As someone who was against the war...

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 12:53 pm

Salis wrote:Wow and I just thought you were trying to be a half-wit.

I thought the was 'innocent until proven guilty.' If they're guilty why aren't they on trial? No wait they're PoW's, no wait they're not. Again nice conscience there, I remember the U.S. criticising the Russians for holding 'terrorists' without trial. Sad to see you're so easily blinded by bullshit and your opinions manipulated by your government.

but I get sick and tired at all those 3rd world countries like Scotland bitching and moaning about what we do and not getting involved in what the real problem is.
Scotland = part of UK = part of the coalition (involved I'd say). Also one of the biggest economies in Europe. Hint: read, get educated, makes you look less of a stupid fuckstick.

Im sorry I didnt mean to insult the world power SCOTLAND

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 10, 2003, 12:56 pm

The only quams people have are the restraints and goggles/ear muff things as they arrive and are transported

Those are not the only qualms. Take, for instance, the families of UK citizens campaigning for the right to speak to their relatives in X-Ray.

Never mind that the aggression in Afghanistan was not officially referred to as a war on that country,but rather as a "war on terrorism". Kinda like the terms "War on Poverty" and "War on drugs". Unless you want to start conferring POW status on poor people and drug dealers

Don't be a fucking dolt. I'm well aware of the lawyer-ese reason put forward by your government. I'm trying to impress upon you that a great many people aren't satisfied with that explanation or the continuing situation.

They deserve whatever they get. Fuck off. Lose some friends, run away from the wtc, duck when the 2nd plane flies 800 ft over your head, watch innocent workers jump. So again, Fuck off. I'd like to watch them rot for what they did. They deserve nothing

Absolutely. But are all 600 of the detainees related to 9/11? Are relatively innocent people suffering needlessly in X-Ray? How far do you widen the net to catch these guys? How useful is any information they have, almost a year after the fact?
I don't know and you don't know. And by not allowing the red cross into X-Ray, speculation, conspiracy theory and conjecture will fill that vacuum.

Anyway I've said my piece. It's not a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing I'm just trying to get people here to see things the way they will be interpreted outside the US. Chidoro you seem too emotionally involved to be able to see another pov (understandable) so I won't bother trying to address you on the matter again. I also won't bother answering Cartalas because frankly it's a waste of effort - I simply cannot overcome such determined, closed, idiocy.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 12:58 pm

"I also won't bother answering Cartalas because frankly it's a waste of effort - I simply cannot overcome such determined, closed, idiocy."

Thank God!!

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 10, 2003, 12:58 pm

Cartalas wrote:[quote="]Im sorry I didnt mean to insult the world power SCOTLAND

No insult taken, was just laughing at your ignorance.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 1:02 pm

Salis wrote:
Cartalas wrote:[quote="]Im sorry I didnt mean to insult the world power SCOTLAND
No insult taken, was just laughing at your ignorance.

As I yours

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 10, 2003, 1:11 pm

Oh a flame from a Scot! wow. am hurt.

Here is one definition,

war

n 1: the waging of armed conflict against an enemy; "thousands of people were killed in the war" [syn: warfare] 2: a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply; "war was declared in November but actual fighting did not begin until the following spring" [syn: state of war] [ant: peace] 3: an active struggle between competing entities; "a price war"; "a war of wits"; "diplomatic warfare" [syn: warfare] 4: a concerted campaign to end something that is injurious; "the war on poverty"; "the war against crime" v : make or wage war [ant: make peace]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Note the words :

declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply;

In a legal sense, this was not a "war". The US did not officially declare war on Afghanistan. Nor were the Al Qaeda part of the Afghanistan Military. Now go back to being a hooligan.

Nowhere did the US declare war on the NATION of Afghanistan. Pehaps you should go back to school yourself before you try to bring a meager (note, non british commonwealth spelling) insult upon someone.

I will concede the following:

Mr Rumsfeld may be right in his claim that the al-Qaeda prisoners are “unlawful combatants” who do not qualify as prisoners-of-war under the Geneva Conventions, though some of the Taliban prisoners may do so. Most of the al-Qaeda fighters, for example, did not carry insignia openly identifying themselves, or respect the laws of war themselves. But under the Geneva Conventions the question of whether someone is a prisoner-of-war or an unlawful combatant is supposed to be determined by an independent judge, not by American military officials, the point that Mr Powell, concerned about the treatment of American soldiers who might be taken captive, has raised. Moreover, even unlawful combatants have rights under international law—not to be tortured, to humane treatment and, if charged with a crime, to a fair trial in an independent court.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/display ... _ID=963780

In that the US has failed on a few points to follow international law and convention. Most notably, protecting prisoners from public curiosity (the released photos) and the determination of status by an independent judge. As you can see from the above excerpt, even Colin Powell is concerned. I tend to agree. If the prisoner is a member of the Taliban, and was a uniformed member of thier service, then he should be granted POW status. However, the suspected members of the Al Qaeda are "unlawful combatants" defined by the Geneva convention. Additionally, I do not think the US can guarantee a fair trial to Al Qaeda members. Too much pain still from the Towers incident.

As for why trials have not been conducted yet. I am not sure what the limitations are, but part of the problem is they are not held on US soil. This precludes the part of the constitution guarantying a right to a "speedy trial". I have not commented on this, nor do I have time to research it. Another part, just might be, the fact that they have not finished thier investigation. Trials will be held, my only concern is whether they will be by an independent court, or not.

You speak of abilities to debate, yet you have yet to respond to the rebuttal of vn_tranc's assertion that we are mistreating the prisoners, or more to the fact that NO ONE HAS ACCESS TO THEM. Holy shit, don't the fucking teach you to read there? The accusation was that no one has access to the prisoners, yet I post an article by the fucking BBC, one of the more respected news agencies, stating their treatment. Where in there did I say they were being held justly? Or are you so fucking addled by bad scottish lager and pissed off that Man-U beat you yet again that you can't fucking comprehend and respond intelligently?

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 10, 2003, 1:13 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
They deserve whatever they get. Fuck off. Lose some friends, run away from the wtc, duck when the 2nd plane flies 800 ft over your head, watch innocent workers jump. So again, Fuck off. I'd like to watch them rot for what they did. They deserve nothing
Absolutely. But are all 600 of the detainees related to 9/11? Are relatively innocent people suffering needlessly in X-Ray? How far do you widen the net to catch these guys? How useful is any information they have, almost a year after the fact?
I don't know and you don't know. And by not allowing the red cross into X-Ray, speculation, conspiracy theory and conjecture will fill that vacuum.

Please be careful how you quote, if quoting multiple sources. I don't want to be associated with the above statement.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 10, 2003, 1:13 pm

so by your logic, if a nation does not declare war on a country they are excempt from complying with the laws of land warfare and the geneva convention then?

the United States military did depose the government of Afghanistan. They did send in troops and did install a new government under the protection of military force.

So if the US government calls it a Tea Party and not a war, then it must not be a war, right?

i am relatively confident that most of the people at X-Ray are treated pretty well, for POWs. However, if they are criminals they need to be treated accordingly and that is a formal arraignment, a defendant, and a trial. If they are POWs they need to be inspected by the Red Cross.

That is it, there is no middle ground. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what all this talk about "freedom and democracy" even means.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 1:17 pm

Voronwë wrote:so by your logic, if a nation does not declare war on a country they are excempt from complying with the laws of land warfare and the geneva convention then?

the United States military did depose the government of Afghanistan. They did send in troops and did install a new government under the protection of military force.

If that isnt war, then nothing is.

OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of the Detainees are from other countries besides Afghanastan

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 10, 2003, 1:23 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Absolutely. But are all 600 of the detainees related to 9/11? Are relatively innocent people suffering needlessly in X-Ray? How far do you widen the net to catch these guys? How useful is any information they have, almost a year after the fact?
I don't know and you don't know. And by not allowing the red cross into X-Ray, speculation, conspiracy theory and conjecture will fill that vacuum.

Also if you are going to make accusations such as the Red Cross not being allowed, you really should do some research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1765864.stm

Thursday, 17 January, 2002, 17:12 GMT
ICRC: A tough mandate

The Red Cross will register every prisoner

By BBC News Online's Mark Snelling
The Red Cross officials visiting suspected Taleban and al-Qaeda prisoners at the US military camp in Cuba face a delicate task.

Note the date. That was over a year ago they were granted access. Note the source. Again, BBC. I figure you would not accept any source from a US media, as they are biased.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 10, 2003, 1:23 pm

Fizzlewhip wrote: Nowhere did the US declare war on the NATION of Afghanistan.

How 'convenient.'

Pehaps you should go back to school yourself before you try to bring a meager (note, non british commonwealth spelling) insult upon someone.

You mean 'Perhaps' right?

However, the suspected members of the Al Qaeda are "unlawful combatants" defined by the Geneva convention.

The Geneva convention has an "unlawful combatant" status???

Additionally, I do not think the US can guarantee a fair trial to Al Qaeda members. Too much pain still from the Towers incident.

Well then it's fine to keep them in a cage, sorry I said anything.

As for why trials have not been conducted yet. I am not sure what the limitations are, but part of the problem is they are not held on US soil.

Perhaps because they'd have to be released if they were, under certain international laws and conventions! Again, very convenient

You speak of abilities to debate, yet you have yet to respond to the rebuttal of vn_tranc's assertion that we are mistreating the prisoners, or more to the fact that NO ONE HAS ACCESS TO THEM. Holy shit, don't the fucking teach you to read there? The accusation was that no one has access to the prisoners, yet I post an article by the fucking BBC, one of the more respected news agencies, stating their treatment. Where in there did I say they were being held justly? Or are you so fucking addled by bad scottish lager and pissed off that Man-U beat you yet again that you can't fucking comprehend and respond intelligently?

Is this an attempt to debate or just some narrow-minded stereotyping idiots attempt to flame a Scotsman? Makes me wonder where the stereotypes end when we're talking about Afghans.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 10, 2003, 1:24 pm

Cartalas wrote:OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of the Detainees are from other countries besides Afghanastan

Cart i dont care if they are from Uranus. It doesnt fucking matter.

they are either:

1. Prisoners of War
2. Criminals
or
3. Hostages

the first 2 conditions have specific rights ascribed to them by treaties that the United States is a signatory of.

STOP POSTING NONSENSE.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 1:30 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Cartalas wrote:OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of the Detainees are from other countries besides Afghanastan
Cart i dont care if they are from Uranus. It doesnt fucking matter.

they are either:

1. Prisoners of War
2. Criminals
or
3. Hostages

the first 2 conditions have specific rights ascribed to them by treaties that the United States is a signatory of.

STOP POSTING NONSENSE.

You are right I dont care where they are from and as far as I am concerned they are being treated with OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more respect then they treated the people in the World Trade Center.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » April 10, 2003, 1:38 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
The country with the highest poverty rate in the "industrialized world"

You are aware that the definition of poverty in this country allows you to own a TV, a car and eat TV dinners every night, right?

I think you better do a little more research before you go throwing around assumptions, bub.

Heh, half right the world CHILD was missing, apparently my mind is faster then my fingers. And NO, UNICEF and the World Bank do not put TV, Car and TV dinners into their criteria, it has to do with the Penn World Tables and Purchasing Power Parity and a million other things that would bore the SNOT out of you and me. Child poverty in the US is no joke, it is still over 20%, that's right 1 out of 5 kids in the US live in poverty, pretty fucking pathetic when you look at the crap we do overseas.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 10, 2003, 1:48 pm

Cartalas wrote:

You are right I dont care where they are from and as far as I am concerned they are being treated with OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more respect then they treated the people in the World Trade Center.

they treated?

what percentage of the people in X-Ray do you think had any knowledge of that plan? maybe 1-2%?

what percentage where unknowing accessories through being a part of the organizational infrastructure of Al Queda or the Taliban? i dont know and neither do you.

If they are guilty of crimes, put them on trial. Democracy ensures individual rights that cannot be casually applied and removed by governments, regardless of your ignorance of that fact.

We are a country of laws, despite your ignorance of that fact.

If any of these people are indeed responsible for what happened in NYC, then they should be tried and sentenced in accordance with the tenants of our society and international treaties that our government is a party to.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 10, 2003, 1:51 pm

Salis

Sorry if the "stereotypes" hit a little close to home for you.

And, do you really have anything constructive to say, besides 1 or two words? Can you actually contribute? Or perhaps you have simply run out of defenses for your poorly thought out arguements that you have to lower yourself to flaming someone for a typo. Wow. I am truly humbled by your abilities to tie together coherent and well thought out arguements supported by sources outside of your little mind.

Truly stupendous, I must say.

However, again I conced to misinformation. The Geneva convention does not define "unlawful combatants". That is defined by international laws of war. This however opens up the debate: The "war on terrorism" conducted in Afghanistan was not considered to be a declared war. Therefore, do the international laws of warfare apply to the tactics used against Armed forces? Additionally, this implies, as is being ascertained by some on this board, that the prisoners at camp X-ray are in reality, hostage, taken by force from thier homelands.

However, many are using the Article 51 of the UN charter to defend the U.S.'s actions, in that no one shall impede upon a soveriegn states right to defend itself, and since most of the international community (see BBC website for verification of the usage of "most of the international community" ) see the Towers attack as a crime of war, the US is somewhat justified in its actions.

Now, if you are going to comment on a post I make, make sure you comprehend the point I was making. Nowhere in the following:

Quote:
Additionally, I do not think the US can guarantee a fair trial to Al Qaeda members. Too much pain still from the Towers incident.

Well then it's fine to keep them in a cage, sorry I said anything.

Did I say, or imply it was ok to put them in cages. In fact, those cages are only temporary, until the facility at guantanomo bay is finshed being built. Or did you not read the following:

America is not yet ready to do that, Mr Rumsfeld has repeatedly said. The United States began a prisoner airlift this month to a specially built jail at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay. A series of flights has brought the total number of prisoners at the Cuban base to more than 150. At one stage the American authorities indicated that they might build facilities for up to 2,000 prisoners there, though in the past few days they seem to have scaled down these plans. It is holding a few hundred other prisoners in Afghanistan. On January 23rd Pentagon officials announced that flights to the Cuban camp from Afghanistan had been suspended, though they said this was because the camp was temporarily full, not because of international criticism. Flights might resume next week after facilities at the camp had been expanded, they added.

Mr Rumsfeld's claims that the prisoners are being treated humanely is, on the whole, probably true. British consular officials have reported, after a visit to some British detainees in the jail, that they were being well-treated and had no substantial complaints. A delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which inspects prisons and war detainees worldwide, is currently inspecting the Cuban camp and will report privately to the American government, although American military authorities have already claimed that the Red Cross only had a few very specific complaints, and that the authorities have responded to these. For example, Korans are being distributed, calls to Muslim prayers are being broadcast, and a sign indicating the direction of Mecca has been posted.

Of course you did. Why else would you put such ill formed thoughts into this board like the following :

Well then it's fine to keep them in a cage, sorry I said anything.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 1:57 pm

Chidoro wrote:They deserve whatever they get. Fuck off. Lose some friends, run away from the wtc, duck when the 2nd plane flies 800 ft over your head, watch innocent workers jump. So again, Fuck off. I'd like to watch them rot for what they did. They deserve nothing

How do you know the people being held in Cuba or connected in anyway to terrorism? I've seen no evidence and no trial. By your own words you are giving your government carte blanche to do whatever they want to any person they deem a terrorist for any reason.

And knock off the dramatics.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 1:59 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chidoro wrote:They deserve whatever they get. Fuck off. Lose some friends, run away from the wtc, duck when the 2nd plane flies 800 ft over your head, watch innocent workers jump. So again, Fuck off. I'd like to watch them rot for what they did. They deserve nothing
How do you know the people being held in Cuba or connected in anyway to terrorism? I've seen no evidence and no trial. By your own words you are giving your government carte blanche to do whatever they want to any person they deem a terrorist for any reason.

And knock off the dramatics.

How do you know they are not. I do agree with V-Man they should be put on Trial or released.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 10, 2003, 2:00 pm

Fizzlewhip wrote:Salis

Sorry if the "stereotypes" hit a little close to home for you.

Any stereotyping pisses me off whether it's against me or another person.

And, do you really have anything constructive to say, besides 1 or two words? Can you actually contribute? Or perhaps you have simply run out of defenses for your poorly thought out arguements that you have to lower yourself to flaming someone for a typo. Wow. I am truly humbled by your abilities to tie together coherent and well thought out arguements supported by sources outside of your little mind.

I only need 1 sentence answers to shoot down your shitty arguments.

Truly stupendous, I must say.

However, again I conced to misinformation. The Geneva convention does not define "unlawful combatants". That is defined by international laws of war. This however opens up the debate: The "war on terrorism" conducted in Afghanistan was not considered to be a declared war. Therefore, do the international laws of warfare apply to the tactics used against Armed forces? Additionally, this implies, as is being ascertained by some on this board, that the prisoners at camp X-ray are in reality, hostage, taken by force from thier homelands.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. It doesn't open up any debate. Yes of course international laws of warfare apply to tactics used against Armed forces. War crimes anyone? Jesus...

However, many are using the Article 51 of the UN charter to defend the U.S.'s actions, in that no one shall impede upon a soveriegn states right to defend itself, and since most of the international community (see BBC website for verification of the usage of "most of the international community" ) see the Towers attack as a crime of war, the US is somewhat justified in its actions.

It may be an 'act of war' but since Al-Qaeda isn't a sovereign country the term is somewhat meaningless. Afghanistan is NOT Al-Qaeda.

Now, if you are going to comment on a post I make, make sure you comprehend the point I was making. Nowhere in the following:
Quote:
Additionally, I do not think the US can guarantee a fair trial to Al Qaeda members. Too much pain still from the Towers incident.

Well then it's fine to keep them in a cage, sorry I said anything.
Did I say, or imply it was ok to put them in cages. In fact, those cages are only temporary, until the facility at guantanomo bay is finshed being built. Or did you not read the following:

America is not yet ready to do that, Mr Rumsfeld has repeatedly said. The United States began a prisoner airlift this month to a specially built jail at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay. A series of flights has brought the total number of prisoners at the Cuban base to more than 150. At one stage the American authorities indicated that they might build facilities for up to 2,000 prisoners there, though in the past few days they seem to have scaled down these plans. It is holding a few hundred other prisoners in Afghanistan. On January 23rd Pentagon officials announced that flights to the Cuban camp from Afghanistan had been suspended, though they said this was because the camp was temporarily full, not because of international criticism. Flights might resume next week after facilities at the camp had been expanded, they added.

Mr Rumsfeld's claims that the prisoners are being treated humanely is, on the whole, probably true. British consular officials have reported, after a visit to some British detainees in the jail, that they were being well-treated and had no substantial complaints. A delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which inspects prisons and war detainees worldwide, is currently inspecting the Cuban camp and will report privately to the American government, although American military authorities have already claimed that the Red Cross only had a few very specific complaints, and that the authorities have responded to these. For example, Korans are being distributed, calls to Muslim prayers are being broadcast, and a sign indicating the direction of Mecca has been posted.
Of course you did. Why else would you put such ill formed thoughts into this board like the following :

Well then it's fine to keep them in a cage, sorry I said anything.

[/quote]

Because they're being held in cages (and not all are guilty) while a large amount of fucking around regarding 'temporary facilities' 'international un-biased courts' blah blah blah is going on. Sorry if you don't get that. I can't really explain it any simpler.

Plus - WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT RUMSFELD SAYS ABOUT THEM BEING TREATED HUMANELY, EVEN IF THEY ARE THEY'RE STILL BEING HELD WITHOUT TRIAL.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 10, 2003, 2:01 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chidoro wrote:They deserve whatever they get. Fuck off. Lose some friends, run away from the wtc, duck when the 2nd plane flies 800 ft over your head, watch innocent workers jump. So again, Fuck off. I'd like to watch them rot for what they did. They deserve nothing
How do you know the people being held in Cuba or connected in anyway to terrorism? I've seen no evidence and no trial. By your own words you are giving your government carte blanche to do whatever they want to any person they deem a terrorist for any reason.

And knock off the dramatics.

Fuck off I wasn't woken by the news, I was running from it. My wife and I's friends are rolling in their graves thanks to you. Way to honor the innocent

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 2:04 pm

yeah yeah yeah you were there man wow that certainly puts you in the position of being morally justified in your belief that human beings that may or may not be related to the crime to be treated like hostages.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 10, 2003, 2:06 pm

Thanks for proving that some people really do live in lala land

Way to stand up for the innocent.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 10, 2003, 2:23 pm

Salis

You have in no way shot down any arguements. Again, I ask you to provide some sources, some back up.

If you can, great. If you can't, then you are just spouting off without providing any real contributions.

And, like you, I could care less about Rumsfeld.

However, the "prisoners" are being treated in much the same way, if not better, than their guards. The guards at camps Xray and Delta still live in unconditioned tents, work 16-20 hour days, have little personal time.

However prisoners are living in covered cages (how much security do you think a tent would provide?). Have regular doctor visits, exercise regimes, personal time, and religious ceremonies provided by muslim clerics. Where is that mistreatment? I do not fail to see the similarities in bamboo cages (vietnam) and metal ones though.

Clarify this:

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. It doesn't open up any debate. Yes of course international laws of warfare apply to tactics used against Armed forces. War crimes anyone? Jesus...

My interpretation might be flawed. In the above you state:
1. The fact that the "war on terrorism" is not a real war is not cause for debate for the imprisonment. This therefore would negate any arguements you have used, as they all are based on the assumption that the Prisoners are POW's. Since there no real war, they are not prisoners of war. The debate I question is whether they are therefore considered "hostages" or "kidnappees" (is that a real word?, just call me Jesse Jackson).
2. International laws of warfare only apply to armed forces. I think you mean the "Geneva Convention" here. And the answer, in short, is Yes. The Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed combatants, or those belonging to a uniformed militia. "unlawful combatants" are not provided protection on the GC. However they are still protected by Internation Human rights.
3. War Crimes. Your use of a three word sentence (which is grammatically incorrect, just a bit of pay back for your "meagre" insult

) is vague. Are you implying US of War Crimes? or the justification that is being used, being labelled as war crimes. If the first part, that is a completely different debate, and one I am not prepared to get into, since I probably feel that some of what is being done could very well be considered a war crime. If it is the latter, again, I am not upto speed with all the events and sentiments around the world to debate that.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 2:24 pm

Chidoro wrote:Way to stand up for the innocent.

Way to abandon the not guilty because of your hatred.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 10, 2003, 2:28 pm

vn_tranc's assertion that we are mistreating the prisoners

Scuse me but I went to great pains to point out this is NOT my assertion. But in the absence of any other information it IS the assertion that will be made by others.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 10, 2003, 2:32 pm

The fact that the "war on terrorism" is not a real war is not cause for debate for the imprisonment.

that is not a fact. that is an arbitrary interpretation of the meaning of the word "war".

Here are some facts:
A country was invaded by a militaryforce. Its government was toppled by military force. Some people who lived in this country (some citizens, some non-citizens at the implicit permission of the existing goverment) were taken into custody during the conflict. They are now housed in a prison camp in Cuba.

If you call it a Tea Party, it is still warfare, doesnt matter what your PR campaign for the operation was.

This statement of "the US didnt declare war so it wasnt a war" is pure nonsense.

Did Hitler formally declare war on the Jewish inhabitants of Germany? no, but people were still tried for War Crimes now weren't they regarding their treatment.

there somebody said Hitler, thread is officially dead.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 10, 2003, 2:32 pm

Fizzlewhip wrote: My interpretation might be flawed. In the above you state:
1. The fact that the "war on terrorism" is not a real war is not cause for debate for the imprisonment. This therefore would negate any arguements you have used, as they all are based on the assumption that the Prisoners are POW's. Since there no real war, they are not prisoners of war. The debate I question is whether they are therefore considered "hostages" or "kidnappees" (is that a real word?, just call me Jesse Jackson).

Read what Voronwe said, ref: Teaparty

2. International laws of warfare only apply to armed forces. I think you mean the "Geneva Convention" here. And the answer, in short, is Yes. The Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed combatants, or those belonging to a uniformed militia. "unlawful combatants" are not provided protection on the GC. However they are still protected by Internation Human rights.

I mean Internation Laws on warfare, of which the geneva convention is a part. "Unlawful combatants" don't exist in any part of warfare in the history of mankind. Internation Human rights define the right of anyone accused of a crime to a trial by a court of their peers... Hi?

3. War Crimes. Your use of a three word sentence (which is grammatically incorrect, just a bit of pay back for your "meagre" insult ) is vague. Are you implying US of War Crimes? or the justification that is being used, being labelled as war crimes. If the first part, that is a completely different debate, and one I am not prepared to get into, since I probably feel that some of what is being done could very well be considered a war crime. If it is the latter, again, I am not upto speed with all the events and sentiments around the world to debate that.

I meant people commiting war crimes against coalition personnel.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » April 10, 2003, 2:35 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chidoro wrote:Way to stand up for the innocent.
Way to abandon the not guilty because of your hatred.

Its guilty by association. The Taliban new Al Queda was responsible for 9/11, yet they choose to defend them. I would definately not say they are "not guilty."

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 10, 2003, 2:36 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chidoro wrote:Way to stand up for the innocent.
Way to abandon the not guilty because of your hatred.

Way to be disillusioned enough to believe, as some disgruntled CS rep in Bumblefuck, Ca that happens to have access to the internet, that she knows more about the detainees than US intelligence.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 10, 2003, 2:46 pm

I think I see where you get your info (what sucks is that I had to provide this info. In future, please do this yourself)

According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, said Amnesty, the US must convene a "competent tribunal” that is competent and impartial to decide on their status.

This is also the position exposed by the International Committee of the Red Cross, considered a key interpreter of the Geneva Conventions.

Kim Gordon-Bates, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has inspected the Guantanamo base, said the concept of an "unlawful combatant” did not exist under international law. Rumsfeld thus far has not authorized the release to the public of the Red Cross inspection report.

"You can look through the Geneva Convention and you will not find it. It is not a legal term,” Gordon-Bates told BBC Radio

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 2434.shtml

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 10, 2003, 2:47 pm

Hrm page 2 of this thread has been borked for me so replying and reading the preview window i the only way I can see stuff.

Fizz, I see from your link that the red cross has been in and is satisfied therefore so am I. I've not been keeping up on the situation heh

Now why couldn't you have posted these useful facts earlier and saved me from listening to Cart's frothing insanity?

Chidoro I realise it's a touchy subject for you but I think blaming people who are concerned over potential mistreatment of prisoners for the WTC is a bit strong.

Voro for posting some sense too.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 10, 2003, 2:51 pm

Voronwë wrote:
The fact that the "war on terrorism" is not a real war is not cause for debate for the imprisonment.
that is not a fact. that is an arbitrary interpretation of the meaning of the word "war".

Here are some facts:
A country was invaded by a militaryforce. Its government was toppled by military force. Some people who lived in this country (some citizens, some non-citizens at the implicit permission of the existing goverment) were taken into custody during the conflict. They are now housed in a prison camp in Cuba.

If you call it a Tea Party, it is still warfare, doesnt matter what your PR campaign for the operation was.

This statement of "the US didnt declare war so it wasnt a war" is pure nonsense.

Did Hitler formally declare war on the Jewish inhabitants of Germany? no, but people were still tried for War Crimes now weren't they regarding their treatment.

there somebody said Hitler, thread is officially dead.

Fact: Hitler did what he did to the Jews during a time of WAR, hence the WAR crime.

Fact: It is officially an agression (the invasion of Afghanistan).

There are multiple definitions of war. Some fit your definition. However, your defintion is not the one accepted by governments world wide. Individuals such as you and I can call it what we want. We can even be right. However, the governments are what ultimately decide on the courses of action for our countries. You can call it PR, and that is exactly what it is. But governments bought into it, so our arguements are moot.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 2:57 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chidoro wrote:Way to stand up for the innocent.
Way to abandon the not guilty because of your hatred.

What makes you think they are not guilty.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » April 10, 2003, 3:39 pm

Well, the basis of our leagal system, which they must be subject to if they aren't POWs, is that the accused are innocent until guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased jury of their peers. So there doesn't need to be any proof that they are innocent, there does, however, need to be proof that they are guilty.

Its guilty by association. The Taliban new Al Queda was responsible for 9/11, yet they choose to defend them. I would definately not say they are "not guilty."

I won't sit here and state that all of the detainees are innocent, but at the same time I have a hard time believing that that many people could have known about the attack without word getting to our operatives. Also, just because the Taliban may or may not have known about the attack, and provided refuge for Al-Queda that doesn't automatically make every citizen of Afganistan guilty. I mean, that is the same reasoning the terrorists used for attacking private citizens in the first place. Bin Laden litteraly said in an interview 'You support your government, therefore you are guilty of their crimes.' I'm paraphrasing. If you accept that line of thought then you can't sit denounce the WTC tragedy as an attack on an undeserving civilian populace.

Personally, I don't accept that line of thought. I don't think people are guilty of a crime just because they choose to associate with people that are guilty of a crime.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 10, 2003, 4:04 pm

If you Progressive folks really care about those detainees down in Cuba, I suggest you fly down there and organize some protests. Protesting is a good way to show how much you care.

Better yet, offer to exchange places with those detainees. That will be a true sign of your devotion and true love of your fellow human beings.

Wave to Fidel for me.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » April 10, 2003, 5:21 pm

Metanis wrote:If you Progressive folks really care about those detainees down in Cuba, I suggest you fly down there and organize some protests. Protesting is a good way to show how much you care.

Better yet, offer to exchange places with those detainees. That will be a true sign of your devotion and true love of your fellow human beings.

Wave to Fidel for me.

great post

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 10, 2003, 6:09 pm

So, let's say that the Iraqi goverment decided that the deaths of innocent women and children during this latest war were heinous and amounted to terrorism and decided that it would be okay to arrest and detain hundreds of US soldiers and their families indefinitely, without putting them on trial or even formally accusing them of any crime. I doubt you would be as supportive of such actions as you are of what the US is doing to the detainees in Cuba.

Before some idiot tries to shoot down this post by saying "lololol that could never happen you cunt/bitch/whatever," I know. It's as close an analogy as I could come up with in an effort to get some of you people to think. My point is simply that similar things could happen to citizens of the US, in which case all of you would cry and moan and turn yourself into massive hypocrites.

Though, after reading most of the utter bullshit that passes for argument on this board, I wouldn't be suprised in the least if some of you are okay with that.

If you want to make biased arguments because of your emotional investment in Sept. 11 and its consequeneces, then fine, just admit that you're biased. Don't pretend that there's some logical, impartial justification for the US's treatment of the detainees in Cuba.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 10, 2003, 6:12 pm

This statement of "the US didnt declare war so it wasnt a war" is pure nonsense.

Did Hitler formally declare war on the Jewish inhabitants of Germany? no, but people were still tried for War Crimes now weren't they regarding their treatment.

They were penalized given the means available. Relating Jews of Germany to Afgan rebels fighting alongside of Al Qaeda or members of the afformentioned terrorist group is null and void.

Lot of Jewish hate down in Georgia?

If you want to make biased arguments because of your emotional investment in Sept. 11 and its consequeneces, then fine, just admit that you're biased. Don't pretend that there's some logical, impartial justification for the US's treatment of the detainees in Cuba.

Thanks chief, I'll keep that in mind. Go and defend the vermin that slayed thousands of innocent Americans. Justify that

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » April 10, 2003, 6:14 pm

Etasi wrote:So, let's say that the Iraqi goverment decided that the deaths of innocent women and children during this latest war were heinous and amounted to terrorism and decided that it would be okay to arrest and detain hundreds of US soldiers and their families indefinitely,

I'm sorry, what does "their families" mean? The detainees in Cuba are not mom, dad, sister, brother~ Poor analogy, unless stated incorrectly.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 6:16 pm

Chidoro wrote:Way to be disillusioned enough to believe, as some disgruntled CS rep in Bumblefuck, Ca that happens to have access to the internet, that she knows more about the detainees than US intelligence.

I'm not saying they aren't terrorists. I'm sure most of them are. But I bet you that there is more than a handful that aren't. My point is that it's not moral or internationally legal to just round them people up and imprison them for however long you feel like it and not even accuse them of anything besides "being a terrorist" or let international watchdog organizations in to make sure they are being treated humanely.

Do you really feel comfortable living in a country who's government has no problem snatching people and detaining them for as long as they feel like it and not justifying the accusations, giving them a trial or even letting anyone see them?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 10, 2003, 6:17 pm

Kargyle wrote: Personally, I don't accept that line of thought. I don't think people are guilty of a crime just because they choose to associate with people that are guilty of a crime.

Another one too separated from the reality the terrorists decided to create

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 10, 2003, 6:21 pm

kyoukan wrote: I'm not saying they aren't terrorists. I'm sure most of them are. But I bet you that there is more than a handful that aren't. My point is that it's not moral or internationally legal to just round them people up and imprison them for however long you feel like it and not even accuse them of anything besides "being a terrorist" or let international watchdog organizations in to make sure they are being treated humanely.

Do you really feel comfortable living in a country who's government has no problem snatching people and detaining them for as long as they feel like it and not justifying the accusations, giving them a trial or even letting anyone see them?

I would never agree to that and was disturbed of the rounding up of Americans of Afgan or middle eastern decent in general. My hatred is quite focused. I live and work and travel to work daily with more people of middle eastern decent then most see in the lifetimes. I feel bad that people who are just trying to make their way are scrutinized for no reason other than their decent. I don't feel that the operatives rounded up while hunting terrorists in Afganistan deserve such care.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 6:22 pm

Chidoro wrote:Thanks chief, I'll keep that in mind. Go and defend the vermin that slayed thousands of innocent Americans. Justify that

Whats your defense for the tens and even hundreds of thousands of arabs, south americans, indo-chinese and africans directly or indirectly killed by the american government?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 10, 2003, 6:24 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chidoro wrote:Thanks chief, I'll keep that in mind. Go and defend the vermin that slayed thousands of innocent Americans. Justify that
Whats your defense for the tens and even hundreds of thousands of arabs, south americans, indo-chinese and africans directly or indirectly killed by the american government?

Well, we certainly go and PURPOSELY try and kill the innocents

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 6:30 pm

You prop up and support mudering dictators like Pinochet or Noriega and sell weapons to illegal rebel armies or supply arms to countries involved in wars and you might as well be pulling the trigger yourselves. Not to mention lobbing cruise missiles and dropping bombs in cities.

When your hands are totally clean and all guilt is absolved, then you can cry tragedy. Dead people don't care why they're dead. The intentions of the person that killed them is irrelevent.

I don't have an issue with bringing the people who are responsible for terrorism to justice, but why can't it be done within the boundaries of human rights and international law?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 10, 2003, 6:39 pm

Etasi wrote:Don't pretend that there's some logical, impartial justification for the US's treatment of the detainees in Cuba.

Who is pretending? The detainees are being treated fine. No one on my side of the discussion is asking or expecting a justification.

John Ashcroft and the US Justice Dept. haven't asked my opinion about these detainees and I'm quite happy not forcing one upon them.

I will probably begin to get a bit impatient for an explanantion in about 5 years or so.

Patience is a virtue.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 10, 2003, 6:40 pm

When your hands are totally clean and all guilt is absolved, then you can cry tragedy.

You ain't living on planet earth girl.

I can't even imagine an adult human being believing that line. Much less proclaiming it to others.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 6:43 pm

oh yeah I forgot. In fallanthasville terrorists attack the united states because they are jealous of your freedom and liberty and nothing else.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 6:53 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chidoro wrote:Way to be disillusioned enough to believe, as some disgruntled CS rep in Bumblefuck, Ca that happens to have access to the internet, that she knows more about the detainees than US intelligence.
I'm not saying they aren't terrorists. I'm sure most of them are. But I bet you that there is more than a handful that aren't. My point is that it's not moral or internationally legal to just round them people up and imprison them for however long you feel like it and not even accuse them of anything besides "being a terrorist" or let international watchdog organizations in to make sure they are being treated humanely.

Do you really feel comfortable living in a country who's government has no problem snatching people and detaining them for as long as they feel like it and not justifying the accusations, giving them a trial or even letting anyone see them?

Nope I dont have a problem with it because I have nothing to hide. Unlike you you Liberal piece of shit

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 7:03 pm

I wasn't talking to you cartalas you fucking tard. I already know you aren't smart enough to do anything but parrot whatever the government wants you to think.

Speak when you are spoken too.