1
   

Shock, Horror, But No Awe at Guantanamo Bay

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 08:39 am
They weren't all captured on the battlefield. One of the British captives was kidnapped from his place of work in Pakistan, flown to Bagram and then to Guantanamo. His wife and children are still in Pakistan. Should the Americans storm an office block in a foreign country and kill anyone they regard as suspect?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 08:46 am
Well, give him 5 steps at least.
0 Replies
 
cobalt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 02:08 pm
Finally - finally saw an updated US media story on Guantanamo Bay - Chicago Trib - yesterday:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0307200267jul20,1,3548047.story

I'd like to see this type of story repeated at least weekly by major newspapers around the country - what we forget as citizens is the immediacy and also the hopelessness engendered by our own US government... If it is not good for citizens of other countries, it is not good for present and future US citizens...Not good, of course is a grand understatement.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 02:17 pm
Makes one wonder why the Brits and Aussies doesn't make more of a stink on this issue of holding their citizens. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 02:26 pm
c.i.

The British do:
Quote:
The UK's attorney general has told the US that the nine British terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay must be given access to legal advice.
Lord Goldsmith is in talks in Washington with officials from the US Defense Department.

The talks were prompted by the row over the US decision to put forward two British detainess for military tribunal.
link to the BBC website
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 02:31 pm
Well, the Australians seem to be a "clother" ally:
Joint News Release: Attorney-General/Minister for Foreign Affairs (Australia)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 03:21 pm
Walter, The detainees at Guantanamo do not, so far as I know, have legal representation. It's a disturbing issue that must be brought to the forefront of the world courts. There are criminals involved in these proceedings, and it's not the prisoners. c.i.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 06:29 pm
They do have legal representation in the form of a military lawyer assigned through the Judge Advocate General. Stop pretending like these prisoners are being mistreated and acting all sensitive towards they're needs. They are prisoners classified as Illegal combatants and being held in a disclosed locationa nd afforded the rights they deserve. They ARE NOT MISTREATED, they are seen regularly by representatives of the International Red Cross.

Please stop characterizing these prisoners as innocent sheep who were abducted by the big, bad wolf.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 06:47 pm
McG, We never claimed these prisoners were "innocent sheep." But in a democracy, all charged with crime are allowed legal representation of their own choosing. Ever hear of "conflict of interest?" Evidently not. Why are you so against citizens of the UK and Australia in Guantanamo being sent to their own country for trial? c.i.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 10:28 pm
Since they were not sentenced, I truely think they are innocent.

You, know, McGentrix, we got here in Germany democracy again by the allies after WWII.

And one of the first things our juridiical system had to re-learn, was : every one is innocent brfore proven guilt.
And that there are some rules about how to do that.
Perhaps you should ask someone about that.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2003 04:52 am
McGentrix

You say the prisoners are not mistreated but I have seen many pictures of prisoners behind razor wire, shackled and hobbling along taken for interrogation. Or in orange jump suits with hoods and blindfolds, hands tied behind their backs. And please don't tell me that's the biased BBC, it was Donald Rumsfeld who thought there would be nothing wrong in publishing the pictures. Another example of American crass ineptitude. Did Rumsfeld think the American people would feel better for seeing their "unlawful combatant" enemies humiliated in this way? Releasing those pictures did nothing to fight terrorism but just caused more trouble. I get the impression that people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz cannot be serious in their fight against terrorism if they allow such publicity stunts. And after displaying the bodies of Saddam's two sons (but not his grandchild - why not?) what manufactured rage will there be when the next dead American (or British) soldier is shown on Arabic tv?

We are supposed to be the good guys, remember? We respect the dead, fight fairly, assume innocence until after due process of law, treat prisoners according to the Geneva Conventions, in short its a fight of civilised western values against intolerance and fanaticism.
Decency against barbarism. How nice it would be if just occasionally we could point to our fine words translated into fine actions. Unfortunately I can't think of a single example.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 10:32:54