Military to Build $100 mi. Courthouse for Guantanamo Trials

Who indeed is this competent tribunal?

Mysteryman, for all your justifications, your talk of whether they were in proper military uniform or not, interpretations of the Geneva conventions & other technicalities, just for once consider this: these detainees are fellow human beings who have been locked up in that hell hole for up to five years. And who knows for how much longer? Without charges or trials. Imagine that. Just for once, show a little compassion, man!

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=87880&highlight=

OE,
I am fully aware of article 5 and what it says.

Now,please tell me this...Who is that competent tribunal?
Right now,that tribunal is the US,because nobody else has offered to be that tribunal.
So,since there is no country or govt or world organization offering to step up and be that tribunal,its left up to us.

So,we arent violating the GC in that respect either.

mysteryman wrote:

OE,
I am fully aware of article 5 and what it says.

Now,please tell me this...Who is that competent tribunal?
Right now,that tribunal is the US,because nobody else has offered to be that tribunal.
So,since there is no country or govt or world organization offering to step up and be that tribunal,its left up to us.

So,we arent violating the GC in that respect either.

Wait.

America invades a souvereign nation. America captures people - not dressed in uniform. America transports people to remote location, locks them up without trial, for undetermined time.

When reminded that the Geneva Conventions should apply and that the Geneva Conventions call for a competent tribunal to determine the status of people dressed in civilian clothes who where captured, transported to remote location and kept without trial for undetermined time by America, Americans like you state that the competent tribunal consists of America's opinion that they are terrorists.

You think that satisfies the Geneva Conventions.

Let me therefore ask you:

If Iran was to capture American citizens, dressed in civilian clothes, transported them to a remote location, detained them without trial for an undetermined time, and, when reminded that the Geneva Conventions apply, would answer that Iran has determined that they are terrorists: would you think that the conditions the Geneva Conventions define were satisfied? And if not - why not?

mysteryman wrote:

OE,
I am fully aware of article 5 and what it says.

Now,please tell me this...Who is that competent tribunal?
Right now,that tribunal is the US,because nobody else has offered to be that tribunal.
So,since there is no country or govt or world organization offering to step up and be that tribunal,its left up to us.

So,we arent violating the GC in that respect either.

Wait.

America invades a souvereign nation. America captures people - not dressed in uniform. America transports people to remote location, locks them up without trial, for undetermined time.

When reminded that the Geneva Conventions should apply and that the Geneva Conventions call for a competent tribunal to determine the status of people dressed in civilian clothes who where captured, transported to remote location and kept without trial for undetermined time by America, Americans like you state that the competent tribunal consists of America's opinion that they are terrorists.

You think that satisfies the Geneva Conventions.

Let me therefore ask you:

If Iran was to capture American citizens, dressed in civilian clothes, transported them to a remote location, detained them without trial for an undetermined time, and, when reminded that the Geneva Conventions apply, would answer that Iran has determined that they are terrorists: would you think that the conditions the Geneva Conventions define were satisfied? And if not - why not?

I think it's all about stalling, Bear.
I'm beginning to doubt that these "trials" will ever actually happen.
The publicity about the proposed building is meant to give the impression that that there's been some progress, some movement. There hasn't been any progress or movement at all.
Frankly, I think the US government wishes the "Guantanamo issue" would just quietly go away! It's a hot potato.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

With any luck they'll be foisted onto a barbed wire fence & then shot.

it's too bad you're against them, al queda could use someone with your sick mind

If Americans were in Iraq, dressed as civilians and carrying out terrorist activities, they deserve the treatment they get.

McGentrix wrote:

If Americans were in Iraq, dressed as civilians and carrying out terrorist activities, they deserve the treatment they get.

You mean those from the



?

Special operations are military actions "conducted in hostile,
denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve
military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives
employing military capabilities for which there is no broad
conventional force requirement" and which "require covert, clandestine,
or low visibility capabilities."
source: Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military Terms (updated 11/09/06).

Gen. Bryan D. Brown, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) at least sees such a danger, and the new SOCOM strategic planning document refers partly to it.

msolga wrote:

I think it's all about stalling, Bear.
I'm beginning to doubt that these "trials" will ever actually happen.
The publicity about the proposed building is meant to give the impression that that there's been some progress, some movement. There hasn't been any progress or movement at all.
Frankly, I think the US government wishes the "Guantanamo issue" would just quietly go away! It's a hot potato.

I'm surprised that bush hasn't thought about just killing them all then.

You have a point there, Walter!