What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey Ive been saying this forever.


What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
By George H. Wittman
Published 6/22/2005 12:05:35 AM

For those of us -- and there are millions -- who have gone through U.S. Army basic training or Marine Corps boot camp the complaints of Senator Richard Durbin regarding the treatment of the prisoners at Camp Delta in Guantanamo are laughable.

One wonders what Durbin and the folks at Amnesty International would say if their little darlings had been forced to stand at attention in 100-degree heat for two or more hours at Fort Jackson or Camp Lejeune in full combat gear, with 60 pounds of ammo and equipment, waiting for a general inspection. "What time did you get up, soldier?" the inspecting officer invariably asks the first trooper in line. The answer is always the same. "Reveille, sir." As long as you said that, you didn't have to admit you and your buddies had been up for 36 hours straight "G I-ing" the barracks, the company street, your weapons and everything that moved or stood in the area.

"Drop down and give me 20, 30, 50," the training cadre would demand, and the shaved head recruit falls to the ground and completes his push-ups -- sometimes to the point of exhaustion for those not in top condition. The heel of the corporal on your back tends to make the task a bit more difficult. Gosh, we should have had some of those ACLU lawyers.

Another fine element of training occurs when a drill sergeant's mouth is so close to yours his shouts spit saliva till it runs down your face. One flinch brings an order for 30 perfect push-ups or an evening of jogging around the company area with a rifle held with both hands above one's head while the miscreant shouts the General Orders.

Definitely too tough for those unfortunate terrorists.

Senator Durbin, whose biography shows he spent the Vietnam War in law school, knows nothing of an American soldier's training life -- and we are talking about only those first eight weeks of basic training, not the far tougher regimen for Ranger, SEAL, Recon or Special Forces.

He says he's appalled the Gitmo terrorists had to sit or stand in stress positions while under interrogation. What about crawling into and cleaning out an eight-foot deep grease pit attached to each mess hall. That's a nice little punishment for arriving late to formation. Or what about a 25-mile march with a full field pack, your weapon and ammo, and only one canteen of water?

Senator Durbin is deeply worried about the impression that is caused internationally when a terrorist prisoner complains his "space" has been invaded by a female interrogator. Oh, dear me, did that female make the poor prisoner feel badly? An American soldier yearns for such "intimidation." A recruit has no "space." He or she is government property.

From what type of mental illness does Senator Durbin suffer? What country has Durbin been inhabiting? From what planet does this civilian feather merchant come? Senator, don't insult the hundreds of thousands of on-duty servicemen and women and the millions of veterans by your politically inspired pettifogging complaints.

Perhaps Senator Durbin doesn't understand what it takes to be an American soldier or Marine. Perhaps he thinks the families of the terrorists should be thought of before the families of the victims of 9/11 or those of our fallen warriors. He speaks of Guantanamo as an embarrassment. It is he who embarrasses those who have served.


Poor little terrorists. We should send them to PI.

[doc_bean]

I've said it before and i'll keep repeating it, it isn't the treatment as much as it is the fact they have never received a proper trial that is worrying.

How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business. Has anyone actually heard what French jails used to be like ? The suspected terrorists have got it really easy compared to that. However, only convicted criminals should be treated as as convicted criminals :bow:

[Proletariat]

One wonders what Durbin and the folks at Amnesty International would say if their little darlings had been forced to stand at attention in 100-degree heat for two or more hours at Fort Jackson or Camp Lejeune in full combat gear, with 60 pounds of ammo and equipment, waiting for a general inspection.

That's where I did basic. It was during July and August a few years ago, and I swear to God that it's the hottest place on the entire planet.

Anyway, as for the content, exactly right once again. They should take a look at the US Army's POW school.

[Dâriûsh]

What kind of inappropriate comparison is this?


These soldiers volunteered to undergo this treatment. The suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Bagrām, and Abu Ghraib did not.

[Proletariat]

Lets let them go and allow them to be killed when they attack. Hey, they wont mind they get like 7 virgins or something.

(Yes thats a straw man argument.)

Point is if you think these guys will happily go back to Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Malaysia, Jordan or where ever and open a shop and contribute to building there country your niave. They will end up dead. The question is how many American soldiers, Iraqi police and innocent civilians will end up dead because of them?

But that's okay, I mean we want to protect thier rights and all. There rights are way more important then thier targets.

Should our miltary collect evidence on the battlefield a la CSI: Kabul?

[Proletariat]

These soldiers volunteered to undergo this treatment. The suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Bagrām, and Abu Ghraib did not.

They volunteered for it when they decided to become fighters not aligned with any nation and out of uniform, and should be summarily shot as is allowed under the laws of war.

[Dâriûsh]

They volunteered for it when they decided to become fighters not aligned with any nation and out of uniform, and should be summarily shot as is allowed under the laws of war.


The suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Bagrām, and Abu Ghraib did not.

I took the liberty to put the word “suspect” in bold, as I am sure you missed it.

And it’s 72 virgins.

[Proletariat]

I took the liberty to put the word “suspect” in bold, as I am sure you missed it.


The Combat Status Review Panels gave them three rights:

1. They had the opportunity to contest their designation as an enemy combatant.

2. They had an opportunity to consult with a personal representative.

3. They had the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus.

Once the CSRPs were completed, an independent board reviewed every case. Those that were found not to be a threat were released, those that were found to be conbatants were kept.

In addition, there are annual reviews of every detainee's status.

But you're right. Let's just assign a forensics team to every infantryman in Iraq.



And it’s 72 virgins.

What a deal.

[Kagemusha]

Ok.This is an joke so dont get mad, but i cant help myself.What i read The US is giving standard infantry training to those suspects.Shouldnt they be gratefull? ~D

[InsaneApache]

What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?

Butlins....@Minehead...I remember when I was 11...I formed an escape committee .....those damn Redcoats on the gates, never did escape until the week was over.. ~;)

[Papewaio]

In Bootcamp can you dropout or are you sent to solitary for failing to complete it?

100 Degrees... try going to school in Perth.

Typically the start of school term is 40 to 44 degrees C. Thats 104 to 111 F. And we still play sport in those conditions.

Or working in Sumatra and Borneo a balmy 97+ Fahrenheit and 98 to 100% humidity. Hiking for ten to twelve hours a day through thick jungle with an incline over 1:1 in some instances, through swamp, clay mud, quicksand, thornbushes etc With injuries such as 3rd degree burns, diahorrea, mass bruising, lacerations. Joys of tick swarms... tiny red brown ticks so small that they are hard to see as individuals but as a mass swarm up your arm changing the tone of your skin a couple of shades towards latte brown. Leaches that bury through your boots and socks and suck the blood, yet since it is so humid you don't feel your socks filling up with blood until you take them off at the end of the day. Being beneath the jungle canopy and hearing the roar of the thunderstorm coming in like waves crashing at the beach. The fall of rain so thick that despite being under 30meters (90foot) of canopy you can barely make out the outline of your team who are within 6 foot of you, the terrible cold as your body goes from an environment of humid body temperature to icy rain. You sweat so much that if you hold off going for a p!ss the water will be reabsorbed into your body and you don't feel the need any longer. You can drink a litre and a half (2 pints) of cordial before lunch and still finish a large meal, and by the time you are hiking again you are sweating cordial (it is sweet to the taste).

Or East of Marble Bar, where at the end of the day of hiking through the desert I felt cold at then end of the days exploration when sitting in the shade wearing jeans, flannel shirt, hat and steel caps and it was 38C (100F). The red desert with snake and lizard tracks. You know you are getting dehydrated at the end of the day despite drinking over 6 L of water which you carry as you go, why? Because instead of imagining a beach with babes over the dune and their welcoming attentions, you imagine the same beach and running past the babes for the cool waters.

The thing is at the end of the day as long as I had a beer and a shower I was fine. I also had the option of ending it and going home. Choice makes a huge difference over how one feels about a situation. Of course if you understand yourself well enough you can always choose to be happy.

[Tribesman]

They volunteered for it when they decided to become fighters not aligned with any nation and out of uniform, and should be summarily shot as is allowed under the laws of war.
Ah... but my dear Prole , the administration has incarcerated people in this "tropical paradise hoiday camp with a really good menu and lots of fun activities" without them meeting the criteria that you mention as justification .

So... should they write to their travel agent and ask for a refund ? ~;)

[Steppe Merc]

Well army training to me has always seemed cruel and overly harsh. But one needs to be a bit desensitized to be a soldier, I suppose... And I'm a wus. ~;)

[Spetulhu]

Army training is harsh so the soldiers don't fold the first day in the field. They're already used to abuse and poor conditions. They might even like it. ~;)

Actually, that's also a very old method of indoctrinating people. Treat them like dirt, force them to endure bad conditions, and then tell them how very tough and elite they are. Only the best can do what they've done, and now they're fine enough to stay in the best army there ever was. Everyone wants to feel special.

[PanzerJaeger]

How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business.

Isnt that the truth. :bow:

Dick Durban disgraced this country and especially our soldiers. The sad thing is - most liberals agree with the Nazi comparisons.

We wont ever win abroad if we dont destroy the fifth column within.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's where I did basic. It was during July and August a few years ago, and I swear to God that it's the hottest place on the entire planet.

Anyway, as for the content, exactly right once again. They should take a look at the US Army's POW school.

Wow you were in the service. My compliments. I was at PI and it was no picnic there either as any of you who have seen Full Metal Jacket can testify to. Even that doesnt convey the true brutality that you can endure there. By the way after I joined FMF I worked in escape and evasion school as a Gomer. You should see the torture we put our own pilots through.


These soldiers volunteered to undergo this treatment.

I didnt volunter to be tortured but to serve my country. You dont imagine the stuff they do to you in basic or most wouldnt even go there. Besides that most peole were drafted when I was in. What do you say to those who were drafted then?

Once more all those in Gitmo are lucky to be alive. We could have shot every last one of them on the spot when we caught them. Thats what Patton would have done.

[Franconicus]

Quote:
How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business.

Isnt that the truth. :bow:

Dick Durban disgraced this country and especially our soldiers. The sad thing is - most liberals agree with the Nazi comparisons.

We wont ever win abroad if we dont destroy the fifth column within.
You really know how to scare me.
You think the way the Hitler or Stalin treated 'criminals, or even enemies' was their own business. Or Saddam?
What do you mean with destroying the fifth column? Physical destruction? Is this a Hitler quote?

[English assassin]

I thought this was going to be a joke and the answer was "two Gitmos"

Surely if any insulting has gone on, Mr Wittman has insulted American servicemen and women by comparing their experiences to the experiences of people he considers to be terrorists.

There are two issues here, incarceration, and torture. We shouldn't confuse them.

Torture is wrong. First, because it is. The nature of the act itself makes it always wrong. Second, for the utilitarians amongst us, because as has been often shown, information obtained by torture is unreliable.

(NB I would distinguish torture from REASONABLE measures designed to secure the safety of prison staff and to secure obedience to REASONABLE requests made in running the camp. A short spell of solitary for disobedience, or handcuffing a prisoner to take him from place to place, is not torture. Civil libertarians offer an easy target to the authoritarians if they complain too much at minor things.)

Incarceration is more difficult. In principle removing someone's liberty is not much nice than torturing them. However, I am coming round to the argument that IF there is an enemy who is not in the armed forces of another state, and who for practical and legal reasons can't be dealt with as a criminal, then some sort of intermediate status may be justifiable.

The issue. though, is that that status must still be subject to the rule of law. How is it determined that these people are a threat sufficient to justify indefinite detention, and how is that status kept under review? These aren't questions to be brushed aside with a reference to boot camp, asking and answering them is a key test of whether you live under the rule of law or not. If the Combat Status Review Panels are chaired by an independent person, and the detainees have sight of all of the evidence against them and access to an independent lawyer to make their case, and if they understand what it is that has to be proved before they can continue to be detained, and if the Combat Status Review Panels are themselves subject to judicial oversight, then I agree they are an adequate safeguard.

Of course the rule of law is for pussys, wimps, and other liberals, until its YOU they come and harrass, or its YOUR job that goes because no one invests in a country where power is used arbitrarily, or its YOUR son/daughter who gets blown up in iraq because Gitmo is the best recruiting sergeant for the terrorists ever devised. Then maybe you see the value in it and even in the ACLU

[doc_bean]

Quote:
How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business.

You really know how to scare me.
You think the way the Hitler or Stalin treated 'criminals, or even enemies' was their own business. Or Saddam?


I said country, not brutal dictator. And I do believe the basic human rights should be respected, however, rapes of (female) inmates tend to happen in places like Pakistan far more often than in the US for some reason, so i'm willing to give the Americans some benefits of doubt.

But seriously, jail is hell in many places, I believe in the rule of law, and it should be applied in a good, strict way, however, once someone has been found guilty what happens then is mostly up to the country imho. Not that I don't think those people shouldn't be treated with a minimum of respect, but some people would want us to treat criminals better than some normal law-abiding citizens have it: free meals, fitness facilities, tv, no work,....

The real problem lies in how dictators like Saddam arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured people who hadn't done any wrong. The US also went a bit paranoid and put a lot of people in Gitmo that shouldn't have been arrested. Most of them probably have gotten released by now, so it isn't all bad.

Gitmo isn't that bad compared to a lot of places, I'd probably prefer it to Turkish prison and certainly to old (around the revolution) French prisons. It's a bit silly that they don't allow the UN to inspect, but I haven't heard any real horror stories yet. The inmates have to pee in their pants and sleep on hard beds, big deal. It's not like they're getting random objects shoved into random orifices. The latest accusation is that they used a persons medical record against him. Certainly a quite appalling thing to do taken at face value. However, what did they actually do ? The guy was scared of the dark ! It's not like they were punching him in some already damaged organ, or put an eye out or anything.
I fear the current cries of torture are making people forget what real torture is like, and that that is still going on to, maybe not so much in/by the US, but still.

On a slightly different note, if I were in any position to influence the policy in Gitmo, I'd let the prisoners read something else than the Quo'ran. It probably gets boring after having rad it a few hundred times already. And if they're real fundamentalists, they know it by heart already.

[English assassin]

Gitmo isn't that bad compared to a lot of places,

Don't you think America ought to be trying to show the world best practice, rather than taking comfort from the fact that a Turkish prison is probably worse?

[bmolsson]

How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business.

Isnt that the truth. :bow:


Even if they are American citizens in a Al Qaida cave ??

[Kagemusha]

I find it pretty intresting,that the US didnt give POW status to suspected Al Qaida fighters.That way they could keep this guys locked down how long they would like,because i dont think we are going to see peace between these parties in near future. :bow:

[Franconicus]

I said country, not brutal dictator. And I do believe the basic human rights should be respected.
...
But seriously, jail is hell in many places, I believe in the rule of law, and it should be applied in a good, strict way, however, once someone has been found guilty what happens then is mostly up to the country imho. Not that I don't think those people shouldn't be treated with a minimum of respect, but some people would want us to treat criminals better than some normal law-abiding citizens have it: free meals, fitness facilities, tv, no work,.... .

The real problem lies in how dictators like Saddam arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured people who hadn't done any wrong. The US also went a bit paranoid and put a lot of people in Gitmo that shouldn't have been arrested. Most of them probably have gotten released by now, so it isn't all bad .
~:cheers: agreed ~:cheers:


Gitmo isn't that bad compared to a lot of places, I'd probably prefer it to Turkish prison and certainly to old (around the revolution) French prisons. It's a bit silly that they don't allow the UN to inspect, but I haven't heard any real horror stories yet. The inmates have to pee in their pants and sleep on hard beds, big deal. It's not like they're getting random objects shoved into random orifices. The latest accusation is that they used a persons medical record against him. Certainly a quite appalling thing to do taken at face value. However, what did they actually do ? The guy was scared of the dark ! It's not like they were punching him in some already damaged organ, or put an eye out or anything.
I fear the current cries of torture are making people forget what real torture is like, and that that is still going on to, maybe not so much in/by the US, but still. .
agreed ~:cheers:


On a slightly different note, if I were in any position to influence the policy in Gitmo, I'd let the prisoners read something else than the Quo'ran. It probably gets boring after having rad it a few hundred times already. And if they're real fundamentalists, they know it by heart already.
agreed ~:cheers:
I once red an article about how the Chinese treated the US POW in the Korean war. They tried to brainwash them and they were very successful. When they were released most of them believed that communism is not bad. Maybe not the right system for the US but the best for China.
Why not do the same in Gitmo?

[Proletariat]

Wow you were in the service. My compliments.


Thanks. To you, too.


Don't you think America ought to be trying to show the world best practice, rather than taking comfort from the fact that a Turkish prison is probably worse?

It is the best practice. Name another country in the history of mankind you would rather be detained by.



The issue. though, is that that status must still be subject to the rule of law. How is it determined that these people are a threat sufficient to justify indefinite detention, and how is that status kept under review? These aren't questions to be brushed aside with a reference to boot camp, asking and answering them is a key test of whether you live under the rule of law or not. If the Combat Status Review Panels are chaired by an independent person, and the detainees have sight of all of the evidence against them and access to an independent lawyer to make their case, and if they understand what it is that has to be proved before they can continue to be detained, and if the Combat Status Review Panels are themselves subject to judicial oversight, then I agree they are an adequate safeguard.


This is pretty much what I said.

Btw, nice post, doc bean.

[Franconicus]

I find it pretty intresting,that the US didnt give POW status to suspected Al Qaida fighters.That way they could keep this guys locked down how long they would like,because i dont think we are going to see peace between these parties in near future. :bow:
If my mind serves the US and their allies did not declare war to Iraq. And there was no ceasefire. Bush just declared the end of military operations. Why did he do this so undefined. What is the legal status now? Is it still war? Is it peace? Or has there never been war?

[Kagemusha]

If my mind serves the US and their allies did not declare war to Iraq. And there was no ceasefire. Bush just declared the end of military operations. Why did he do this so undefined. What is the legal status now? Is it still war? Is it peace? Or has there never been war?

I think the attack on Iraq was illegal because it didnt have UN´s support.But if would criticize US,i wouldn´t focus on Gitmo.I would focus on that what is happening in prisons in Iraq. :bow:

[English assassin]

Name another country in the history of mankind you would rather be detained by.

Are you serious?

Iceland. They let prisoners out at weekends and bank holidays I hear.

Or, the UK. We started out in NI with internment, beatings and stress positions. All very Gitmo. Then it was stopped, after the ECHR got involved. Its that rule of law thing again.

Anyway, this is by the by, since I have done nothing wrong and should not be detained by anyone. So I would prefer to be in the hands of a country with appalling prisons but excellent procedures to determine guilt and innocence, than a country with excellent prisons and appalling procedures to decide who to put in them.

The difference between us, Proletariat, is I don't believe the Combat Status review panels meet the standards I described. And it might have been nice if it hadn't taken a supreme court ruling before they were established.

[Proletariat]

Are you serious?

Iceland. They let prisoners out at weekends and bank holidays I hear.

Or, the UK. We started out in NI with internment, beatings and stress positions. All very Gitmo. Then it was stopped, after the ECHR got involved. Its that rule of law thing again.


Sorry, I meant in a military setting. (NI?)



The difference between us, Proletariat, is I don't believe the Combat Status review panels meet the standards I described.


They've caught tens of thousands of these people over there, and only about 500 are still held in Gauntanamo. You really think the CSRPs haven't weeded out just about all but the worst of the worst? Skepticism is healthy, but this doesn't seem like a real problem to me.



And it might have been nice if it hadn't taken a supreme court ruling before they were established.

I agree.

[Franconicus]

I think the attack on Iraq was illegal because it didnt have UN´s support.But if would criticize US,i wouldn´t focus on Gitmo.I would focus on that what is happening in prisons in Iraq. :bow:
Let us not discuss if the war is illegal. Just why was it not declared. I may be a bit oldfashioned. But the US would have had no disadvantage. Everybody new they would attack. It was no surprise to Saddam.

[|OCS|Virus]

I agree with everything said in the article accept this piece:
He or she is government property
That statement is not true, they are people they are just in custody now. The compairison between our soldiers training and how we treat prisoners is a weak argument, although the point is taken. Besides our training is what makes us the best armed force in the known world. When your a prisoner, you should be expecting to be treated badly I mean our american prisoners {in america} are treated worse than these guys. At least they don't have a "Buba" there that is going to break your legs then saudamise you. They got it easy, and anyone who sais otherwise had better have a really good reason for doing so.

[Kagemusha]

Let us not discuss if the war is illegal. Just why was it not declared. I may be a bit oldfashioned. But the US would have had no disadvantage. Everybody new they would attack. It was no surprise to Saddam.

I think its strance too.But far as i can remember there were not a formal peace treaty after the First Gulf War.or was there? :bow:

[Proletariat]

Tensions between Iraq and the US continued as ceasefire agreements were violated and UN weapons inspectors prevented from doing their job.

There was a ceasefire predicated on Iraq's obediance with the UN resolution.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/28/newsid_2515000/2515289.stm)

[Kagemusha]

Yes.you are right. :bow:

[Proletariat]

Of course they went as far as firing upon US and I think maybe British planes, yet some still think this is an illegal war.

[Hurin_Rules]

I bet those slaves in the USA before the civil war had it great too. They got to work outside, smiling in the fields, pickin' cotton all day long, and they didn't have to worry about a single thing because their master took care of them. They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure, so everything must have been great for them. What a life! I wish I was a black slave in the early 1800's, that would be so great. I'm sure it was a dream, or, as Cheney said about the Gitmo detainees, 'they're living in the tropics' and have everthing a person could possibly want. So torture must be ok, since US soldiers live where there is worse weather and have a hard task at their voluntary basic training camps.

It all makes sense to me now.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So torture must be ok,

What torture?


They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure,

Only the name of the antagonist is different. Hey they didnt whip us in bootcamp. Trying to compare Gitmo with conditions on a slave plantation is as bad as Dick Durbin comparing it to a Soviet Gulag. Shame on you.

[Steppe Merc]

Actually, that's also a very old method of indoctrinating people. Treat them like dirt, force them to endure bad conditions, and then tell them how very tough and elite they are. Only the best can do what they've done, and now they're fine enough to stay in the best army there ever was. Everyone wants to feel special.
I suppose, especially since the soldiers don't have years of training. The best soldiers were ones that were forced into harshness by their enviornment, but years of training could also sufice, though not as well. But if you only have a certaint amount of time, it makes a bit of twisted sense to make it as harsh as possible.


I didnt volunter to be tortured but to serve my country. You dont imagine the stuff they do to you in basic or most wouldnt even go there. Besides that most peole were drafted when I was in. What do you say to those who were drafted then?
That is the government's fault, they are to blame for forcing people to go into the army, and it is their fault when those people suffer and die.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That is the government's fault, they are to blame for forcing people to go into the army, and it is their fault when those people suffer and die.

So what would you have done in WW2?

[Steppe Merc]

Perhaps it was necassary, I don' know enough about how many volenteers there were. But regardless, it is the government's responsibility and fault, even if it was neccassary.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Perhaps it was necassary, I don' know enough about how many volenteers there were. But regardless, it is the government's responsibility and fault, even if it was neccassary.

Obviously there werent enough. So what do you do if attacked then? Just let the otherside win?

[Steppe Merc]

I don't know. Hopefully people would volenteer if their own home was attacked. But whenever there is a draft, it is stil at the government's feet when one of the draftees is harmed. They forced them to be there, and it is still their responsibility, even if it was the lesser evil.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But whenever there is a draft, it is stil at the government's feet when one of the draftees is harmed. They forced them to be there, and it is still their responsibility, even if it was the lesser evil.

Fine and dandy but just like the democratic party you have no better alternative plan. You just complain.

[Redleg]

I think its strance too.But far as i can remember there were not a formal peace treaty after the First Gulf War.or was there? :bow:

No peace treaty - a cease fire that was signed by British and American Generals along with Iraq Generals. Along with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia representives.

I should know since I pulled security on the site where the cease fire was signed.

THe United Nations Resolution came after the cease fire signed by the three nations.

[Kagemusha]

No peace treaty - a cease fire that was signed by British and American Generals along with Iraq Generals. Along with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia representives.

I should know since I pulled security on the site where the cease fire was signed.

THe United Nations Resolution came after the cease fire signed by the three nations.

Thats what i call first hand information. ~:cheers:

[PanzerJaeger]

I bet those slaves in the USA before the civil war had it great too. They got to work outside, smiling in the fields, pickin' cotton all day long, and they didn't have to worry about a single thing because their master took care of them. They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure, so everything must have been great for them. What a life! I wish I was a black slave in the early 1800's, that would be so great. I'm sure it was a dream, or, as Cheney said about the Gitmo detainees, 'they're living in the tropics' and have everthing a person could possibly want. So torture must be ok, since US soldiers live where there is worse weather and have a hard task at their voluntary basic training camps.

Wow - bringing up slavery to bash the US.. cheapness knows no bounds! :no:

[Hurin_Rules]

Wow - bringing up slavery to bash the US.. cheapness knows no bounds! :no:

Wow - comparing torture of prisoners to hazing at boot camp... the ludicrous analogies know no bounds! :no:

[PanzerJaeger]

I know! The terrorists have it much easier. ~;)

[Goofball]

Okay, let's talk about the hardships of military training. In Canada, we do ten weeks of basic training and it's the same for everybody regardless of which branch of service or which trade the individual has chosen. Future airframe technicians, cooks, artillerymen, and musicians are all sent (at least when I did it) to scenic Cornwallis, Nova Scotia to learn how to salute, shine shoes, perform first aid, carry a rifle, and get yelled at a lot. I began my basic training in November, so I got to deal with a lovely Nova Scotia winter (alternately hail/sleet/snow on a daily basis). Our instructors used to think it was great fun to have us form up to be marched to breakfast without raingear, then make us stand at attention in the freezing rain for twenty minutes or so before they finally "remembered" we were outside.

After basic, individuals are separated out into their various trades and sent on for further training. For infantry (which I was doing), you were sent to one of three regimental battle schools for 16 weeks of fun. In my case, I was sent to lovely Wainwright, Alberta. I got the best of both worlds. Because my course started in late January and ran until May, I got to experience Wainwright in all its glory. First I got the winter wonderland version, with temperatures around -20 C, then we got late spring weather, where on some days it was 30C. Ah yes, fond memories: everything from bloody, frozen fingers trying to clear stoppages on the C6 machine gun, to actually going blind from dehydration for a short period at the end of a 5km endurance run through soft sand on a hot day carrying a full combat load.

Where am I going with this?

Silly as I am, I actually volunteered for all of that idiocy.

The Gitmo "customers" did not.

They have been given no due process, and are being held without evidence or charge.

You righties can accuse us lefties of coddling "terrorists" all you want, but until you offer any kind of proof (other than "they have brown skin, have read the Koran, and were in Afghanistan") that the Gitmo detainees are terrorists, you are only imprisoning innocent people.

[PanzerJaeger]

You righties can accuse us lefties of coddling "terrorists" all you want, but until you offer any kind of proof (other than "they have brown skin, have read the Koran, and were in Afghanistan") that the Gitmo detainees are terrorists, you are only imprisoning innocent people.

It is perfectly acceptable to hold enemy combatants during a time of war. Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial? The theater, the endless appeals, it would be a nightmare.

[Proletariat]

They have been given no due process, and are being held without evidence or charge.


CSI: Basra.

[Papewaio]

Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial?

Can you imagine the PR victory justice for all, all men are created equal regardless of race or creed would win if you actually walked the talk?

I thought the war in Afghanistan was won. I also thought the war in Iraq was done.

Another facet of justice is that it is timely and seen to be done. Picking and choosing when, who and how to apply justice is an oxymoron.

[Goofball]

CSI: Basra.

I'm trying to see any relevance of that comment to this thread. Wait! Got it:

None.


It is perfectly acceptable to hold enemy combatants during a time of war.

You haven't even proved that all of them are even enemy combatants, let alone terrorists. And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.


Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial? The theater, the endless appeals, it would be a nightmare.

Are you honestly suggesting that people should be held without trial forever because it would be "inconvenient" if they were put on trial?

Here's a newsflash for you:

The U.S. government is already losing the public relations battle vis-à-vis Gitmo quite badly. The best way for them to win it is to put these people on trial and prove their guilt in public.

[Proletariat]

I'm trying to see any relevance of that comment to this thread. Wait! Got it:

None.


Don't try to be cute. You aren't very good at it.

Are you implying these prisoners should all be treated to Criminal Trials?

[PanzerJaeger]

You haven't even proved that all of them are even enemy combatants, let alone terrorists.

How do you expect us to prove that? Should we have a CSI:Basra trapsing around Afghanistan trying to find prove that the people we picked up shooting at us were shooting at us?

You're putting civilian expectations on a military situation. The two do not equate.


And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.

Hehe, i love it. Anytime we on the right say something positive about Afghanistan you talk about how the Taliban is coming back and how the country isnt under the control of the government. Now when the argument is about giving these detainees the same rights as US citizens, the war is won!


Are you honestly suggesting that people should be held without trial forever because it would be "inconvenient" if they were put on trial?

Is that what I said?


The U.S. government is already losing the public relations battle vis-à-vis Gitmo quite badly.

Really? Have you seen any recent public opinion polls about Gitmo? ~:confused:


The best way for them to win it is to put these people on trial and prove their guilt in public.

That is where CSI: Basra comes into play. Do you expect us to pull valuable special forces off the line to testify? Do you expect us to have fingerprint analysis on their AKs? Do you expect us to fly Afghanis in to America to give expert opinions?

The reality is that our war with islamic extremists is far from over and a continuous string of show trials would do nothing but cause more trouble for America.

Do you honestly think the leftists and the anti-americans would give a fair spin on the trials? Do you think the ACLU would give the military the benefit of the doubt?

[Goofball]

Don't try to be cute. You aren't very good at it.

You've obviously never seen my Ricky Martin impersonation.


Are you implying these prisoners should all be treated to Criminal Trials?

Yes, if the U.S. government is implying they are criminals. What are they? Enemy combatants or terrorists? If they are enemy combatants, fine, you have to let the go now, because the war is over. If they are terrorists, then they are criminals, and should be put on trial. But just holding them forever is not an option, whether they are suspected enemy combatants or suspected terrorists.


How do you expect us to prove that? Should we have a CSI:Basra trapsing around Afghanistan trying to find prove that the people we picked up shooting at us were shooting at us?

You're putting civilian expectations on a military situation. The two do not equate.

Please see above.



And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.Hehe, i love it. Anytime we on the right say something positive about Afghanistan you talk about how the Taliban is coming back and how the country isnt under the control of the government. Now when the argument is about giving these detainees the same rights as US citizens, the war is won!

Apparently quotation marks were not sufficient to point out the irony of the word "over" in my previous post. I guess I should have put one of these ~:rolleyes: after it as well. It is the U.S. government that is trying to have its cake and eat it too on this one. You righties are always talking about how the war in Afghanistan (which I personally supported, for the record) has been won. If that is the case, then you must release the prisoners taken in that war.

So, which is it? Have you not really won the war yet, which means you are fibbing about how good things are over there but can justifiably hold the detainees at Gitmo for longer, or is the war really over and you are now holding these people illegally?

*starts humming theme to Jeopardy*

Well, which is it?

[Papewaio]

Can the US military legally hold non-POWs for an indefinite period without recourse to a trial?

If so no problem on a legal level.

The issue becomes that Gitmo as it is referred to is a PR blackeye and eats away at the value of the moral high ground. If anything it makes the moral high ground look like a marketing blurb and the fine print is 'Warranty not valid outside of the following areas: USA'.

Equal rights is only true when it is equally applied to friend and foe. Integrity is when action and word is one. To do otherwise is mere marketing.

If your laws will not give you the ability to hold them in your territories, change the law, don't make a special zone. Be upfront with what you are doing. If you are doing the right thing then do it in the open. From the PR side it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck.

[Proletariat]

Yes, if the U.S. government is implying they are criminals. What are they? Enemy combatants or terrorists?


You're implying they should recieve due process, not the US Gov.



If they are enemy combatants, fine, you have to let the go now, because the war is over. If they are terrorists, then they are criminals, and should be put on trial.


Huh? The war on terror is over? I must've slept through the parade.

And why should they be given an appeal through a civilian court? They are combatants, not criminal defendants.

I think you're confusing court martials with military tribunals. Hell, even the Geneva Conventions don't afford detainees the right to an appeal through civilian courts (not that these folks are afforded protection under the GC).

[Kagemusha]

Why wont US just give in and regognice the authority of the Military tribunate of Haque.Then we all could be happy about it. :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can the US military legally hold non-POWs for an indefinite period without recourse to a trial?

If so no problem on a legal level.

According to the Geneva convention the answer is yes. That about sums it up. All thats left is a humanitarian consideration. Again we could have killed them long ago and treat them better than they deserve.

[Papewaio]

According to the Geneva convention the answer is yes. That about sums it up. All thats left is a humanitarian consideration. Again we could have killed them long ago and treat them better than they deserve.

Considering a number have already been released, it seems that the people at Gitmo are not 100% worthy of this treatment and death.

Iff they are guilty it maybe better treatment then they deserve to live for them, it would be worse treatment to yourself to kill them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Considering a number have already been released, it seems that the people at Gitmo are not 100% worthy of this treatment and death.

I didnt say they were all worthy of that treatment however according to the law we could have killed them . Once more their lucky to be alive.


Iff they are guilty it maybe better treatment then they deserve to live for them, it would be worse treatment to yourself to kill them.

Im against the death penalty.

[Papewaio]

Likewise I don't believe in the death penalty, I do believe in harsh sentences.

So if they are terrorists who claim to be Muslims then I would make them pig herders for the rest of their days. Harsh but fitting.

[Proletariat]

The Gitmo detainees eat better than I do:

www.house.gov/hasc/pressr...O-menu.pdf (http://www.house.gov/hasc/pressreleases/2005/GTMO-menu.pdf)

I wonder if the Marines in Fallujah are as well taken care of.

[Goofball]

The Gitmo detainees eat better than I do:

www.house.gov/hasc/pressr...O-menu.pdf (http://www.house.gov/hasc/pressreleases/2005/GTMO-menu.pdf)

I wonder if the Marines in Fallujah are as well taken care of.

One more time:

Marines in Fallujah = volunteers

Detainees in Gitmo = held illegally against their will

And at any rate, it's very easy to release a menu to the press to show how humane you are. It's another thing altogether to deliver on that humanity.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Detainees in Gitmo = held illegally against their will
One more time
You cant back that up.

[Hurin_Rules]

One more time
You cant back that up.

Against their will? That's obvious.

Illegally? Certainly in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate that fair and competent tribunals must be held to determine the status of prisoners taken in a war if there is any doubt about said status. This applies to militia forces such as the Taleban, just as it would apply to American militia forces. Illegally according to US law? Most likely. The supreme court has ruled that the prisoners have the right to challenge their detention, even thoughthe Bush administration initially denied them this right, and the cases are making their way throught the courts.

So yes, both illegally and against their will.

[Proletariat]

Illegally? Certainly in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate that fair and competent tribunals must be held to determine the status of prisoners taken in a war if there is any doubt about said status.

1) It doesn't apply to combatants not in uniform.

2) If it did, they could be executed for being spies.

I'm pretty sure this was already stated in this thread.

[Papewaio]

Does the Geneva Convention apply to a party if the other party has already broken faith with it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does the Geneva Convention apply to a party if the other party has already broken faith with it?

These guys never signed it in the first place. Their not an army or attached to an army. Their forigen fighters in a forign war breaking almost every rule of the Geneva Convention. Again according to the Convention they could have been executed as spies or sabatoers.

[Papewaio]

Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).

To tell the truth and I believe Pindar has explained this no one is bond by the convention. It is to me more like a curtesy. The whole reason nations sign these things is to protect their own troops if captured. Its not out of some noble concern for the enemy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If given a choice between going to gitmo and joining the army, which would you choose?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gitmo ~;)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Fair enough. Not me.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Fair enough. Not me.

Well maybe the army but certainly not the Marines ~;) I know at my age I couldnt make it through bootcamp again. Id rather retire to gitmo. Have you seen the menu and the soccer field or the day room with all the chess sets. I saw the cells last night and even the high security ones wwere nicer than any Ive been in. ~:)

[Franconicus]

These guys never signed it in the first place. Their not an army or attached to an army. Their forigen fighters in a forign war breaking almost every rule of the Geneva Convention. Again according to the Convention they could have been executed as spies or sabatoers.
Gawain,
I know this may not be the right thread and this all has been discussed before. But I still do not understand it and I do not want to starta new thread (who knows what would happen there - sigh!)
If memory serves the situation in Afgansistan was:
- Taliban was ruling; Talibans included a lot of foreigners that once came to fight the Soviets; I am not sure if the Taliban was really a regular army but I guess it is a fact that they ruled.
- There was Al Kaida with all their training camps
- There were also warlords that controlled parts of the country and were more or less allied with the Taliban
If I am right all three kinds of groups fought against the US and their allies.

When the US attacked was there a declaration of war?
Most of the ground units were warlords as well, so more rebels than a regular army. And there were special forces of the US. And if memory serves there were even undercover platoons.

Which one of these forces would you call illegal combatants? In my opinion you could do this with every group except the US special forces.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Which one of these forces would you call illegal combatants? In my opinion you could do this with every group except the US special forces.

Any who dont meet this criteria


Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

A combatant who has surrendered or been captured becomes a prisoner of war (POW).

If there is any doubt as to whether the person is a lawful combatant they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue. Combatants who may be deemed to be unlawful combatants include, spies, mercenaries, members of militias not under the command of the armed forces who do not fit into the categories specified above, and those who have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).

Most unlawful combatants qualify for protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) until they have had a "fair and regular trial". Once found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was the Mercenary trial in Angola in June, 1976.


For those countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I) the definition of lawful combatant is altered by

Article 44 .3
...Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly::

( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.



Everyone else is an Illegal combatant like those in Gitmo.

[Spetulhu]

Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).

How can anyone complain about the other side breaking the convention and then turn around and do the same thing? If one side breaks it and the other one follows, how can they then use the convention as justification for anything? Does it really matter who did it first if both sides throw it out?

[Hurin_Rules]

In what sense do the Taleban militia of Afghanistan not fit these definitions?

[Hurin_Rules]

Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).

In short, yes, they do have to abide by it. They have signed the agreement to abide by the terms. It is essentially them saying, there are certain basic human rights we will afford to everyone.

[Franconicus]

Article 44 .3
...Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly::

( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Let me summarize:
Every AQ and Taliban fighter is not illegal as long as he carried his weapons openly? And every illegal fighter did hidden attacks?
So - in Gitmo there are no AQ and Talibans who carried the weapons openly!
What happened to them, if the US had arrested them? Are they free now or in a POW camp? Why did the US not shoot all the others after a short military trial? I guess Germany would have!

[Proletariat]

It is essentially them saying, there are certain basic human rights we will afford to everyone.


...huh? It's an agreement between two signatory parties. Not a treaty with 'everyone in existence.'

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Every AQ and Taliban fighter is not illegal as long as he carried his weapons openly? And every illegal fighter did hidden attacks?
So - in Gitmo there are no AQ and Talibans who carried the weapons openly!

Nice try. They have to have always carried their weapons openly, never have attacked civilians, never have carried out hidden attacks and otherwise followed all the other rules of war. You cant just greab a gun surrender and say you carried your weapons openly. Im sure all those there are believed to have done something that qualifies them as illegal combatants. As much as everyone bitches all these people were vetted by a military tribunal and thats why their there. They didnt just pick them out of a hat.

[Franconicus]

Im sure all those there are believed to have done something that qualifies them as illegal combatants.
Of course I respect your believe. But I'd prefer the decition of a judge.
But lets assume all the prisoners in Gitmo are illegal. Then I have to revise my opinion; it is not bad, it is stupid. You should have killed them all!
But again, what happened to the AQs that fought openly.

P.S.: All the time I see a video of Bin Ladn he is carrying a gun. I guess he is afraid to be called illegal combatant :rifle: .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Of course I respect your believe. But I'd prefer the decition of a judge.

Were talking legality here not what you would prefer. Accorrding to the Geneva convention they are not entitled to a trial in a US court as you say.


But lets assume all the prisoners in Gitmo are illegal. Then I have to revise my opinion; it is not bad, it is stupid. You should have killed them all!


But again, what happened to the AQs that fought openly.

AQ is a terrorist organization. Again just because you have a gun in your hand when captured doesnt mean you fit that criteria. They are not a militia, have no insignia and attack civilians as a way of life. They meet few if any of the criteria.


P.S.: All the time I see a video of Bin Ladn he is carrying a gun. I guess he is afraid to be called illegal combatant

Read the above.

[Franconicus]

[QUOTE=Gawain of Orkeny]
AQ is a terrorist organization. Again just because you have a gun in your hand when captured doesnt mean you fit that criteria. They are not a militia, have no insignia and attack civilians as a way of life. They meet few if any of the criteria.[QUOTE]
So if one was trained in an AQ camp when the US attacked and he fought the US with a gun in his hand, being too busy to attack any civilists at that time, then he would be a POW and a criminal; but he would not be send to Gitmo, right?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So if one was trained in an AQ camp when the US attacked and he fought the US with a gun in his hand, being too busy to attack any civilists at that time, then he would be a POW and a criminal; but he would not be send to Gitmo, right?

That would be up to the tribunal. They could probably classify him as a member of AQ and that could be enough to put him there. I dont have the details on each and everycase nor does anyone outside of US inteligence. Again a tribunal reviewed them and assigned them to Gitmo.

[English assassin]

I dont have the details on each and everycase nor does anyone outside of US inteligence.

Bingo. There's your problem, brilliantly exposed in one sentence.

Would you say, in light of their track record in recent years, that US (or UK) Intelligence was exactly a RELIABLE agency? :no:

Of course, we'll never know will we. Thats the beauty of being a spook, you can be wholly incompetent and its contrary to national security for anyone to find out.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Bingo. There's your problem, brilliantly exposed in one sentence.

The Geneva convention doesnt require us to share that information with anyone. It requires they go begore a military tribunal which was done. The problem once more is that we didnt kill them in the first place.


Would you say, in light of their track record in recent years, that US (or UK) Intelligence was exactly a RELIABLE agency?

AS I said they were vetted there by a military tribunal not the CIA or US inteligence.


Of course, we'll never know will we. Thats the beauty of being a spook, you can be wholly incompetent and its contrary to national security for anyone to find out.

Do you have any idea of how many things that applies too?

[Hurin_Rules]

The Geneva convention doesnt require us to share that information with anyone. It requires they go begore a military tribunal which was done.


No, it says a fair and competent tribunal. The tribunals at Gitmo most definitely do not meet that standard. The lawyers originally appointed to the detainees were fired when they pointed out that the tribunals were inherently unfair. One of the 'judges' admitted he had never read the Geneva Conventions. There is no standard procedure here, and not even an attempt to give the defendents a chance to see all the evidence against them. They are kangaroo courts in the truest sense of the word, and everyone knows it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Werent ther tribunals before they went to Gitmo?


No, it says a fair and competent tribunal.

According to who? Thats a very general statement. Do the Taliban and AQ have any fair and competent tribunals to try those they capture? How can you expect ! side to follow the conventions past where its required while allowing the otherside to ignore them totally. This is real war not MTW. Peoples lives are at stake here. None of the people there are nice guys. If all of them being locked up stops 1 attack on the US its worth it in my book. Once more their licky to be alive and treated as well as they are. Ive been in jail and I can garuntee these have it better. That aint right.

[Hurin_Rules]

According to who? Thats a very general statement. Do the Taliban and AQ have any fair and competent tribunals to try those they capture? How can you expect ! side to follow the conventions past where its required while allowing the otherside to ignore them totally. This is real war not MTW. Peoples lives are at stake here. None of the people there are nice guys. If all of them being locked up stops 1 attack on the US its worth it in my book. Once more their licky to be alive and treated as well as they are. Ive been in jail and I can garuntee these have it better. That aint right.

I can't figure out which argument you're trying to make here.

Is it that the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Land Warfare do not require a tribunal? I can easily demonstrate that is false if you like.

Or are you arguing that since Al Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, the USA is not obligated to respect its own treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Or is it that America can violate human rights, abduct other nations' citizens and torture all it wants so long as it helps America?

Or is it that 'none of the people there are nice guys'? Have you met any of them? Are you sure that none of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that none of them were handed over by the Northern Alliance because they got bounties from the USA for doing so? How do you know all these things, when you've seen no evidence regarding any of their cases?

[Franconicus]

Do the Taliban and AQ have any fair and competent tribunals to try those they capture? How can you expect ! side to follow the conventions past where its required while allowing the otherside to ignore them totally. This is real war not MTW. Peoples lives are at stake here. None of the people there are nice guys.
Because I thought this was good against bad. The good ones always have to follow the rules, the bad ones do not.

If all of them being locked up stops 1 attack on the US its worth it in my book. Once more their licky to be alive and treated as well as they are. Ive been in jail and I can garuntee these have it better. That aint right.
Sorry, I cannot follow your reasoning.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is it that the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Land Warfare do not require a tribunal? I can easily demonstrate that is false if you like.

I said they had a tribunal .


Or is it that America can violate human rights, abduct other nations' citizens and torture all it wants so long as it helps America?

Ive seen no evidence of that either.


Or are you arguing that since Al Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, the USA is not obligated to respect its own treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Again merely accusations and opinions.


Or is it that 'none of the people there are nice guys'? Have you met any of them? Are you sure that none of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that none of them were handed over by the Northern Alliance because they got bounties from the USA for doing so? How do you know all these things, when you've seen no evidence regarding any of their cases?

And how do you know their innocent. War is hell and its ugly. This isnt a game. There are times one has to put faith in ones government.

Because I thought this was good against bad. The good ones always have to follow the rules, the bad ones do not.

Youve failed to show we are not following the rules but is there any doubt the enemy has no rules? Live in the real world please. Again their treated better than many prisoners in US jails that did nothing more wrong than sell some pot. This is much to do about nothing.

[Franconicus]

Thanks! I think I understand the way the US government argues.
I do not think that it is honest.
Panzer says that in this critical situation the US cannot be considerate of the rights of potential terrorists. That is honest for me!

[Redleg]

I can't figure out which argument you're trying to make here.

Let me see if I can make it clear.



Is it that the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Land Warfare do not require a tribunal? I can easily demonstrate that is false if you like.


That is not what he stated - a Tribunal has been held. Some question the validity of the tribunals that have been held - but no one has shown that they tribunals are not legimate in the basic priniciple of the thing. This might be because the United States Military and the United States Government refuses to allow an impartial investigation into the tribunals - or because of how some would like to read the Geneva Conventions and ignore the Hague Conventions of 1907 in their reasoning.

THe Tribunal does not have to be one established by a Courts Maritial - it can consist soley of officers of the military making a ruling based upon the evidence they have.



Or are you arguing that since Al Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, the USA is not obligated to respect its own treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Al Qaeda has violated all aspects of the Hague Convention of 1907 - and in warfare they have removed themselves from the protection of that convention which is the basis of the Geneva Conventions. They have no protections under the Geneva Conventions once a Tribunal has determined their statuse. A tribunal has met and determined the status of the AQ and Taliban fighters captured in Afganstan - and that tribunal in Afganstan decided that these individual needed to be sent to GITMO - followed by another tribunal at Gitmo. (All from reading different reports - not first hand accounts).

Now one could safely argue that once its determined that the individual does not fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions ie has to be treated as a POW (and POW status means the nation can hold the individual until the end of hostilities or a parole is given) - that it becomes a criminal manner and the individual should be tried under the trail procedures and rules of the nation in which they were captured in - or by the nation which captured them.

THe Geneva Conventions states which one - but I don't remember the actual wording of that paragraph.



Or is it that America can violate human rights, abduct other nations' citizens and torture all it wants so long as it helps America?

The answer to this is no - however show where an individual has been abducted by the United States. Most of the individuals that I would say should not be held at Gitmo from outside Afganstan and now Iraq were handed over by other countries. Others sent to other locations by the United States - like the Canadian citizen were sent when that nation did not want to take the individual back under the conditions that the United States would of liked them to.


Or is it that 'none of the people there are nice guys'? Have you met any of them? Are you sure that none of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that none of them were handed over by the Northern Alliance because they got bounties from the USA for doing so? How do you know all these things, when you've seen no evidence regarding any of their cases?

And neither have you - so neither of you are speaking from first hand experience now? Accusing one person of such a thing - when you yourself are guilty of it - how wonderful.

[Hurin_Rules]

And how do you know their innocent. War is hell and its ugly. This isnt a game. There are times one has to put faith in ones government.




And neither have you - so neither of you are speaking from first hand experience now? Accusing one person of such a thing - when you yourself are guilty of it - how wonderful.


Woah here boys--both of you have misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying they are innocent--just that we can't presume they are guilty without a single shred of evidence. You are both assuming they are guilty; I am simply pointing out that has yet to be determined.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Woah here boys--both of you have misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying they are innocent--just that we can't presume they are guilty without a single shred of evidence.

How do you know theres not a single shred of evidence? And do you really believe that we are holding these people without good reason? Again just because we are not privy to it doesnt mean theres no evidence. Im sure theres plenty. This is where we dissagree it seems.


I am simply pointing out that has yet to be determined.

The tribunals have determined theres enough evidence on these people to hold them. That much has been determined.

What happened to all your legal arguments?

[Hurin_Rules]

That is not what he stated - a Tribunal has been held. Some question the validity of the tribunals that have been held - but no one has shown that they tribunals are not legimate in the basic priniciple of the thing. This might be because the United States Military and the United States Government refuses to allow an impartial investigation into the tribunals - or because of how some would like to read the Geneva Conventions and ignore the Hague Conventions of 1907 in their reasoning.


C'mon Redleg, you know I'm not objecting to the basic principle of the tribunal; that is a straw man. You know I'm objecting to the process, and I think you would object to it as well. It is not regular--the rules are being made up for it as we speak. Only some detainees--from allied nations to whom the US government is showing favoritism--get lawyers; others just get advisors who haven't even been to law school. The American Bar Association and the military lawyers in the US have criticized the process. The lawyers originally assigned to some detainees were fired when they complained the process was inherently unfair. The 'judges' have little to no legal training; one admitted he had no knowledge of the Geneva Conventions! You're defending this?




The answer to this is no - however show where an individual has been abducted by the United States. Most of the individuals that I would say should not be held at Gitmo from outside Afganstan and now Iraq were handed over by other countries. Others sent to other locations by the United States - like the Canadian citizen were sent when that nation did not want to take the individual back under the conditions that the United States would of liked them to.



Ive seen no evidence of that either.

Neither of you have heard of 'extraordinary renditions'? Its all over the news. Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400484_pf.html

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:UXhwAL_dIUsJ:www.commondreams.org/news2005/0628-22.htm+italy+13+extraordinary+renditions&hl=en

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/courtwatch/main674973.shtml

I won't even go into ghost detainees, the cases of abductions in Sweden, Romania, etc., because the US has actually defended this practice openly. The evidence is at your fingertips gentlemen.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey have you heard this one?


US suspected of keeping secret prisoners on warships: UN official

I AM

I AM SEEKING

With photo

AFP Photo

The UN has learned of "very, very serious" allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism said.

While the accusations were rumours, rapporteur Manfred Nowak said the situation was sufficiently serious to merit an official inquiry.

"There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships," the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region.

"They are only rumours, but they appear sufficiently well-based to merit an official inquiry," he added.

Last Thursday Nowak and three other UN human rights experts said they were opening an inquiry into the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Washington has been holding more than 500 people without trial, and into other such locations.

The United States has neither refused nor granted requests by Nowak's group to visit Guantanamo.

"We have accepted, upon the request of the State Department and Pentagon, to limit our investigation for now to Guantanamo, but even in accepting this we have not had a positive response" to the request for a visit, Nowak said.

He said that if the "investigation into Guantanamo leads us to other things, we will follow them. We will bring up all these matters to the US government and expect Washington to say officially where these camps are."

The use of prison ships would allow investigators to interrogate people secretly and in international waters out of the reach of US law, British security expert Francis Tusa said.

"This opens the door to very tough interrogations on key prisoners before it even has been revealed that they have been captured," said Tusa, an editor for the British magazine Jane's Intelligence Review.

Nowak said the prison ships would not be "floating Guantanamos" since "they are much smaller, holding less than a dozen detainees."

Tusa said the Americans may also be using their island base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean as a site for prisoners.

Some 520 people suspected of terrorism are currently being held without trial at Guantanamo and others are in camps the United States has refused to acknowledge, the human rights organization Amnesty International has said.

The United States has said that prisoners considered foreign combattants in its "war on terrorism" are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Again theres no proof that anyone at Gitmo was abducted from another country.

[Redleg]

C'mon Redleg, you know I'm not objecting to the basic principle of the tribunal; that is a straw man. You know I'm objecting to the process, and I think you would object to it as well. It is not regular--the rules are being made up for it as we speak. Only some detainees--from allied nations to whom the US government is showing favoritism--get lawyers; others just get advisors who haven't even been to law school. The American Bar Association and the military lawyers in the US have criticized the process. The lawyers originally assigned to some detainees were fired when they complained the process was inherently unfair. The 'judges' have little to no legal training; one admitted he had no knowledge of the Geneva Conventions! You're defending this?

Then I confused your arguement because you seem to be stating that no valid tribunal has been held because some question it. Well the validaty or not of the tribunals are unknown to us are they not? Careful of stating its a strawman arguement - because it seems that you yourself are guilty of that.

Criticism does not make the process invalid or wrong, it just means its not prefect.

I was a judge on two military trails - and I did not have any previous legal training. However I did have a JAG representive that I could ask questions of concerning court procedures. Military Tribunals do not necessary mean that the individuals sitting on the court have legal training. So sure I will defend it since I sent an individual to prision under the same regulations these tribunals are established under - the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And frankly we don't know the facts - we only know what is reported and what we ourselves have experienced. You believe its completely wrong, and I believe that the officers that are involved are attempting to do the best they can under the guidelines of the UCMJ that they must follow.

Now on the lawyers being fired because they questioned the process - could it be that is only there side of the arguement. Since I haven't seen a report stating why lawyers have been fired - stating all the reasons in an impartial investigation - I am not sure if they were fired for what they stated - or that there might be other reasons.




Neither of you have heard of 'extraordinary renditions'? Its all over the news. Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400484_pf.html


A news story without actual proof because it has not been brought on trail. Its an allegation - and you attack the United States for making such allegations about individuals who might or might not be terrorist, like the individual from Canada who the Canadians refused to take back. But seem to accept it at face value when its saying the United States did it, however did you notice this little statement or did it escape your notice.

Scheuer, who supervised the CIA's special unit dedicated to tracking down Osama bin Laden and started the agency's rendition program, said he doubted that the CIA was involved in Nasr's disappearance. "The agency might be sloppy, but not that sloppy," he said. "There is no way they would sanction a kidnapping on Italian soil."

So who did it there Hurin the article contradicts the facts in several instances.





http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:UXhwAL_dIUsJ:www.commondreams.org/news2005/0628-22.htm+italy+13+extraordinary+renditions&hl=en


This article does not truely cover your point at all - but talks about sending prisoners to other countries who might or might not torture their prisoners, nor does it state that the countries they would be sent to are their home country of record from such documents as the individual's passport.

Hundreds of detainees held by the U.S. government remain at risk of being sent to countries known for their systematic use of torture, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice charged in a new report released today. The report, Beyond Guantánamo: Transfers to Torture One Year After Rasul v. Bush, reveals that the Administration continues to employ strategies that keep “War on Terror” detainees outside the ambit of the U.S. legal system.

It goes to mention the same Italy case as your first article. Not much of a proof of a systemic problem.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/courtwatch/main674973.shtml

Covers the same subject a little better then the previous two. However it once again fails to mention that the Canadian Citizen in question was going to be returned to Canada if the Canadian government would try them on the evidence that the Canadian government provided to the United States which caused his detention in the first place. Not a balanced piece of reporting at all is it? It also doesn't mentioned that many of these individuals are returned to their orginial countries of orgin.



I won't even go into ghost detainees, the cases of abductions in Sweden, Romania, etc., because the US has actually defended this practice openly. The evidence is at your fingertips gentlemen.

Please do - why should I research your points for you. The evidence is not as clear cut as you would image.

[Redleg]

Hey have you heard this one?



Again theres no proof that anyone at Gitmo was abducted from another country.

That and the article forgot to mention Johnson Atoll in the middle of the Pacific

[Hurin_Rules]

Ok, let me get this straight: You guys are willing to believe:

1. Every single allegation against the detainees at Gitmo, despite the fact that you have seen absolutely no evidence and have no knowledge whatsoever about any of their cases.

1. Not a single allegation against the American military, despite the fact that many pieces of evidence are now in the public domain (the flight numbers and paths of the airplanes used to abduct people in other countries, testimony of detainees and witnesses, the homicides and deaths the US military has acknowledged at Bagram and Abu Ghraib), and that an Italian judge has reviewed the case and ruled that there is sufficient evidence for 13 arrest warrants?

Shouldn't your standards be the same for all?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ok, let me get this straight: You guys are willing to believe:

1. Every single allegation against the detainees at Gitmo, despite the fact that you have seen absolutely no evidence and have no knowledge whatsoever about any of their cases.

How can we when we dont know what those allegations are specificaly?


Not a single allegation against the American military, despite the fact that many pieces of evidence are now in the public domain (the flight numbers and paths of the airplanes used to abduct people in other countries, testimony of detainees and witnesses, the homicides and deaths the US military has acknowledged at Bagram and Abu Ghraib)

We never said that either. We know there have been abuses and they have been looked into and reported to death.



and that an Italian judge has reviewed the case and ruled that there is sufficient evidence for 13 arrest warrants?

AS Redleg sais so then are you saying these 13 are guilty? You seem all to ready to belive that yet doubt us.


Shouldn't your standards be the same for all?

They are. You are the one who wants the US to be held to higher standards than the rest of the world and especially terrorists.

[Redleg]

Ok, let me get this straight: You guys are willing to believe:

1. Every single allegation against the detainees at Gitmo, despite the fact that you have seen absolutely no evidence and have no knowledge whatsoever about any of their cases.

Well since the vast majority are from Afganstan and were captured fighting against United States forces - not as members of the Taliban. Then those individuals have absolutely no protections via the Geneva Conventions, and have recieved not only one tribunal - the first being the one in Afganstan that got them seperated from the others and sent to Gitmo - plus others. The question was not about every single allegation - but the purpose of Gitmo. Have there been a few abuses of sending individuals who should not have been sent to Gitmo - never said there was none - just that its not as systemic as you would like to believe.



1. Not a single allegation against the American military, despite the fact that many pieces of evidence are now in the public domain (the flight numbers and paths of the airplanes used to abduct people in other countries, testimony of detainees and witnesses, the homicides and deaths the US military has acknowledged at Bagram and Abu Ghraib), and that an Italian judge has reviewed the case and ruled that there is sufficient evidence for 13 arrest warrants?

Shouldn't your standards be the same for all?

Never stated that either. And now your using a strawman - because you are not applying your same standards to all either.

Your confusing my support of Gitmo as blind support, where its far from that. I support it because I do not see a better opition for individuals captured on the battlefield as illegal combatants. Because in all honesty the Hague Convention of 1907 state clearly that a summary court martial and a summary execution is what the capturing force can do to such combatants.