Children held at Guantanamo Bay

[armageddonman]

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

Over a year?

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

Another "educated guess"?

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.

But they could have set up a court in Guantanamo Bay. Hasn't happened yet, though.

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.

Still, why no courts, no charge, no legal counsel?

 

[Tony]

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.

I dont know where the article is, If I looked for it, I doubt I would find it. I read about it a while ago in Newsweek or a simular magazine.

If they are not POW, then they are "enemy combatants" -does this make them criminals?

No, it makes them enemy combatants. Enemy combatants are people that are not part of a formal military force. Basically a private army, which al-queada is. I think we should work to modernize the Geneva Convention to include enemy combatants.


Why is their such a hizzy fit over the detainees at gitmo bay anyway?

They are being treated humainly, they are getting korans and religious compatable meals. Its not like they are in a ◊◊◊◊-hole being fed only bread and water.

 

[armageddonman]

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

Where does the resolution state how those consequences would look like and where did the resolution authorize the US to deliver those consequences?

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.

Let's stay to the topic and that is war. If it is unconstitutional, it is illegal, right? Thus you agree that your country is waging war illegally.

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

I forgot: your moral code bases on the fear of punishment, not on universal values.

 

[armageddonman]

Why is their such a hizzy fit over the detainees at gitmo bay anyway?

Because they way they are detained is in krass contrast to international law and human rights.

They are being treated humainly, they are getting korans and religious compatable meals. Its not like they are in a ◊◊◊◊-hole being fed only bread and water.

Beeing treated humanly doesn't justify them beeing held illegally.

 

[Tony]

Over a year?

We've already addressed the reasons they are still being held.

Another "educated guess"?



No, it was a logical assumption. Feel free to prove me wrong, im not bound to this idea.



But they could have set up a court in Guantanamo Bay. Hasn't happened yet, though.

They were planning military tribunals, but a bunch of bedwetters got their panties in a tizzie and they suspended the tribunals. Thats why I guessed they were on the way, the political heat has died down a little. Hell, for all we know they could be conducting the tribunals in secret.


Still, why no courts, no charge, no legal counsel?

See above.

 

[iain]

They were planning military tribunals, but a bunch of bedwetters got their panties in a tizzie and they suspended the tribunals.

Some days it just seems that most of the world's problems can be directly attributed to people who wet their beds.

 

[Tony]

Where does the resolution state how those consequences would look like and where did the resolution authorize the US to deliver those consequences?

It doesnt say, and it doesnt matter. The french made sure the wording of the resolution was ambiguous. Would you agree war is a serious consequence?

Let's stay to the topic and that is war. If it is unconstitutional, it is illegal, right? Thus you agree that your country is waging war illegally.

It's a grey area. Like I said, the precedent has been set, we have dug ourselves into this hole.

 

[Tony]

Some days it just seems that most of the world's problems can be directly attributed to people who wet their beds.

Rubber sheets should be manditory.

 

[armageddonman]

They were planning military tribunals, but a bunch of bedwetters got their panties in a tizzie and they suspended the tribunals.

Who are you talking about exactly?

 

[The Fool]

Why does this get me foaming at the mouth?

start rant....

Well, 2 Australians are being held by the Army of a foreign country without due process of thier own laws or the laws of Australia. One of them was abducted from Pakistan, he wasn't even in Afghanistan! The other mixed up kid was In the Army of the taliban not Osama's mob. He had previously been fighting for the Bosnian muslims, he was "goodie" then....He was fighting the Serbs, as were the USA. After that he went to Afghanistan and Joined the Army of the Taliban. He had not even heard of the twin towers attack (his claim) Now he may be lying, he may be Osama's right hand man....But, who should decide? Some anonymous person in the US army?

Can the US army arrest someone anywhere they like and send them to cuba and hold them without trial? Is that one of the powers you allow your army? Armies normally only do that sort of thing in military Juntas, not the land of the free and the home of the brave. A Great Nation like the USA can do better.

How would Americans react if the Australian army abducted a couple of US Citizens and held them on an island off Australia indefinitely? You would scream blue murder and demand they be given due process and a presumption of Inocence....Is that too much to ask?

I would ask that all Americans who believe In the rule of law and the presumption of innocence to demand that the US government sort this out NOW, Justice delayed is Justice denied...that is another shining principle of both our legal systems.

I don't care if you try them under your legal system or give them to us, along with any evidence, to be tried under ours... Just do something now....not tomorrow, now!

Give our Citizens back please, we are an ally.

end rant........

 

[Tony]

Who are you talking about exactly?

The bedwetters?

In this instance im talking about the so-called "civil-rights" groups.

 

[armageddonman]

The bedwetters?

In this instance im talking about the so-called "civil-rights" groups.

Who are the "they" that allegedly planned to hold military tribunals and who are the "bedwetters" you are talking about who allegedly complained so loud that no legal action at all was initiated against the detainees?

Any facts to back up your claims?

 

[Tony]

Who are the "they" that allegedly planned to hold military tribunals and who are the "bedwetters" you are talking about who allegedly complained so loud that no legal action at all was initiated against the detainees?

Any facts to back up your claims?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html you'll find some good info here.

http://www.dailyillini.com/mar02/mar29/news/stories/news_story03.shtml defending tribunals

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/n111401b.html a dissenting view

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1701789.stm something else you might find informative

I think these cartoons might address the things we discussed in a humours way. Enjoy

 

[LillyThePink]

Lovely cartoons.


Surely they are designed for you to evade the point though, eh? To distract people who keep asking you pesky questions and requiring.... proof. Very convenient that you can't find the study which compares the health of a captive before and after their illegal interrment at Gitmo.....I'll just take your word for it, shall I? Will you be as trusting about this lovely pink unicorn I have been dealing with?

A bit like the War on Terror.... the Anthrax thing diverted everyone nicely from the human rights issues of the persons being held in Gitmo (lets compare them to say.... the airman who was held by the Chinese after crashing)... the invasion of Iraq and the alleged WMD distracted everyone nicely from the fact that they STILL hadn't found Bin Laden...and I daresay when they announce that Syria/North Korea/anyone else pissing off GWB is next in the firing line, it'll distract the great American voter from the fact that they didn't find Sadaam either...

ho hum.

 

[armageddonman]

Tony, you claimed that no military tribunals were held because of complaints by human rights groups etc. I couldn't find a direct reference to this, could you show me one?

What's more, if the detainees are "unlawful combatants" aka civilians, how can they be tried before a military court? Where's the legal basis for this?

And the cartoons are really distasteful. They imply that it's OK to be held without charge/lawyer/etc. as long as the conditions are not too bad. I really wonder how much human rights are treasured by certain groups in the US, especially by the government.

 

[Tony]

Surely they are designed for you to evade the point though, eh? To distract people who keep asking you pesky questions and requiring.... proof.

Its not good to go through life assuming the worst out of people. I saw the cartoons, thought some people might enjoy them, and decided to share.

Very convenient that you can't find the study which compares the health of a captive before and after their illegal interrment at Gitmo.....I'll just take your word for it, shall I? Will you be as trusting about this lovely pink unicorn I have been dealing with?

Strawman. Asserting that the detainees are in better health when they left gitmo than when they arrived is not as farfetched as a pink unicorn. And I guess in your twisted view, if something is not on the internet it doesnt exist.

A bit like the War on Terror.... the Anthrax thing diverted everyone nicely from the human rights issues of the persons being held in Gitmo (lets compare them to say.... the airman who was held by the Chinese after crashing)... the invasion of Iraq and the alleged WMD distracted everyone nicely from the fact that they STILL hadn't found Bin Laden...and I daresay when they announce that Syria/North Korea/anyone else pissing off GWB is next in the firing line, it'll distract the great American voter from the fact that they didn't find Sadaam either...

Whoa!! With this mix of creativity and paranoia, you would make a great writer for "The X-Files".

 

[Tony]

Tony, you claimed that no military tribunals were held because of complaints by human rights groups etc. I couldn't find a direct reference to this, could you show me one?

I made that claim based on the fact that I havent seen ANY press about military tribunals since the controversy. If you go back and read you will also see where I said that for all we know they could be doing them in secret.

What's more, if the detainees are "unlawful combatants" aka civilians, how can they be tried before a military court? Where's the legal basis for this?

Did you read the BBC article? The conspirators behind the Lincoln assassination were civilians that went before military tribunals. But that doesnt matter, the enemy combatant are not civilians.

And the cartoons are really distasteful. They imply that it's OK to be held without charge/lawyer/etc. as long as the conditions are not too bad. I really wonder how much human rights are treasured by certain groups in the US, especially by the government.

The aren't being denied human rights. They are recieving food, cloths, showers, humane treatment and access to religion.

 

[armageddonman]

The aren't being denied human rights. They are recieving food, cloths, showers, humane treatment and access to religion.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Take a look. Basic human rights are beeing withheld from the detainees.

"Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

 

[Tony]

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Take a look. Basic human rights are beeing withheld from the detainees.

"Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

This means nothing. The UN has zero credibility when it comes to human rights.

 

[armageddonman]

This means nothing. The UN has zero credibility when it comes to human rights.

What makes you think so? Who does? The US have signed the declaration of human rights, thus they are obligated to adhere to them. If the declaration of human rights is irrelevant, how do you define human rights and what are they?