Children held at Guantanamo Bay

[ZeeGerman]

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

Oh, I didn't notice. When did the UN completely loose credibility.
And who's in charge of proclaiming human rights now, you?

Seriously, you're loosing it in this thread, Tony.
The treatment of the prisoners in Cuba is a disgrace to the US, and you can't argue away a disgrace. You can only deny it or denounce it.

Zee

 

[Tony]

What makes you think so? Who does?

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17956&highlight=human+rights This thread is good.


The US have signed the declaration of human rights, thus they are obligated to adhere to them.

In theory you are right.

If the declaration of human rights is irrelevant, how do you define human rights and what are they?

I define human rights as the rights of a person to receive humane treatment. That includes the abolishment of torture, mutilation, subjection to hazardous or dangerous conditions and experimentation. The guarantees that I think should be included in human rights are a clean living environment, balanced meals, and access to religion and exercise.

 

[Tony]

OK, how would you guys want them treated?

Remembering that the german pow's did not have access to lawyers or trials, and holding civilian trials for pow's is completly unprecedented and unrealistic.

 

[armageddonman]

In theory you are right.

And in practice? It's OK to break obligations as long as there is noone who will punish you for that? Do you have ANY moral standard?

I define human rights...

What makes you think that your definition overrules the UN's?

A quote from you from the thread you linked to:

"The UN is a joke."

You really don't get what the UN is, do you?
The UN is not an organization that has nothing to do with the US. The US are part of the UN.

 

[armageddonman]

Remembering that the german pow's did not have access to lawyers or trials

That's because they were POW's. As you said, the detainees are not POWs.

and holding civilian trials for pow's is completly unprecedented and unrealistic.

So either declare the detainees to be POWs or else grant them the right for a fair trial.

Is it really that hard to understand?

 

[Tony]

And in practice? It's OK to break obligations as long as there is noone who will punish you for that? Do you have ANY moral standard?

Honestly, I try to avoid morals. I have some moral standards, but not many.

What makes you think that your definition overrules the UN's?

Nothing, I never said mine did. I just dont agree with the UN's.



The UN is not an organization that has nothing to do with the US. The US are part of the UN.

Duh!

Yes, I know what the UN is.

 

[ceo_esq]

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.

By international convention, 15 is the minimum acceptable age for military recruitment. (You can become a U.S. Marine at age 17.)

By the time Alexander (the soon-to-be-Great) and his army prevailed at the battle of Chaeronea at age 18, he'd been fighting for two years. Joan of Arc achieved her first victory on the battlefield at age 16. Should Alexander and Joan have been treated as nothing more than children?

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the very youngest Gitmo detainees had wives and children back home. A 16-year-old mujahedin is different from the typical contemporary American teenager, who generally won't reach psychosocial maturity until his 20s (30s in some cases).

How fast we mature from childhood to adulthood - and, indeed, our very views on what those terms mean - is largely determined by social considerations. Under the circumstances, I think there's little reason for an uproar solely on that basis.

 

[Tony]

That's because they were POW's. As you said, the detainees are not POWs.

I was asking for your opinion. Not mine.


So either declare the detainees to be POWs or else grant them the right for a fair trial.

That seems fair enough. Mabey I agree. But I also sympathize with the administration's rational for labeling the prisoners "enemy combatants".

How about this: Enemy combatants should be afforded the same rights as the POW's.

Is it really that hard to understand?

no

 

[armageddonman]

How about this: Enemy combatants should be afforded the same rights as the POW's.

If they had been labeled as POWs, they could never have been detained in the way they were, you know that?

 

[Tony]

If they had been labeled as POWs, they could never have been detained in the way they were, you know that?

yeah

 

[armageddonman]

yeah

Fine, then you also agree that the way the detainees are beeing held is wrong?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Zee German:

Oh, I didn't notice. When did the UN completely loose credibility.

Serb murder gang: Were just about to commit the worst act of genocide in Europe since WWII.

Dutch UN peacekeeping force: OK. We'll just sit here.

There's also the appointment of Libya to the human rights commision.

 

[Tony]

Fine, then you also agree that the way the detainees are beeing held is wrong?

I dont think its wrong, but I think abiding by the Geneva convention is reasonable and should be implemented.

 

[ceo_esq]

This thread also discussed in some depth the treatment and legal status of the Guantanamo detainees, in case anyone's interested.

 

[Guest]

I have seen plenty of articles about children being trained to be killers. The advantage is that they are totally loyal, fearless and cheap. They are, however, still children.

Here, I found one for you.

http://www.amnesty.ca/stoptorture/actchildsoldiers.htm

Nothing about Al Queda training the Guantanamo kids to kill and getting them into this mess to start with, though.

 

[Guest]

Americans who cheer children being held at guantanimo are behaving shamefully.

History will show this when the heat of the moment has subsided.

Fool, I hope you have noticed that no one here is cheering about the children being held at Gitmo.

I also find it strange that on the one hand, we have people complaining about the fact we took prisoners in Afghanistan and brought them to Gitmo, and label the camp in their media articles with adjectives such as "brutal" and "harsh" and so on.

Are you guys happy or unhappy we have actually released some of the prisoners? Make up your minds.

All this complaining reminds me of some street punk going on a killing spree and then blaming society for making him do it. And on top of that, saying the prison system is brutal and harsh and how dare they lock him up!

These are the scum who brought down the World Trade Center folks. Maybe you need to watch the video again.

And these scum know where the rest of the scum who haven't been caught yet are. I suppose we could rush the process and just beat the information we need out of them. Would that be quick enough for ya?

 

[Guest]

How would Americans react if the Australian army abducted a couple of US Citizens and held them on an island off Australia indefinitely?

If the Americans they abducted belonged to an organization that blew up the Sydney Opera House, you wouldn't hear me complaining.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Fool, I hope you have noticed that no one here is cheering about the children being held at Gitmo.

Enjoyed your comments Luke..

Just wanted to add: It is fools, indeed, who think that ' children ' are being held at Gitmo.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Actually no. To be guaranteed protection under the Geneva Convention you need to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention.

To qualify for the protections of that treaty, combatants have to follow basic rules of war, like wearing uniforms, carrying your arms openly, and respecting the rules of war. Al Qaeda's members obviously don't qualify, and even Taliban soldiers may not.

Torturing the truth about Guantanamo

 

[RandFan]

All But I want to say it again, this policy is a disgrace that will even surpass Manzanar and the Communist witch hunts of the 50's as an example of political hysteria driving public policy.

Since we are moving over here I would like to move my repsonse over here also (at least part of it).

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not sure about prisoners being treated better than guards. However, the eminent humanitarian law expert (and Human Rights Watch bigwig) Kenneth Anderson wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

Notwithstanding the shrillness of the criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the [Guantanamo Bay] detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on."

When you contrast treatment of the detainees with the treatment of prisoners in nearly all other Muslim countries (dismemberment, torture, disfigurement, murder, etc.) then I can't imagine how it could possibly have any such negative historical context.