Children held at Guantanamo Bay

[LillyThePink]

Make your mind up. Either it is a proper war, in which case, the people being held at Gitmo are POWs and subject to the Geneva convention rules on treatment. OR its not a war, and they are being held illegally as detainees.

Either way, the US policy is faulty. I echo Fool's question - can we have our citizens back so that they can have due process too?

 

[Tony]

Make your mind up.

huh? when did I not say this wasnt a proper war?

Either it is a proper war, in which case, the people being held at Gitmo are POWs and subject to the Geneva convention rules on treatment. OR its not a war, and they are being held illegally as detainees.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The enemy combatants at Gitmo where given that designation because they weren't part of a formal army or the taliban "army". They were al queda agents.

Either way, the US policy is faulty.

NOT

I echo Fool's question - can we have our citizens back so that they can have due process too?

Ill have to check with my contacts in the pentagon, Ill get back to you in a week. What is your address and home phone number?

 

[armageddonman]

It doesnt matter.(although I wish it would, to bad that precedant had already been set) We didnt declare war on N. vietnam, but there we were, at war with N vietnam.

Of course it matters. One illegal war cannot be justified with another one.

 

[Tony]

Of course it matters.

Accually, it doesnt matter, and I explained why.

One illegal war cannot be justified with another one.

what are you talking about?

 

[armageddonman]

You have no idea what you are talking about. The enemy combatants at Gitmo where given that designation because they weren't part of a formal army or the taliban "army". They were al queda agents.

The term "unlawful combatant" in non-existent in international law. If the detainees are terrorists why aren't they beeing tried as such by a court?
What evidence is there that ALL detainees are members of Al-Quaeda? If they are why have some of them been set free?

 

[Troll]

The exploitation of children by adults to fight in wars is a disgrace in many countries around the world. That does not mean they should then be treated as anything other than children.

So a 16 year old gets talked into killing by some adult and you believe their age alone exempts them from punishment?

 

[Tony]

The term "unlawful combatant" in non-existent in international law.

It looks like "international law" needs to be changed.

If the detainees are terrorists why aren't they beeing tried as such by a court?

The tribunals are on the way.


What evidence is there that ALL detainees are members of Al-Quaeda?

Not all of them are. I never said they were

f they are why have some of them been set free?

Because the military found out, via interviews, that certain detainees were not members of al queada. They were sent home in better shape then when they arrived.

 

[armageddonman]

what are you talking about?

Attacking a country without permission by the UN or in direct self-defense is illegal under international law. Waging war without a declaration of war is what under US law?

 

[Tony]

Attacking a country without permission by the UN or in direct self-defense is illegal under international law.

And when did this happen?


Waging war without a declaration of war is what under US law?

The War Powers Act of 1973 changed that.


http://www.monad.com/sdg/Journal/warpowers.html

The War Powers Act is found as 50 USC S.1541-1548, passed in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon. It's supposed to be the mechanism by which the President may use US Armed Forces. It purports to spell out the situations under which he may deploy the Forces with and without a Congressional declaration of war.

 

[LillyThePink]

It looks like "international law" needs to be changed.

If the detainees are terrorists why aren't they beeing tried as such by a court?

The tribunals are on the way.


What evidence is there that ALL detainees are members of Al-Quaeda?

Not all of them are. I never said they were

f they are why have some of them been set free?

Because the military found out, via interviews, that certain detainees were not members of al queada. They were sent home in better shape then when they arrived.

And that is why I have given up arguing on the net.

You do realise that the first statement you made, you know, the one about changing international law smacks of the arrogance which the US is perceived to have, and is hated for.

Again I ask - if it is a "Proper" war, then they are POW. IF they are POW, why are they not being treated as such? They have now been held illegally for over a year, without charges being brought (because there is no evidence). This is a direct violation of their human rights and an errosion of civil liberties.

I would also like your evidence for the claim "They were sent home in better shape then (sic) when they arrived".....

And if they are NOT POW, which the Us government keeps saying they are not... then they are being held illegally.

PS:- Saying NOT to a statement does not make your argument very convincing.

 

[armageddonman]

It looks like "international law" needs to be changed.

Then change the rules first and then play by new ones. So far, the US haven't tried to change the rules.

The tribunals are on the way.

How do you know?

Not all of them are. I never said they were

You said they are Al-Quaeda agents. Evidence?

Because the military found out, via interviews, that certain detainees were not members of al queada. They were sent home in better shape then when they arrived.

But you claimed they were Al-Quaeda agents nevertheless. If they weren't how was their detention justified?

 

[armageddonman]

And when did this happen?

The US attacked Iraq without UN backing and not in self-defense.
How has the Vietnam war been justified?

The War Powers Act of 1973 changed that.

I thought that the US constitution only enabled congress to declare war. Wouldn't any other regulation thus be unconstitutional?

 

[Tony]

You do realise that the first statement you made, you know, the one about changing international law smacks of the arrogance which the US is perceived to have, and is hated for.

Ignorance breeds hatred.


Again I ask - if it is a "Proper" war, then they are POW. IF they are POW, why are they not being treated as such?

You have no idea what you are talking about. The enemy combatants at Gitmo where given that designation because they weren't part of a formal army or the taliban "army". They were al queda agents.

I would also like your evidence for the claim "They were sent home in better shape then (sic) when they arrived".....

Do your own research, I dont have to compensate for your ignorance or the fact you didnt read the same report.

And if they are NOT POW, which the Us government keeps saying they are not... then they are being held illegally.

They arent being held illegally.

PS:- Saying NOT to a statement does not make your argument very convincing.

And saying "Either way, the US policy is faulty." Doesnt make your argument very convincing either.

 

[Tony]

How do you know?

I dont know. It was an educated guess.



You said they are Al-Quaeda agents. Evidence?

Ok, my fault, it looks like I need to clarify. They were caught on or near the battlefield and at the time were thought to be agents. When they were determined not to be agents of al queada they were sent home.


If they weren't how was their detention justified?

It’s justifiable because they were caught in a chaotic war zone. Mistakes happen.

 

[Tony]

The US attacked Iraq without UN backing and not in self-defense.

1441 stipulated that Iraq would suffer serious consequences if Iraq failed to come in to immediate compliance with the previous resolutions. Sound like UN backing to me

How has the Vietnam war been justified?

Gulf of Tonkin resolution.


I thought that the US constitution only enabled congress to declare war. Wouldn't any other regulation thus be unconstitutional?

Yes, but when has that stopped the government? Gun laws, welfare, medicare, and drug prohibition are all unconstitutional.

 

[armageddonman]

I dont know. It was an educated guess.

Then you'd better do some research before you make claims.

Ok, my fault, it looks like I need to clarify. They were caught on or near the battlefield and at the time were thought to be agents. When they were determined not to be agents of al queada they were sent home.

Why did it take so long to clarify their status? Who has the authority to declare people to be "unlawful combattants"?

It’s justifiable because they were caught in a chaotic war zone. Mistakes happen.

That doesn't justify anything. On the contrary. That's why they should have been tried by a court and should have gotten legal assistance. To AVOID those mistakes.

 

[LillyThePink]

Do your own research?? Look, Tony, you made a claim. If it was heat of the moment and you can't provide the evidence, then that's fine, you could just say you made it up. Generally, when you make a claim here, you need to back it up. Or be prepared not to be taken too seriously

So you are saying that although this is a proper war, the people being held are not POW? Is that about right?

If they are not POW, then they are "enemy combatants" -does this make them criminals? Why have no charges been brought? Why have they not been Mirandised and given access to legal counsel? Have they even really been arrested? If they are NOT POW and not criminals, why are they being held at all?

Basically, when you arrest a suspect, you have a limited time to either charge them, or let them go. After that, you're holding them illegally. You have already admitted that they are not POW, because that would put the US in contravention of the Geneva convention regarding the treatment of POW. But since they are not POW, they are being illegally held.

To sum up then - if this is a "proper war" then persons captured are POW. If they are, then Geneva convention applies.
If this is not a proper war, they are not POW, only terrorists. Terrorists are criminals, they need to be arrested and charged.

If neither of these two applies, then the US is as bad as other states which deny civil liberties and is holding the prisoners at Gitmo illegally. Those people who got released need to sue the US government for false imprisonment, at the very least.

 

[armageddonman]

Sound like UN backing to me

But isn't. There is no UN resolution that grants the US the right to attack Iraq as would have been neccessary. The claim that resolution 1441 gave the US that right is nothing more than a claim. Nowere does it state that any country would be authorized to enforce the resolution by force.

Yes, but when has that stopped the government? Gun laws, welfare, medicare, and drug prohibition are all unconstitutional.

So you agree that your government is illegally waging wars??
How can you support such a government?

 

[Tony]

Why did it take so long to clarify their status?

It takes time to come to interview people and come to the truth.


Who has the authority to declare people to be "unlawful combattants"?

I would guess the commanders on the battlefield have that authority.



That doesn't justify anything. On the contrary. That's why they should have been tried by a court and should have gotten legal assistance. To AVOID those mistakes.

That’s impossible. They aren’t going to take the time to set up a court in the middle of the afghan desert in a war zone, thats utterly stupid. The logical thing to do, for the safety of the detainees and the soldiers, was to get the suspected al-queada out of there and to a place where they could be interrogated for information and their status could be determined.

The taliban fighters were left in afghanistan.

 

[Tony]

But isn't. There is no UN resolution that grants the US the right to attack Iraq as would have been neccessary. The claim that resolution 1441 gave the US that right is nothing more than a claim. Nowere does it state that any country would be authorized to enforce the resolution by force.

Yes it does, 1441 said Iraq would suffer serious consequences if it failed to comply. Iraq failed to comply and serious consequences followed.



So you agree that your government is illegally waging wars??

I said it was unconstitutional. But if it is waging war illegally than welfare, medicare, gun laws and drug prohibition are also illegal. I dont think too many people would agree with that, including yourself.

How can you support such a government?

Law is only relevant if someone has the will and ability to enforce it. In this case international law.