Children held at Guantanamo Bay

LukeT said:


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

Who says they belong to such an organisation? They havent even been charged let alone had a trial and been found guilty.
 
originally posted by Lily the Pink
If this is not a proper war, they are not POW, only terrorists. Terrorists are criminals, they need to be arrested and charged.
Click to expand...
Uh, you have heard of the presumption of innocence, right?
And you do understand the right of the accused to a fair trial (it's too late for "speedy")?

These so-called "detainees" are only suspected of being "terrorists", whatever that means in the context of their incarceration. As you say, they need to be formally charged with something--then tried and convicted. Until then, they are not "terrorists", only alleged to be.
 
a_unique_person said:


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.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word; "Children" is highly suspect. The word is an inference. It conjures up happy playground memories for most of us. Still others of us envision our own kids when we hear that word. The inference is of innocence and playfulness.

The young people being held in Gitmo are not the "children" that your misuse of this word implies. They are terrorists, and or enemy combatants. While I do not blame them for their circumstances, I still must acknowledge the reality of what they have become.

Thankfully, there are not many of them. But to encourage their release merely on the grounds of their age could be dangerous. After all wasn't Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge chock full of these vicious "children"??

-z
 
Jon_in_london said:


Who says they belong to such an organisation? They havent even been charged let alone had a trial and been found guilty.
Click to expand...

I suppose it is possible they were wayward tourists who stumbled into an Al Queda unit by accident. And took up arms in the confusion. And have no means to prove it was all an accident during their interrogations.

As for Gitmo's Camp X-Ray, I find it very insulting that it has been labelled as harsh and brutal. That suggests our Marines are being cruel to them and treating them inhumanely. I can't tell you how sick I am of the image some people have of our armed forces. They are clueless. Just clueless.

I was stationed in Gitmo for three years. I know exactly where Camp X-Ray is. I've gotten drunk there a couple of times. And from the photos I've seen of it lately, I can tell you that it has been greatly improved. The people who used to live there had worse living conditions than the prisoners do now.

I can tell you that there are Jamaican and Indian workers living in Gitmo who live just as badly, if not in worse conditions.

It used to really annoy me what the foreign workers were forced to live in. It was substandard living quarters. Quonset huts that were very cramped. I used to complain about it often.

The Jamaicans and Indians never complained, though, because the conditions were ten times better than their native living conditions.

But that is a whole different topic. Sorry about that. I still feel a little chafed about it.
 
Dont try and change the topic Luke, fact is your country is holding children prisoner indefinitely and without trial.

If I were an American I would be ashamed.
 
Clancy said:
These so-called "detainees" are only suspected of being "terrorists", whatever that means in the context of their incarceration. As you say, they need to be formally charged with something--then tried and convicted. Until then, they are not "terrorists", only alleged to be.
Click to expand...
Actually no, they were caught engaging unlawfully as illegal combatants. As such they don't qualify as POWs or "terrorists".

POWs fall under different laws than criminals. They don't enjoy things like being charged or speedy trials. The detainees were acting as combatants but doing so in an illegal manner.

To try and place the detainees into either group (criminal or POW) is creating a false dichotomy IMO. There is another legal distinction "illegal combatant".

I think that there is a point to be made about the lack of legal council but trying to say that the detainees should be treated as either POW or criminal is without precedent or legal justification.

I understand the concept that you are sincerely trying to defend but I am not sure how to apply it to this case.

I am not an expert. Can you show legally how one must either be a criminal or a POW?
 
Jon_in_london said:
Dont try and change the topic Luke, fact is your country is holding children prisoner indefinitely and without trial.

If I were an American I would be ashamed.
Click to expand...
As an American I am honestly concerned. I see no reason for shame at this time. I would like more information.
 
Jon_in_london said:
Dont try and change the topic Luke, fact is your country is holding children prisoner indefinitely and without trial.

If I were an American I would be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't bring up the topic of the supposed harshness of the camp. I also said I that what I was talking about was a different topic and stopped.

As for the alleged "children" being held, the shame is on the people who trained them to be killers, not us.
 
originally posted by The Fool
Can the US army arrest someone anywhere they like and send them to cuba and hold them without trial?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, indeed they can according to the Bush/Rumsfeld administration.

After all, so-called "detainees" from over 30 different nations are being incarcerated at Guantanamo.

Would the Bush administration suppport such a policy if the Chinese or Russians did something like this?

Would they be so supportive if Russia had invaded Afghanistan and toppled the government based on their claim that terrorists were living inside that country?

If Russians then arrested and imprisoned nationals from 30 different nations whom they found in Afghanistan (or Pakistan)--including Americans!--without charges, without counsel, without protection under international of law--the Bush administration would be in an uproar.

"Americans detained in Russian jails? Without charges? Without counsel? An outrage!"

But when we do it...Well, of course, its perfectly okay.
 
LukeT said:

As for the alleged "children" being held, the shame is on the people who trained them to be killers, not us.
Click to expand...

Whats this about alleged "children"?!?!!!

They are 16 years and under which is children in any reasonable persons book.
 
Clancy said:
"Americans detained in Russian jails? Without charges? Without counsel? An outrage!"
Click to expand...
Do you really think this administration would go to the mat for John Walker Lindh if he'd been picked up by the Russians instead?
 
originally posted by ceo_esq
Do you really think this administration would go to the mat for John Walker Lindh if he'd been picked up by the Russians instead?
Click to expand...
Sure, if he was helping "rebels" against them instead of against us.

Why, given the opportunity, we might even portray him as an idealistic young American helping others fight for religious freedom and against unfair Soviet (sorry, Russian) oppression.
 
Jon_in_london said:


Whats this about alleged "children"?!?!!!

They are 16 years and under which is children in any reasonable persons book.
Click to expand...

So what do you think will happen to these 'children' if we just took them home, and left them where we found them? Or if they would be better off, if we had left them there in the first place?

Try to be at least as honest, as your concern over their treatment by U.S. authorities.

Or is this all about your concern for the ' rule of law ', rather than your concern about the wellfare of a group of human beings; children or otherwise?
 
So what do you think will happen to these 'children' if we just took them home, and left them where we found them? Or if they would be better off, if we had left them there in the first place?
Click to expand...
Diogenes,
The incarceration of Japanese Americans was said to be for their own protection or, alternatively, because they could be spies.

I'm curious. In retrospect, do you think that policy was beneficial after all? Or an egregious infringement of their civil liberties?

I know the situation is different from Guantanamo. But I'm curious to determine your feelings about civil liberties in general, as you seem to have no concern about it in this case--something I have difficulty understanding in anyone who values the rule of law.
 
Clancy said:

Diogenes,
The incarceration of Japanese Americans was said to be for their own protection or, alternatively, because they could be spies.

I'm curious. In retrospect, do you think that policy was beneficial after all? Or an egregious infringement of their civil liberties?

I know the situation is different from Guantanamo. But I'm curious to determine your feelings about civil liberties in general, as you seem to have no concern about it in this case--something I have difficulty understanding in anyone who values the rule of law.
Click to expand...

And the answer to my question, is?
 
Diogenes,
You asked me a question? Sorry, I must have missed it.

(And...mine?)
 
Jon_in_london said:


Whats this about alleged "children"?!?!!!

They are 16 years and under which is children in any reasonable persons book.
Click to expand...

"Children" do not carry weapons on a battlefield. They are more properly called young soldiers. As such they are as dangerous as any other enemy combatant. Sometimes even more dangerous! Remember Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, their most merciless soldiers were young.

From UN website: More than 300,000 children under 18 are currently fighting with government and opposition forces in more than 30 countries of the world.
Click to expand...
http://www.child-soldiers.org/cs/ch...036179fd75df4d6f80256b2600549c78?OpenDocument


These young people are not "Children"....their childhood has been brainwashed out of them. :(

-z
 
Clancy said:
Diogenes,
You asked me a question? Sorry, I must have missed it.

(And...mine?)
Click to expand...

So what do you think will happen to these 'children' if we just took them home, and left them where we found them? Or if they would be better off, if we had left them there in the first place?


Your reply didn't seem to address this..
 
There are no details about these "children." Not even their actual ages. And for all we know, their dads may be in the same camp.

What do you do with a kid who has been trained as a terrorist? I am curious to know what alternatives those who deplore their detainment suggest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom