOT of voices within the US and outside which argue that the US could be doing very much better here through adherence to international codes governing the treatment of POWs and through adherence to America's own principles and practices of legal justice.

Well, as I've written before, it seems to me that the detainees are not legally entitled to treatment as either (POWs or criminals under US law), based on their status when captured, which derived from their personal choices and actions. Geneva requires certain behaviors to deserve its protections. To my knowledge the detainees did not follow Geneva and so are not entitled to Geneva. As to the US legal system, these men are neither being detained nor have they been charged under it. It has nothing to do with these people.

You and others may wish that we simply chose to treat the detainees as if they fell into one of these two groups, and perhaps we could, but they are not either of these and it seems to me our government can't reasonably be said to be in error for not treating them as something they are not.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Nimh,

Are you asking the American citizenry to take the word of a taliban detainee over the word of Donald Rumsfield?

Nope. (Duh). I wouldnt take either's word for it. Thats why I think that whenever people are detained, they should be accused of something, and at least some kind of legal process (any kind of legal process) be set up to ascertain whether they are indeed guilty or not.

McGentrix wrote:

Right now the detainees compatriots and fellow terrorists have no idea who is alive and who is dead from the war.

Not to mention their wives and children ... including those from the detainees who will turn out to have been innocent (as some are, according to the Administration's latest moves on the matter).

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

... the detainees who will turn out to have been innocent (as some are, according to the Administration's latest moves on the matter).

My understanding is that all detainees who have been released so far (or are slated for release) have been released (or will be) into the custody of their home nation. I had not taken this to be an indication of innocence. Did you, and if so why?

Of course, it is quite possible that one or more are innocent; innocent people find their way into US prisons despite the protections you seem to suggest would prevent such from happening.

But again, who said those being released were innocent?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

My understanding is that all detainees who have been released so far (or are slated for release) have been released (or will be) into the custody of their home nation. I had not taken this to be an indication of innocence. Did you, and if so why?

But again, who said those being released were innocent?

Good point. Huh. I dont know. Got me there.

What I do know is that I would like them - and all of us - to get the chance to find out whether they are guilty or innocent of anything.

That's the bottom line of it, kinda. In fact, from what I understand, barring a few first cases recently, they haven't even been accused of anything. They are in a space beyond justice, quite literally. No justice system whatsoever is being allowed to apply to them.

To defend this with the argument that hey, being from Afghanistan, they should be used to that, implies that in war, you can be as bad as your worst enemy - and excuse your behavior with that argument.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Scrat wrote:
My understanding is that all detainees who have been released so far (or are slated for release) have been released (or will be) into the custody of their home nation. I had not taken this to be an indication of innocence. Did you, and if so why?

But again, who said those being released were innocent?

Good point. Huh. I dont know. Got me there.

What I do know is that I would like them - and all of us - to get the chance to find out whether they are guilty or innocent of anything.

That's the bottom line of it, kinda. In fact, from what I understand, barring a few first cases recently, they haven't even been accused of anything. They are in a space beyond justice, quite literally. No justice system whatsoever is being allowed to apply to them.

To defend this with the argument that hey, being from Afghanistan, they should be used to that, implies that in war, you can be as bad as your worst enemy - and excuse your behavior with that argument.

That's a reasonable point of view. I don't think the argument coming from the other side is anything like you make it out to be, but I won't let that distract me from the fact that it is not unreasonable for you to want some mechanism in place to determine whether they are being held for a reasonable cause and to see that they are released if not.

I can certainly agree that it would be better if circumstances allowed for just that.

0 Replies

Now that's the scrat we DO like.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Now that's the scrat we DO like.

Let's hear it for that Scrat, then! Cool

Must be a new upgrade!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

What I do know is that I would like them - and all of us - to get the chance to find out whether they are guilty or innocent of anything.

That's the bottom line of it, kinda. In fact, from what I understand, barring a few first cases recently, they haven't even been accused of anything. They are in a space beyond justice, quite literally. No justice system whatsoever is being allowed to apply to them.

To defend this with the argument that hey, being from Afghanistan, they should be used to that, implies that in war, you can be as bad as your worst enemy - and excuse your behavior with that argument.

My sentiments exactly.

0 Replies

Well there is a guy from my hometown in that camp. He has been there for two years and spent the last six months in solitary confinement. This week he was allowed a telephone conersation with his father, strictly censored of course. Last week he saw his lawyers for the first time. If you want to see the human side of this affair take a look at this site : http://www.fairgofordavid.org/

0 Replies

http://www.fairgofordavid.org/images/guantanamobay.jpg

These men have not been charged.

0 Replies

gozmo wrote:

These men have not been charged.

They get no sympathy from me.

0 Replies

What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know