This just in GITMO is still illegal

[Arborealus]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... o_trials_8

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.

And so it goes...

[Animalor]

Damn you, liberal activist judges!

[Zaelath]

What kinda world is it when there's a Texan president and you still can't thrash niggers in private?

[Cartalas]

What kinda world is it when there's a Texan president and you still can't thrash niggers in private?

On to Public Flogging

[Hesten]

Ok, now to the next step, get Bush on trial for holding persons against their wills for several years

[Kylere]

This just in, Bush ignores checks and balances and blows off the Supreme Court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5131812.stm

Gotta love it, welcome to the United States of Fucking Churchies

[masteen]

There is no question that the President has WAY too much power. It constantly sickens me that my party is responsible for letting the Exeuctive branch usurp so much power.

I miss the gridlock of the Clinton presidency. Fucking Hell, look what you people made me say!

[Nick]

He and his cronies should be held to account in some form of open world court for the shit they have pulled in the last few years.

Any lover of democracy who wasn't a fucking shill knows that.

[Kylere]

You know, you can say whatever you want about me, as long as you hold your choices words for the morons that still support this abomination of an administration. (heh if I typo'd that phrase i could be like Don King)

[Niffoni]

I miss the gridlock of the Clinton presidency. Fucking Hell, look what you people made me say!

That reminds me of the "Vote For Gay Penguin!" website.

"If you elect Gay Penguin, he won't do anything wrong, or anything at all"

[Aruman]

Mr Hamdan had success in his first legal outing, in the US District Court in Washington, which ruled that he could not face a military trial unless he had previously been found not to be a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.

He claims POW status, but like all camp prisoners, he is denied this and is instead designated an "unlawful combatant" by the Bush administration.

Sure, some people there most likely are being held without cause, but the above statement is misleading.

The Geneva Convention describes what an unlawful combatant is and also states that unlawful combatants do NOT enjoy the rights of a PoW, this isn't something the Bush Administration says.

[kyoukan]

Your country declares a war and then illegally witholds POW's basic rights granted by the geneva convention, claiming that they are not prisoners of war because there is no war?

I can almost hear the tiny little rusty gears in your head grinding together as they try to cough out something simiar to a semantic argument, only a lot dumber.

[Nick]

Yeah....it appears some people are in fact THAT retarded in the world....sadly.

It's pretty fucking clear cut Aruman, your country has been breaking international law for years now, accept it and sort it out. Ignoring morally unnacceptable situations like this is making your stupid fucking war on terror harder, not easier.

What you stupid fucks don't seem to realise is that if you weren't doing inexcusable shit like this, nobody would want to blow your fucking heads off.

And they are the terrorists

[Aruman]

Your country declares a war and then illegally witholds POW's basic rights granted by the geneva convention, claiming that they are not prisoners of war because there is no war?

I can almost hear the tiny little rusty gears in your head grinding together as they try to cough out something simiar to a semantic argument, only a lot dumber.

Read the definition of what a PoW is according to the Geneva Convention then come back kyoukan.

As I had said before. I am sure there are people there that shouldn't be, but this specific person cannot just declare himself a PoW when his situation doesn't fit.

[Tangurena]

The main gist of the ruling:
1 - Geneva Conventions do apply, or at least common article 3.
2 - The portion of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, containing the attempt by the administration to remove any and all court jurisdiction, is invalid, or at least not retroactive to eliminate this and the other cases currently crawling thru the system to the Supreme Court.
3 - The military commissions/tribunals violate both UCMJ and Geneva Conventions.
4 - The President's conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty.

Supreme Court decision, PDF, 185 pages long.

I suspect the response by the administration will be to withdraw from the geneva conventions, and modify article 36 of the UMCJ in order to try to make their war crimes legal.

[Aruman]

The main gist of the ruling:
1 - Geneva Conventions do apply, or at least common article 3.
2 - The portion of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, containing the attempt by the administration to remove any and all court jurisdiction, is invalid, or at least not retroactive to eliminate this and the other cases currently crawling thru the system to the Supreme Court.
3 - The military commissions/tribunals violate both UCMJ and Geneva Conventions.
4 - The President's conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty.

Supreme Court decision, PDF, 185 pages long.

I suspect the response by the administration will be to withdraw from the geneva conventions, and modify article 36 of the UMCJ in order to try to make their war crimes legal.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[Tangurena]

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Source
The interrogation regime used by the US is a violation of Art 3.1c. The military tribunals are a violation of Art 3.1d.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal/commissions are in direct violation of Art 3.1d as well as in direct violation of Art 36 of UCMJ.

[Tangurena]

Hamdan, the main party to this case, drove cars in the alneda motor pool.

CP: Tell us about your client, Salim Ahmad Hamdan, his background and the charges against him? How did he end up in Afghanistan?

CS: Salim is a Yemeni. He is 35 years old now, approximately. He was born in the Hadramount mountain of Yemen. When he was about 12 he lost all of his family and for an Arab that is unusual. He was basically an orphan on the streets. He eventually emigrated to Sana where he worked as a debob driver. Debobs are very tiny little buses, it was much like indentured servitude. Because the debob driver pays the debob owner every morning for the debob. Its one of those professions where you can work like crazy and end up in debt. So he was struggling to live. Eventually he was offered an opportunity to emigrate outside of Yemen. Most Yemenis try desperately to get out of Yemen to find a better job. If you don’t work for the Government it is very hard to make a living. It was not such a good opportunity, but Salim had no family and so he jumped at it. He went with a group of people who were going to Tajikistan. He went on as a driver for a group of people who were going to fight the left overs of the Communist Government there. This was the mid ‘90s. Ultimately the group did not make it to Tajikistan. Many of the people Salim was with ultimately started working with and pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden and the organization al Qaeda who had moved to Afghanistan in 1995. Salim was not part of military wing, and not a fighter and kinda of the guy left over. He was offered a job. One of the secrets of Osama bin Laden’s success is that like any good politician he set out to set up agriculture and build roads to win favour with the local populace. So he needed workers to work on these civilian projects. So this is what Salim was hired into. Because he knew about cars, as a debob driver, he was his own mechanic and he had hustled his whole life, so he worked in the motor pool. Sometimes he drove, sometimes he worked on the cars. So he worked for bin Laden in this capacity. He is commonly referred to as Osama bin Laden’s driver - that wouldn’t be completely accurate. If I was asked was he Osama bin Laden's driver, would say yes, but not his only driver, just another guy who worked in the motor pool. His whole reason for doing this was very simple - he wanted to earn enough money to buy a vehicle and go back to Yemen. He figured if he could become the owner rather than the driver of the debob, he would earn a living. He had got married and had a family, and he wanted to achieve those things that are common the world over. He just picked a very bad employer. He was living with his family in Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. For Salim, 9/11 was a disaster, like for many millions of people around the world. He tried to flee, he didn’t want to be associated with bin Laden, and he had no desire to fight for him. They got to the border and noted that all the Arab men were being arrested, that is what they heard. Salim figured that if he could sell some his possessions, they could raise enough money to buy airplane tickets, or to buy their way over the border. Historically, that is how you got across the Pakistan border. So he sent his wife ahead, because women and children did not need such big bribes. Then he decided he would go back and sell some of his belongings but he was captured by forces that were hunting bounties for Arabs and eventually sold to the United States. His wife thought he was dead, theirs was a harrowing flight out of Afghanistan, she was 8 months pregnant with their second child, whom he has never seen.

Source

There are now about 490 prisoners at Gitmo, and "55 percent of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or coalition allies.

"Only 8 percent of the detainees were characterized as Al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda at all and 18 percent have no definitive affiliation with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

"Only 5 percent of the detainees were captured by United States forces. [A total of] 86 percent of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were turned over to the United States at a time at which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies." (Emphasis added.)

The Northern Alliance included Afghan warlords—not noted, to say the least, for their concern for any due process in rounding up "suspects" or the quality of the "evidence," if any, connecting their captives with terrorism. But these warlords were attracted by the generous sums the U.S. gave them for these suspects—many of whom were then warehoused at Gitmo.

Very few of the people in gitmo are actual combatants.

John Adams was a similar man to Lt Commander Swift. Adams took a case defending the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Back then, the British routinely refused to give quarter, and many times punished their own troops for taking prisoners and accepting the surrender of revolutionary troops. To John Adams, as well as George Washington, justice was important. The men of that generation spoke to our hopes and strengths. Bush's junta speaks only to our fears. Justice is an important principle, and as Adams showed, it was important even when it comes at personal and political cost.

I predict that Lt Cmdr Swift will continue to get passed over for promotion and be coerced out of the military. RIFfed at the first opportunity.

[Kylere]

They are not POW's, they are not claimed citizens of any government, they are criminals being held in a manner that is not in accordance with US law.

Really there is no law to apply to them, so we get the concept of us being like most of the nations in the world, and torturing them to death, while extracting every bit of information possible. But since we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard we imprison them hoping that time will work the information out of them in a less direct torture (which is the concept behind the prison systems of the entire first world, just "evil" out rather than info out, lol, like that works.)

What we should do is release them, and have the CIA hunt them down like animals quietly making them each die. Because any other choice is worse. I know some screaming fit liberal is going to say that is wrong, but if you step back and view it dispassionately, at this point, nothing else is going to be better. Letting them go and not tracking and eliminating them is going to cause large number of American fatalities. Holding them is going to cause the rest of the world to rightfully demand war crimes trials. Torturing them to death and burning the corpses is only acceptable in 80% of our nation states ( the weakest ones.) So we should put them under, tag them, then release them with great fanfare . It would be the best possible outcome, wrong? yeah, evil, yeah, every other option worse? yeah.

[Metanis]

They are not POW's, they are not claimed citizens of any government, they are criminals being held in a manner that is not in accordance with US law.

Really there is no law to apply to them, so we get the concept of us being like most of the nations in the world, and torturing them to death, while extracting every bit of information possible. But since we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard we imprison them hoping that time will work the information out of them in a less direct torture (which is the concept behind the prison systems of the entire first world, just "evil" out rather than info out, lol, like that works.)

What we should do is release them, and have the CIA hunt them down like animals quietly making them each die. Because any other choice is worse. I know some screaming fit liberal is going to say that is wrong, but if you step back and view it dispassionately, at this point, nothing else is going to be better. Letting them go and not tracking and eliminating them is going to cause large number of American fatalities. Holding them is going to cause the rest of the world to rightfully demand war crimes trials. Torturing them to death and burning the corpses is only acceptable in 80% of our nation states ( the weakest ones.) So we should put them under, tag them, then release them with great fanfare . It would be the best possible outcome, wrong? yeah, evil, yeah, every other option worse? yeah.

Actually that isn't quite accurate. The law of the jungle applies.

[Nick]

Actually, both of you are fucking morons.

[Kylere]

Actually, both of you are fucking morons.

So, with your ocean of self removal, and local knowledge of terrorism, what would you do. Tomorrow you are appointed US Secretary of State, and given the entire PR mess to resolve, what is your first step?

[Zaelath]

Actually, both of you are fucking morons.

So, with your ocean of self removal, and local knowledge of terrorism, what would you do. Tomorrow you are appointed US Secretary of State, and given the entire PR mess to resolve, what is your first step?

Shoot Karl Rove in the face in a "hunting accident".

[Nick]

I would release the ones I wasn't going to charge immediately.

I would turn the ones I was going to charge over to the World Court or an international tribunal.

I would hold the Present administration in jail for breaking fundamental geneva convention codes and human rights abuses. I would also arrest the soldiers who worked in Gitmo for not following the legislation set down after the Nuremberg trials in regards to a soldiers ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY over any orders from his government to protect the rights of anyone being treated in a way that disregards their basic human rights rights.

I would issue millions of dollars of compensation to the prisoners I had absolutely no reason to be holding in the first place in a place like this.

I would call Americans fucking idiots for letting this go on for so long and not doing anything other than sitting on their fat fucking assess feeding their fat fucking children Big Macs and Big Gulps.

I would apologise to the rest of the world publically for the actions of the USA in regards to Gitmo and then offer my resignation so I didn't have to be in any way further involved in your faux democracy shitheap.


Just in case you're still confused, here's the quote again:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

What your country has been doing in Guantanamo Bay is as despicable as any event a terrorist has tried on your country so far. The entire world thinks you are fucking cretins. Sort it out.

[Cotto]

Things like this make me firmly root my belief that humanity should not be allowed to rule itself.

[Aruman]

Article 3 is not separate from Article 4. They are all part of the Geneva Convention which CLEARLY states what a PoW is.

You are the one with some serious mental problems for even saying that holding people in GITMO is as despicable as flying aircraft into the Twin Towers.

[Aruman]

I would release the ones I wasn't going to charge immediately.

I would turn the ones I was going to charge over to the World Court or an international tribunal.

I would hold the Present administration in jail for breaking fundamental geneva convention codes and human rights abuses. I would also arrest the soldiers who worked in Gitmo for not following the legislation set down after the Nuremberg trials in regards to a soldiers ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY over any orders from his government to protect the rights of anyone being treated in a way that disregards their basic human rights rights.

I would issue millions of dollars of compensation to the prisoners I had absolutely no reason to be holding in the first place in a place like this.

I would call Americans fucking idiots for letting this go on for so long and not doing anything other than sitting on their fat fucking assess feeding their fat fucking children Big Macs and Big Gulps.

I would apologise to the rest of the world publically for the actions of the USA in regards to Gitmo and then offer my resignation so I didn't have to be in any way further involved in your faux democracy shitheap.

You wouldn't have the authority in and of yourself to do any of that, so try again.

[Nick]

How about you try again? You know, since it's your fucking country breaking international law.

[kyoukan]

Article 3 is not separate from Article 4. They are all part of the Geneva Convention which CLEARLY states what a PoW is.

You are the one with some serious mental problems for even saying that holding people in GITMO is as despicable as flying aircraft into the Twin Towers.

Destroying the world trade center with airlines is utter fucking childs play compared to the havoc you have wreaked in the middle east since world war 2.

americans are such whiney fucking crybabies. you don't even have the slightest clue what a real attack is. 2000 people? you kill more Iraqis in a fucking MONTH.

[Metanis]

Destroying the world trade center with airlines is utter fucking childs play compared to the havoc you have wreaked in the middle east since world war 2.

You fall into that traditional trap of assuming the rest of the world would have merely held their hands in the aftermath of WWII. If you studied some unbiased history you might find the Americans were the best partners for the shattered economies of the Middle East. Their choices at the time were extremely stark. Or do you also fall into the traditional liberal trap of assuming you can change history?

[Hesten]

Article 3 is not separate from Article 4. They are all part of the Geneva Convention which CLEARLY states what a PoW is.

You are the one with some serious mental problems for even saying that holding people in GITMO is as despicable as flying aircraft into the Twin Towers.

Just so i get this clear. A group of terrorists, NOT affiliated with any country (apart from in Bush wet dreams) managed to pull off 9/11.
That make it ok for an COUNTRY (yes, country, NOT a bunch of people with no regard for international law, but a country who helped MAKE those laws) can now do as they please with anyone they please, as long as they call them "suspected terrorists".?
There is a VERY big difference between what a group of people can do, and what a country can do.

[Aruman]

Article 3 is not separate from Article 4. They are all part of the Geneva Convention which CLEARLY states what a PoW is.

You are the one with some serious mental problems for even saying that holding people in GITMO is as despicable as flying aircraft into the Twin Towers.

Just so i get this clear. A group of terrorists, NOT affiliated with any country (apart from in Bush wet dreams) managed to pull off 9/11.
That make it ok for an COUNTRY (yes, country, NOT a bunch of people with no regard for international law, but a country who helped MAKE those laws) can now do as they please with anyone they please, as long as they call them "suspected terrorists".?
There is a VERY big difference between what a group of people can do, and what a country can do.

Someone who admitted they worked for Al-Queda is just a suspected terrorist then?

You need to re-read what I posted instead of the usual bullcrap that goes on here. People like you are always taking what someone said completely out of context.

I said that this person cannot claim PoW status because the Geneva Convention very clearly describes a PoW, and he does not qualify.

As far as that part of the Geneva convention goes... if it (whatever force) does not fit Article 4 then they do not get afforded PoW status. Being a terrorist has nothing to do with it specifically.

[Nick]

Realise inside your thick fucking head that just because you and your country wish to twist the wording and undermine the point of international law for your own morally reprehensible ends doesn't mean you have a fucking leg to stand on.

You export and produce more terrorist acts than all other terrorist organisations in the world put together. Grats on being a nation of uneducated fucking savages.

[Aruman]

We didn't write the Geneva convention.

[Nick]

Well done on the completely irrelevant post.

[kyoukan]

We didn't write the Geneva convention.

You didn't write the bible either. Maybe you numbtards should ignore that for awhile too and see if you can accompish anything worthwhile.

[Arborealus]

Someone who admitted they worked for Al-Queda is just a suspected terrorist then?

Was Nixon's driver imprisoned?

[Xyun]

I'm sure that Aruman is right and the Supreme Court of the United States is wrong.

[Aruman]

We didn't write the Geneva convention.

You didn't write the bible either. Maybe you numbtards should ignore that for awhile too and see if you can accompish anything worthwhile.

I care about the bible as much as I care what happens to Canada and Ireland.

[Nick]

Wow....how witty, what's next, "no you are but what am I?"

[Metanis]

Wow....how witty, what's next, "no you are but what am I?"

Go ahead Nick, you use the phrase, I wouldn't want to see you deprived of your juvenile triumph.

[Aruman]

Nah, all these two think they are doing is making me angry. Too bad they can't see how much I am laughing at them.

They seriously think Canada and Ireland have any influence in the world.

[Nick]

Go ahead Nick, you use the phrase, I wouldn't want to see you deprived of your juvenile triumph.

Your incredible condescension is only surpassed by your ability to copy and paste republican/mindless literature. I'm being generous because I know how old farts like yourself like to revel in the misery of your lonely delusions.

Poor little man.

Nah, all these two think they are doing is making me angry. Too bad they can't see how much I am laughing at them.

They seriously think Canada and Ireland have any influence in the world.

I can't speak for anyone else but I for one long ago accepted that people of your intellectual....."prowess" .... were the type who simply ignored certain truths that nullified their arguments in favour of mediocre insults along the lines of "LOL CANADA SUCKS".

As for whether Canada and Ireland have any influence in the world...I really fail to see how that is relevant? You are literally the only person in the thread, if not the history of this community to ever even make reference to such a ridiculous point (especially regarding Ireland).

I can only assume you clutch at such absurd straws because your hysterical interpretation of the Geneva convention was absolutely irrefutably rebuked on both literal legalality and moral compassion.

But hey, I'm sure this is all just done to "make you angry". You know...because everyone of us here in this board (especially me of course!) care so very deeply what either you or the spastic above you communicate, think or feel.

[Aruman]

hehe... Nick you seriously make me laugh.

It's a good thing that your word processor has a thesaurus built in or you never would have found all those big words

Hysterical interpretation of the Geneva Convention? All these people screaming about Article 3 are conveniently leaving out the rest of the Articles. It's effectively the same thing as throwing one of the Articles of our Constitution out. I think it's your lack of reading comprehension that is the problem.

[Nick]

I'm sorry, will I lower myself to your uneducated level of monosyllabic frothing so you can understand? I apologise for being able to speak, I know it must be hard on your brain.

It's called an education.

The rest of your post is so incredibly stupid it's literally not worth replying to. Talking to brick walls (especially brick walls thicker than pig shit like yourself) is not somethng I enjoy spending my time doing.

Go read the Geneva convention again and look inside your fucking soul for once, then come back and admit what a gushing fuckwit you have been. It'll save me the time having to point out your endless stupidity.

[Tangurena]

Article 3 is not separate from Article 4. They are all part of the Geneva Convention which CLEARLY states what a PoW is.

There are 4 Geneva Conventions, and the first 3 articles of each one are the same text, which is why articles 1-3 are called the common articles. Even if we claim they aren't POWs (where the 3rd convention applies), then the 4th convention would apply (civilians). As I pointed out above, Hamdan never carried arms, nor did he attack the US in any way. 2 of the 3 guys who comitted suicide in gitmo last month were due to be released because they weren't terries, nor were they threats to the US, although they'd been kept prisoners for more than a year since those findings.

There were a number of Uighurs who went to Afghanistan to learn how to fight China. Those folks spent 18 months in gitmo after the military tribunal determined they were no threat to the US. The Chinese government wanted them returned to China because they have been comitting terrorist acts against the Chinese government. The weekend before their case was to be heard by the US Supreme Court, the administration claimed that they were sent to Albania, who allegedly offered them sanctuary. Ah, must be nice when bush decides that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, going all situational ethics on us. I guess pissing on the Chinese cornflakes was more important than the law to him.

We didn't write the Geneva convention

We ratified the treaties. Which, according to the laws of the US, make the Geneva Conventions the laws of the US. That can't be put aside because some idiot thinks they're quaint or something.

[Kylere]

Oh come on saying we did not write the Geneva convention is something only a fucking civilian could spout, come on man, you are sounding so fucking stupid I may have to rate Kyoukan and Midnite above you for intellectual prowess. The only thing wrong with the Geneva convention is that we have never fought anyone who honored it, the Nazi's actually came the closest of anyone we have fought against. Now that we are not honoring the concept we may as well throw it out. As long as we are human, we will have war. As long as we have war, it would be better if we at least made an effort to be humane about it.

As of the Supreme Court decision, the President of the United States became a war criminal. There is no waffle or running around on that. The only good thing is that in most of the world we would have a violent overthrow of the government to get rid of him. The thing that makes it even worse is that his father was one of the better presidents we have had in the last 40 years, his worse mistake was ralphng in Japan.

[Hesten]

Article 3 is not separate from Article 4. They are all part of the Geneva Convention which CLEARLY states what a PoW is.

You are the one with some serious mental problems for even saying that holding people in GITMO is as despicable as flying aircraft into the Twin Towers.

Just so i get this clear. A group of terrorists, NOT affiliated with any country (apart from in Bush wet dreams) managed to pull off 9/11.
That make it ok for an COUNTRY (yes, country, NOT a bunch of people with no regard for international law, but a country who helped MAKE those laws) can now do as they please with anyone they please, as long as they call them "suspected terrorists".?
There is a VERY big difference between what a group of people can do, and what a country can do.

Someone who admitted they worked for Al-Queda is just a suspected terrorist then?

You need to re-read what I posted instead of the usual bullcrap that goes on here. People like you are always taking what someone said completely out of context.

I said that this person cannot claim PoW status because the Geneva Convention very clearly describes a PoW, and he does not qualify.

As far as that part of the Geneva convention goes... if it (whatever force) does not fit Article 4 then they do not get afforded PoW status. Being a terrorist has nothing to do with it specifically.

So youre saying that having 1 person youre sure are terrorist make it ok to have a 10 extra that youre not sure of, or even bother to check up on?.

If you guys had only cases you could prove, AND had bothered to check up on them in 4 years, i might look at it differently. but its WRONG to keep people for years without a trial.

Imagine you being seen near the scene of a rape and the police arrest you, then keep you for 4 years without bothering to check up on anything. If you did it or not dont matter, what matter is that they arrest you with no proof, THEN keep you for years without checking for proof.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060701/wl ... guantanamo
Look at the numbers from the OSCE from this article. Even if its the best case scenario for you, you still have 3-4 INNOCENT (remember that little phrase "innocent till proven guilty. It also applies here) people for every terrorist you got.
In the worst case, you guys are holding 10-14 people for every guilty person.
How can you in any way justify that?

[Aruman]

Article 3 is not separate from Article 4. They are all part of the Geneva Convention which CLEARLY states what a PoW is.

You are the one with some serious mental problems for even saying that holding people in GITMO is as despicable as flying aircraft into the Twin Towers.

Just so i get this clear. A group of terrorists, NOT affiliated with any country (apart from in Bush wet dreams) managed to pull off 9/11.
That make it ok for an COUNTRY (yes, country, NOT a bunch of people with no regard for international law, but a country who helped MAKE those laws) can now do as they please with anyone they please, as long as they call them "suspected terrorists".?
There is a VERY big difference between what a group of people can do, and what a country can do.

Someone who admitted they worked for Al-Queda is just a suspected terrorist then?

You need to re-read what I posted instead of the usual bullcrap that goes on here. People like you are always taking what someone said completely out of context.

I said that this person cannot claim PoW status because the Geneva Convention very clearly describes a PoW, and he does not qualify.

As far as that part of the Geneva convention goes... if it (whatever force) does not fit Article 4 then they do not get afforded PoW status. Being a terrorist has nothing to do with it specifically.

So youre saying that having 1 person youre sure are terrorist make it ok to have a 10 extra that youre not sure of, or even bother to check up on?.

If you guys had only cases you could prove, AND had bothered to check up on them in 4 years, i might look at it differently. but its WRONG to keep people for years without a trial.

Imagine you being seen near the scene of a rape and the police arrest you, then keep you for 4 years without bothering to check up on anything. If you did it or not dont matter, what matter is that they arrest you with no proof, THEN keep you for years without checking for proof.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060701/wl ... guantanamo
Look at the numbers from the OSCE from this article. Even if its the best case scenario for you, you still have 3-4 INNOCENT (remember that little phrase "innocent till proven guilty. It also applies here) people for every terrorist you got.
In the worst case, you guys are holding 10-14 people for every guilty person.
How can you in any way justify that?

No, I am saying that the person I was talking about didn't have any justification for himself declaring he was a PoW.

The rest of the crap is what other people are trying to say I said.

Note that I DID say that there are probably people being held there that shouldn't be.

[Aruman]

Oh come on saying we did not write the Geneva convention is something only a fucking civilian could spout, come on man, you are sounding so fucking stupid I may have to rate Kyoukan and Midnite above you for intellectual prowess. The only thing wrong with the Geneva convention is that we have never fought anyone who honored it, the Nazi's actually came the closest of anyone we have fought against. Now that we are not honoring the concept we may as well throw it out. As long as we are human, we will have war. As long as we have war, it would be better if we at least made an effort to be humane about it.

As of the Supreme Court decision, the President of the United States became a war criminal. There is no waffle or running around on that. The only good thing is that in most of the world we would have a violent overthrow of the government to get rid of him. The thing that makes it even worse is that his father was one of the better presidents we have had in the last 40 years, his worse mistake was ralphng in Japan.

That was a reply to Nicks 'hysterical interpretation' comment.

Article 4 VERY clearly describes who can be declared a PoW. Hysterical interpretation... pfft.

In the case of the person I was specifying (and for that matter any of the people involved with the car bombings and road side bombs) are NOT PoWs when they get captured.

As far as President Bush being a war criminal, not really, since these people outside of probably a few who may have been overly harrassed or 'tortured' as they put it (bolded so no one misses this), have been treated humanely. The people responsible for the 'torture' are or will be dealt with.

As usual, certain organizations, news agencies, and people that frequent this forum are making mountains out of molehills.