David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.

[Zep]

let me get this clear....are you claiming that breaches of the GC are one of the justifications of Hicks detention? Are you claiming they form any part of any charge against him? In what way are they relevant??

I encourage you to listen to Major Mori's presentation on these very issues. Hicks is not charged with any war crime.He is not charged with killing or attempting to kill anyone. He is not charged with anything other than providing support to an enemy of the US.....which leads me to ask....is it now simply illegal to resist the armed forces of the US who are invading someone? I can understand if you charged a US subject supporting an enemy of the US.........Jeebus, if the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

Ahem. The Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s for 50, please, Alex.

 

[WildCat]

let me get this clear....are you claiming that breaches of the GC are one of the justifications of Hicks detention?

Are you unable to read? I never claimed any such thing. His role in al Qaeda, with which the US is at war, is the reason for his detention. The GC spells out who is protected under its provisions, and Hicks does not qualify.

 

[WildCat]

If you want to get into the "where he was captured" business, perhaps you should think again.

For the record, Hicks was captured in PAKISTAN, not Afghanistan. He was handed over by the Pakistanis to the Egyptians (his first interrogation was in Cairo), and thence to the Americans.

The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, it really doesn't matter where we find them or who captures them in the first place. Once the US has them the Gitmo option is available.

If this same process was applicable consistently, surely the Pakistanis should have handed over Bin Laden by now. It is on reasonably good grounds that he is hiding out in "friendly" areas of Pakistan most of the time, and they know damn well where he is. And presumably can put their finger on him if needs be.

Lot of assumptions there, but is there any evidence to back those assumptions? You're sounding like a 9/11 CTist now.

 

[SimonD]

And?

He said himself he was trained in Al Queda camps. How that does not make him a terrorist, I'll never understand.

Nobody should have to suffer the crime of rape. No matter how much we think they might.

 

[Mycroft]

its not clandestine....its combatants in open combat....wearing a ragtag of whatever clothing they wish....Us "contractors" in Iraq behaving as combatants.....shooting people....clothing by Levi Strauss....lets get real here. Whining because nobody dresses up properly is laughable.

So are you claiming that un-uniformed armed security guards get the same rights as soldiers under the Geneva Conventions?

If so, please cite the relevant passages.

Not sure how this is relevant...Hicks is not charged with any war crimes or any breach of the Geneva conventions. It just seems to be a popular diversion to pull out on a regular basis...the "they don't dress properly" distraction.

Nobody claimed he broke the GC, the claim is that he is not protected by it.

The claim that I called the Geneva convention a "tired old joke" is a fabrication...is it deliberate?

No, it comes from your statement. You apparently feel that the GC is a “tired old joke” when it distinguishes between uniformed and non-uniformed combatants.

Or am I wrong? Is the uniform important in the GC or not?

If you want to quote the geneva convention then please please please tell me what part of the geneva convention you are charging David hicks with breaching.

Again, I never made the claim he was charged with breaking the GC.

You have not been able to round up a charge of any war crime...any breach of any international laws of war GC or any other. The charge you have left standing is breaking a law that you wrote when he was already locked up.

You seem to have forgotten that I’m not advocating charging him with anything. What I am saying is that due to his status as illegal combatant, there is nothing wrong with having held him for five years without charge.

 

[Mycroft]

Nobody should have to suffer the crime of rape. No matter how much we think they might.

Was he?


Edited to add:

I know he claims he was, but is there any evidence other than his claim?

 

[Mycroft]

He is not charged with anything other than providing support to an enemy of the US.....

Which makes him an enemy of the US, which is why we're treating him as one.

which leads me to ask....is it now simply illegal to resist the armed forces of the US who are invading someone?

If you get caught doing it you might find yourself detained until the end of the war. That's the way wars are.

I can understand if you charged a US subject supporting an enemy of the US.........Jeebus, if the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

You might find yourself in an American camp such as GITMO.

I mean, duh! If you make yourself an enemy combatant you become...an enemy combatant!

But don't feel bad, it works the other way too. If Australia invaded the United States and I went and helped the US repel the invasion, an Australian unit just might capture me and make me a prisoner! Heck, they might even kill me, even though I hadn't broken any law!

 

[The Fool]

You seem to have forgotten that I’m not advocating charging him with anything. What I am saying is that due to his status as illegal combatant, there is nothing wrong with having held him for five years without charge.

which is a status the US has created. it has no foundation in any international law or convention, it is an invention of the US government who now Apparently wish to proclaim that it is illegal to resist an American invasion. Thats handy.

 

[Mycroft]

which is a status the US has created. it has no foundation in any international law or convention, it is an invention of the US government who now Apparently wish to proclaim that it is illegal to resist an American invasion. Thats handy.

So when you were in Vietnam (as you so often tell us you were) were you at all concerned with the question of if the enemy resisting you were breaking a law in doing so? Or did you just do your job and kill/capture them as you were able?

 

[WildCat]

which is a status the US has created. it has no foundation in any international law or convention, it is an invention of the US government who now Apparently wish to proclaim that it is illegal to resist an American invasion. Thats handy.

Do you just make this up as you go along? Just because there may not be a treaty to cover what to do w/ captured combatants not covered by the GC doesn't mean we have to let them go, or allow the international peanut gallery to decide what should be done vis a vis trials. Lacking any convention as to what to do, the nation that holds them is free to do w/ them as their laws and conventions dictate.

 

[Zep]

The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, it really doesn't matter where we find them or who captures them in the first place. Once the US has them the Gitmo option is available.

I've got a neighbour who I'd like gotten rid of. If I say he is Al Quaeda, invent some nasty rumours about his involvement, "capture" him and turn him over to the US forces, is there a spare room in Gitmo for him?

Lot of assumptions there, but is there any evidence to back those assumptions? You're sounding like a 9/11 CTist now.

Um, no assumptions at all. Last I heard, OBL is STILL Target #1, and still out there. And it was US intelligence sources, apparently, who have confirmed OBL hides out in friendly places in Pakistan. (Perhaps that's the problem - believing US intelligence after the WMD fiasco. Still...) So if you can "capture" Hicks by that means, why not OBL?

Incidentally, the facts about David Hicks are as stated. That's public knowledge. If you have any supported info to the contrary, please put them here - we would all be pleased to read them.

CTist, nothing! I repeat (for the umpteenth time): If Hicks is truly guilty of something heinous, get him on trial, convict him, and sentence him - no squeaks from me if the process is fair and the case for conviction is good. BUT QUIT MUCKING ABOUT!

 

[The Fool]

Do you just make this up as you go along? Just because there may not be a treaty to cover what to do w/ captured combatants not covered by the GC doesn't mean we have to let them go, or allow the international peanut gallery to decide what should be done vis a vis trials. Lacking any convention as to what to do, the nation that holds them is free to do w/ them as their laws and conventions dictate.

good...we are finally getting to it. You feel you are justified to imprison whoever you wish for as long as you wish and the rest of the world can go jump...that about sum it up?

 

[SimonD]

Was he?

Edited to add:

I know he claims he was, but is there any evidence other than his claim?

You are mising the point Mycroft.

I'll say it once again.

Nobody deserves to be raped.

That's it.

 

[WildCat]

I've got a neighbour who I'd like gotten rid of. If I say he is Al Quaeda, invent some nasty rumours about his involvement, "capture" him and turn him over to the US forces, is there a spare room in Gitmo for him?

Sure Zep, Gitmo's full of guys like that...

Um, no assumptions at all. Last I heard, OBL is STILL Target #1, and still out there. And it was US intelligence sources, apparently, who have confirmed OBL hides out in friendly places in Pakistan. (Perhaps that's the problem - believing US intelligence after the WMD fiasco. Still...) So if you can "capture" Hicks by that means, why not OBL?

As I'm sure you're well aware, Pakistan has no control over its tribal areas. Last year they got their asses kicked trying to gain control, and basically surrendered to the Taliban. If you have evidence this isn't the case, present it.

Incidentally, the facts about David Hicks are as stated. That's public knowledge. If you have any supported info to the contrary, please put them here - we would all be pleased to read them.

He's an admitted member of al Qaeda and has been trained as a fighter by them. That's all that is necessary to hoild him until the war w/ al Qaeda is over.

CTist, nothing! I repeat (for the umpteenth time): If Hicks is truly guilty of something heinous, get him on trial, convict him, and sentence him - no squeaks from me if the process is fair and the case for conviction is good. BUT QUIT MUCKING ABOUT!

You miss the point - he doesn't have to be guilty of anything other than being a fighter for al Qaeda, and in fact he admits as much. The US is under no obligation whatsoever to put him on trial, or even charge him. He can be held until the end of hostilities w/ al Qaeda, even if he dies of old age before that happens.

 

[WildCat]

You are mising the point Mycroft.

I'll say it once again.

Nobody deserves to be raped.

That's it.

Thank you Mr. Obvious.

 

[Azure]

Nobody should have to suffer the crime of rape. No matter how much we think they might.

Rape is much worse than just a crime, so I agree with you there.

 

[The Fool]

You miss the point - he doesn't have to be guilty of anything other than being a fighter for al Qaeda, and in fact he admits as much. The US is under no obligation whatsoever to put him on trial, or even charge him. He can be held until the end of hostilities w/ al Qaeda, even if he dies of old age before that happens.

Under what law or regulation can you hold him until "the end of hostilities with al Qaeda"? I would politely ask if you could be quite specific on this....what law, regulation, convention or treaty?

 

[The Fool]

So when you were in Vietnam (as you so often tell us you were)

Rubbish and you know it.......you have earned ignore status again.

 

[SimonD]

Thank you Mr. Obvious.

Please read the entire thread - it will make sense then

 

[Zep]

Sure Zep, Gitmo's full of guys like that...

There is? OK, great! I'll prepare the letter to the US government right now. Where will the helicopters like to land?

As I'm sure you're well aware, Pakistan has no control over its tribal areas. Last year they got their asses kicked trying to gain control, and basically surrendered to the Taliban. If you have evidence this isn't the case, present it.

But they were perfectly able to find and capture David Hicks in the same area? Strange, no?

He's an admitted member of al Qaeda and has been trained as a fighter by them. That's all that is necessary to hoild him until the war w/ al Qaeda is over.

With respect, what utter bullshyte. If it's a war, as highlighted in your response, he's a POW. So treat him as such. POWs can indeed be held until cessation of hostilities, but they also have rights not being accorded to Hicks.

You miss the point - he doesn't have to be guilty of anything other than being a fighter for al Qaeda, and in fact he admits as much. The US is under no obligation whatsoever to put him on trial, or even charge him. He can be held until the end of hostilities w/ al Qaeda, even if he dies of old age before that happens.

See above.