Death camp at Guantanamo?

Ummm...are you backing up my case here? Or did I miss something?

You have perfectly described why they are classified as Illegal Combatants and not POW's.

Thanks!

0 Replies

I was dubious about your source, preferred mine!

0 Replies

Yet each says the exact same thing. Word for word...

0 Replies

Tartarin - but wasn't there some discussion about why the Geneva Rules are NOT being engaged? Something or other to the effect that what we did in Iraq doesn't quite conform to the necessary actions to make Geneva operative? In other words, this was not a formally declared war?

And how come all of a sudden there's a sudden spouting of regulations from treaties, when little george made such a point of backing out of them?

And if all that on POWs and combatants is so abudantly clear, how come the courts are still doing battle over the legaility of it? Isn't that why Rumsfeld and others said that this would all be removed to a military tribunal, which would solve their problems?

One of the observable things about this admin is the way they skip and skirt around every issue, which is why they're having such a credibility gap now.

Just quoting from the Geneva Convention doesn't make it true that we observed the parts of it.

0 Replies

mamaj, You make a very good point; the legality of these non-descript combatants are in literal "no man's land." c.i.

0 Replies

Yes, precisely. There was. That's why the Bush administration labelled them "enemy combatants," in order to avoid the wording of the Geneva Convention. I think McG may be reading it differently, but look to others with lawyerly brains to tell us what they think.

0 Replies

MamaJ,

I believe that we are talking about camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The prisoners being held there are from the engagement we had in Afghanistan. There are no prisoners being held there from the Iraqi conflict. All the prisoners that we captured there are being held as POW's in camps in Iraq.

If you can site even once, where the US has disobeyed the Geneva Convention, please do, as there are Laywers whose lives revolve around the Geneva Convention who can't.

Tartarin, what exactly am I mis-reading? You read it yourself?!

I shall use your post...

Quote:

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

THEY DIDN'T DO THIS! That is why they are ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS!

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Yes, precisely. There was. That's why the Bush administration labelled them "enemy combatants," in order to avoid the wording of the Geneva Convention. I think McG may be reading it differently, but look to others with lawyerly brains to tell us what they think.

I am not going to say anything about this, but will point it out.

0 Replies

McG -- On your post about (6), how do you know?

Little worried about lawyers? Huh?!

0 Replies

McG - you're right. I said Iraq, where I should have said Afghanistan. Where war wasn't declared either. Under the Constitution, war is to be declared by Congress, which didn't do so, which is one of the things giving rise to the question of legality. The US danced all around the Geneva Convention until it had to come up with some justification. Just like what's happening now with Iraq.

This "war," in both cases was unprovoked and one-sided, and is not so far proving a strong point for the agressor nation.

0 Replies

Quote:

This "war," in both cases was unprovoked and one-sided, and is not so far proving a strong point for the agressor nation.

I would have to disagree with you here. I believe that both wars were very provoked.

Afghanistan made the mistake of harboring terrorists. The US made it very clear after 9-11 that their would be no difference between the terrorists and the country harboring terrorists. War was declared on terrorism. The Taliban had the option of detaining Bin Laden, and arresting the terrorist that called Afghanistan home, instead, they thumbed their noses at us not believeing that we would act in the fashion we did. If you do not consider 9-11 provocation, then I don't know what would be.

One thing to keep in mind about Afghanistan is that the UN security council was responsible for the action taken there. Read the security council resolutions found here regarding Afghanistan.

Iraq also in the same vein as Afghanistan. As I have a different opinion on the Iraqi war, we will continue to try to stay on the topic of the prisoners in Gitmo, as that is what this thread is about.

0 Replies

That's courteous of you, McG,, but digressions are allowed here. I brought this thread up, and we all tend to digress, although the topic is still in the head.

Also - depends on provoked, doesn't it? Neither country provoked a war. Our saying so doesn't make it so. And the September 11 attacks were not Iraqi.

And those and other things are reasons we are being less and less believed. Add to that the rapidly growing unrest and dissolution of situations in both countries, and you do not have a picture of success. There is a growing sound of desperation in the attempts to explain justifications for a war effort that only the Bush babies wanted.

0 Replies

Have you heard the latest? The Navy is establising a court, building a prison, and a execution chamber at Guantanamo. Guess who's operating all three? Any chance anybody will get a "fair" trial? c.i.

0 Replies

Can you post your link?

0 Replies

BBC: Guantanamo death chamber planned

and in google:

'google news'- search

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Have you heard the latest? The Navy is establising a court, building a prison, and a execution chamber at Guantanamo. Guess who's operating all three? Any chance anybody will get a "fair" trial? c.i.

Wasn't it Clinton who wanted IS defined?

Quote:

A court and execution chamber could be built at the US detention camp in Cuba under plans being drawn up by military officials.
Military tribunals for some of the hundreds of men detained at the US base on Guantanamo Bay moved a step closer last month with the appointment of a chief prosecutor and chief defence counsel.

Pentagon rules for the tribunals permit death sentences to be passed and the construction of a death chamber at the camp is among options being considered.

But defence officials stress that everything remains on the drawing board until orders are issued by the president.

Again, I ask if you guys actually read these things.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Again, I ask if you guys actually read these things.

Asking for the link and then asking us to read this Laughing

.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Again, I ask if you guys actually read these things.

Asking for the link and then asking us to read this .

Right, I followed your link to learn where your point of view was coming from and found that quote. I thought that meant you had read it...Sorry if I was assumptive in my thought process...

0 Replies

McGent, When anything like this happens, planning comes first. Do you know what usually follows planning? Maybe you don't. If they have no intention of using it, why plan it at all? Remember the planning by this administration on the war with Iraq? c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McGent, When anything like this happens, planning comes first. Do you know what usually follows planning? Maybe you don't. If they have no intention of using it, why plan it at all? Remember the planning by this administration on the war with Iraq? c.i.

But that's not what you wrote.

Quote:

Have you heard the latest? The Navy is establising a court, building a prison, and a execution chamber at Guantanamo. Guess who's operating all three? Any chance anybody will get a "fair" trial? c.i.

This is as misleading as ANYTHING put out by the Bush Admin. There are also plans being made in case a comet is found to be coming towards Earth.

0 Replies

Death camp at Guantanamo?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know