/golfclap

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Nick
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5711
Joined: July 4, 2002, 3:45 pm

/golfclap

Post by Nick »

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... guantanamo
KABUL, Afghanistan - Two Afghans released from Guantanamo Bay claimed Wednesday about 180 Afghans at the U.S. detention facility were on a hunger strike to protest alleged mistreatment and to push for freedom.

Habir Russol and Moheb Ullah Borekzai, who said they left the prison camp on Cuba on Monday and were flown to Afghanistan before being freed, said they did not participate in the hunger strike. They did not say how they knew others were refusing to eat.

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, said he was unaware of a hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay but would inquire.

Amnesty International in London said it knew nothing about hunger strikes at Guantanamo, other than media reports.

Russol said 180 Afghan prisoners "are not eating or drinking." He and Borekzai estimated the men were in the 14th or 15th day of their fast.

Borekzai later told The Associated Press the detainees were protesting because "some of these people say they were mistreated during interrogation. Some say they are innocent."

"They are protesting that they have been in jail nearly four years and they want to be released," he said.
If this turns out to be true, then it highlights once again why Guantanamo is a fucking stupid, not to mention blatantly illegal, situation.

Oh yeah, feel free to check it out on the whole Geneva convention thingy, it actually is illegal, no matter what you may have been told.
*~*stragi*~*
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3871
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
Contact:

Post by *~*stragi*~* »

<3 gitmo
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

So "some say they were innocent". I guess that would mean that "most admit they are guilty". Gosh we should release everyone right now because Nick says so!
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

So 'of these people say they were mistreated during interrogation'. I guess that would mean that "most were not mistreated".

I guess that makes everything OK.
By your logic, it's probably ok to mistreat or torture the ones who don't claim innocence.


Where the hell did Nick (or anyone for that matter) say that everyone should be released?
Despite the fact that some (probably most) of the 'prisoners' being held there are guilty of some crime, it's a human rights violation to hold them there 'in perpetuity' without charging them with anything and not allowing them any legal representation.

Can you get that through your thick head?


Guilty or not, there are human rights being violated.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

Your assumming that they are human, Oh well maybe the hunger strike will take care of them.
Last edited by Cartalas on July 21, 2005, 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Post by Sueven »

Question Miir and Nick: How long do you think we should be able to hold them before we charge them? Should we charge suspects immediately upon detention? Should we have the right to hold them for a few days / weeks / months before charging them? If so, how long, approximately?
Lynks
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2774
Joined: September 30, 2002, 6:58 pm
XBL Gamertag: launchpad1979
Location: Sudbury, Ontario

Post by Lynks »

I didnt think you were permitted to hold them unless you charge them.
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

You can hold unlawfull combatants as long as you want. At least according to US law.
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

Sueven wrote:Question Miir and Nick: How long do you think we should be able to hold them before we charge them? Should we charge suspects immediately upon detention? Should we have the right to hold them for a few days / weeks / months before charging them? If so, how long, approximately?
How about something less than 'in perpetuity'.

What's the problem with charging them with with something when they are 'captured'?
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You can hold unlawfull combatants as long as you want. At least according to US law.
not according to the Supreme Court
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

You can hold unlawfull combatants as long as you want. At least according to US law
ROFL, "Unlawful Combatants" is a little catchphrase coined by Rumsfeld to justify imprisoning arabs indefinately in 'gitmo'.

I suspect that's the main reason Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished' and said the 'War' was over so that they could make up their own 'laws' in regards to detaining muslims in gitmo.


Who needs that pesky Geneva Convention when they can make up their own laws!
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
User avatar
Niffoni
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1318
Joined: February 18, 2003, 12:53 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia

Post by Niffoni »

I'm not a serial killer! I'm a proactive population reorganizer! So it's not illegal or immoral anymore!
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

Image

Image
Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
User avatar
Adelrune Argenti
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 831
Joined: July 9, 2002, 4:22 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by Adelrune Argenti »

Image
Adelrune Argenti
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Post by Sueven »

How about something less than 'in perpetuity'.

What's the problem with charging them with with something when they are 'captured'?
I would be OK with something less than "in perpetuity." What I'm trying to figure out is if there is a level which would be acceptable to people with the human-rights concerns of you, Nick, and others, while still allowing us to get information and fight terrorism and not endanger our country and all that.

Requiring that combatants be charged immediately upon capture seems a little excessive to me. I can easily envision scenarios in which we might capture someone who it is very important that we detain for some reason (such as the potential danger he represents if freed, or the potential intelligence value he represents if detained). I can further envision scenarios when we would be unable to immediately charge this person with something specific (unless you want the charges to be a sham for simple cosmetic value, thereafter authorizing indefinite detention). It seems reasonable to me that we could detain this person for a set period, for interrogation and information gathering purposes, before charging him with a crime. The real key is to avoid indefinite detention and to make sure that the process is expedited to allow for minimum inconvenience on part of the detainees.

If United States policy was changed such that detainees must be charged or released after a month, would you view that as acceptable?
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

Requiring that combatants be charged immediately upon capture seems a little excessive to me.
Define a 'combatant'.
Is a combatant someone that you snatch out of thier home in Afghanistan because you suspect they might have ties with terrorists... even if the ties are about as 'slam dunk' solid as your intelligence on Iraq and weapons of mass distruction?

Or maybe a combatant is an american citizen who is seen walking out of a mosque that some known terrorist suspects attended one time.


What percentage of the gitmo 'residents' are actual 'combatants' that were captured in a hostile situation or exchanging gunfire with american troops or seen setting up a roadside bomb ambush or caught selling weapons to known terrorists?

If United States policy was changed such that detainees must be charged or released after a month, would you view that as acceptable?
It would be acceptable if places like that did not even exist... prisons that were seemingly created only to exploit loopholes in the Geneva convention.

But since they do, it only seems fair that the prisoners being held there ought to be charged or released.


How would you feel if it were 'legal' for another contries government to snatch you out of your home and throw you indefinately (or even for a few days) into a prison in a foreign country?
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
User avatar
Nick
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5711
Joined: July 4, 2002, 3:45 pm

Post by Nick »

Here is an acceptable answer to anyone with half a brain.

Close Gitmo (to stop making quite the same level of mockery of international law the US currently does) and charge or release the inmates.

Anything less is an insult to civilized thought and basic justice.

No one is saying all these men are innocent, but then again, what exactly are you charging them with? Oh that's right, nothing.

Assuming they even are Afghan fighters, they still have rights under the Geneva convention (which the US signed up to, which makes it completely irrelevant what new laws have been created to worm around this) to be treated with the same degree of just process as anyone else.

Sorry to disappoint the lynchmobbing fans like Kilmoll, Stragi, Brotha and Cart. The fact is, your painfully deluded, and shockingly retarded.

Now go back to wallowing in your pathetic hateful little minds.

Sueven, my answer is in the post.
Last edited by Nick on July 21, 2005, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Boogahz
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9438
Joined: July 6, 2002, 2:00 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: corin12
PSN ID: boog144
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by Boogahz »

The term "coined by Rumsfeld" was used to define something which was not set out in the Geneva Convention. The rules at the time it was drawn were in regards to State "armies" rather than individuals which chose to fight, hence combatants. What I am unclear on is how many of the people being detained there are actually combatants who were captured in the act of fighting/plotting and how many were just pulled at random or based on tips from others.

I too feel that they should face whatever charges sooner than they are, but I think that if forced to charge them we would see a lot of sham charges or kangaroo court-type situations popping up.
User avatar
Nick
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5711
Joined: July 4, 2002, 3:45 pm

Post by Nick »

So essentially they aren't going to get a fair trial no matter what then, no surprise, although strange when the US is meant to be the freedom loving nation we hear of.
The term "coined by Rumsfeld" was used to define something which was not set out in the Geneva Convention. The rules at the time it was drawn were in regards to State "armies" rather than individuals which chose to fight, hence combatants
This is a nice misconception the administration uses to its advantage (after it told you a lie, again, no surprise)
Civilian Internees, Including Unlawful Combatants

Civilians should only be interned “for imperative reasons of security”36 or “probable cause incident to criminal investigation.” 37This category would include persons engaging in belligerent acts but who are determined by an Article 5 tribunal not to be entitled to POW status under article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention (what the U.S. government has recently referred to as “unlawful combatants”). Such persons may be prosecuted merely for engaging in combat, as well as for any war crimes they may have committed. Iraqi nationals who are unprivileged belligerents remain protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and are entitled to a fair trial before they can be punished.38 The same rule applies to members of Al Qaeda or other armed groups who may be found in Iraq and suspected of crimes. Depending on their nationality, some of these may be protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention;39 those who are not protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention because of their nationality are nonetheless entitled to fair and humane treatment under Article 75 of Protocol I, which is part of customary international law. 40In particular, they are entitled to fair trials.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/iraq/iraq_02.htm
Now, lets look clearly at article 75:
Article 75.-Fundamental guarantees
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:

(a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:

(i) Murder;

(ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;

( iii ) Corporal punishment ; and

(iv) Mutilation;

(b) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

(c) The taking of hostages;

(d) Collective punishments; and

(e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.

4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:

(a) The procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;

(b) No one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;

(c) No one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;

(d) Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilt according to law;

(e) Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;

(f) No one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;

(g) Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(h) No one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;

(i) Anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and

(i) A convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.

5. Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men's quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases

where families are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units.

6. Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.

7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply:

(a) Persons who are accused of such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and

(b) Any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article, whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.

8. No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1.
Conclusion, the term "illegal combatant" is in fact, illegal in itself, in that it breaks the Geneva convention.

Who exactly are the barbarians here? (Hint, it's the same country as Kilmoll)
User avatar
Boogahz
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9438
Joined: July 6, 2002, 2:00 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: corin12
PSN ID: boog144
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by Boogahz »

If the debate is only over the amount of time they are held before being charge and tried. I do not see where any "actual" timeline is laid out. It is mentioned that they should be told what they are being held for, but I am not sure that this is the same as what they are charged with. As an example, in the US, an individual can be taken into custody without the formal charges being brought forward immediately, but they are not "normally" held as long as they are being held at Guantanamo either.

I am not FOR these people being held in the way that they are. I just want to know where (and not the humanrightsfirst.org type link used above) this has been spelled out as being "illegal". Any website can post whatever they want, claim whatever experts, claim the sky is purple and we are wrong to think it is blue, etc.. Too much of this (including what the US government has told us) is based off of individual interpretations of the law. I would rather see more things such as the quoted Convention text, quoted Iraqi Sanctions from the UN, etc. before forming an "emotional" opinion like so many do here. I believe you when you state it is in the Geneva Convention, but I think that the definitions I am looking for are listed elsewhere. Unfortunately I am at work right now, and I do not have the opportunity to go looking it up myself.
User avatar
Nick
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5711
Joined: July 4, 2002, 3:45 pm

Post by Nick »

That's cool,, edit: maybe I wasn't clear, the final quote is in fact the geneva convention, it is very clear in what it states.
User avatar
Boogahz
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9438
Joined: July 6, 2002, 2:00 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: corin12
PSN ID: boog144
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by Boogahz »

Yeah, I understood what the second quote was. I think that one of the most important parts of items such as that would be in it's definitions. What I was interested in was what the Geneva Convention defines as a "Party" for one.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Post by Sueven »

So, to be clear, your problem is not indefinite detention, per se. That is a problem, but the real problem is detention without charge. You view detention without charge to be a human rights violation, and if the problem of detention without charge was eliminated then the problem of indefinite detention would not exist.

Is this accurate?
User avatar
Nick
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5711
Joined: July 4, 2002, 3:45 pm

Post by Nick »

PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances
This means anyone who signs the convention has to obey the laws.

Edit: No Sueven, simply put, neither is acceptable. under any circumstances. Ever.
User avatar
Metanis
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1417
Joined: July 5, 2002, 4:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Metanis »

/yawn
Hesten
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2620
Joined: April 29, 2003, 3:50 pm

Post by Hesten »

Its actually very simple to decide how long they should be detained without trial:

Imagine yourself taking a flight to London (as example, due to the latest attacks there, but could most cities in the world really). Upon arrival, the british police notice that your name come up as a match of a known cover name for a high-level terrorist. (and yes, the US have denied entry and emrprisoned people for days for this, and as far as i recall on the latest elections, used that exact same method to block some people from voting)

You due to the fact that your name matches a terrorist cover name, get arrested at the airport, and thrown in jail.

How long would you say was "acceptable" for you to be locked up there before being able to get a trial, or even a lawyer? Are 3 years acceptable in a situation like that?


On the other hand, imagine yourself deciding to become a terrorist due to your frustration over XXXXXX. You decide to try to do an attack inside the US. You make bombs, you get yourself armed, and try to blow a town hall up. But the police manage to catch you before you are able to fulfill your plan, and you get thrown in jail.
How long would you think it was acceptable for them to just keep you locked up before getting to contact a lawyer, or get a trial? Would it be acceptable for them to keep you for 3 years with no rights at all?
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich"
User avatar
Nick
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5711
Joined: July 4, 2002, 3:45 pm

Post by Nick »

What a shock, yet another Metanis post bereft of even the faintest whiff of common sense. Metanis I really did not expect you to understand or care about the OH SO CONTROVERSIAL! concept of adhering to International law, but if you are gonna flatter us with your hefty intellectual might, (and this goes to Stragi and Kilmoll too) please AT LEAST TRY and troll as well as Cartalas.

I mean, how fucking lame do you want to be?
User avatar
Niffoni
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1318
Joined: February 18, 2003, 12:53 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia

Post by Niffoni »

Lawz r so lame! anarchy rullez!
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Metanis
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1417
Joined: July 5, 2002, 4:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Metanis »

Nick wrote:... please AT LEAST TRY and troll as well as Cartalas.

I mean, how fucking lame do you want to be?
My friend Cart is in a class by himself, I worship the ground upon which he expectorates.

As for lameness, either you or Kelshara appear Olympic bound.
User avatar
Nick
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5711
Joined: July 4, 2002, 3:45 pm

Post by Nick »

DID YOU WITNESS THAT OUTSTANDING DISPLAY OF COMICAL GENIUS?
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

Metanis wrote:
Nick wrote:... please AT LEAST TRY and troll as well as Cartalas.

I mean, how fucking lame do you want to be?
My friend Cart is in a class by himself, I worship the ground upon which he expectorates.

As for lameness, either you or Kelshara appear Olympic bound.

Special Olympics
User avatar
Metanis
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1417
Joined: July 5, 2002, 4:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Metanis »

Cartalas wrote:
Metanis wrote:
Nick wrote:... please AT LEAST TRY and troll as well as Cartalas.

I mean, how fucking lame do you want to be?
My friend Cart is in a class by himself, I worship the ground upon which he expectorates.

As for lameness, either you or Kelshara appear Olympic bound.

Special Olympics
You mean the "short bus" version?
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

Hey metanis, did you huff a lot of glue when you were a kid?


Seriously, I used to think you were just a jackass neocon trying to get a rise out of the liberals here but the shit you post lately makes me think that you have brain damage or something.
I mean nobody can be THAT dumb. Really.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Post Reply