Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
Hello HoreTore,

Your post is confused on several points. The U.N. does not have extra-territorial authority. This means what is ratified within the U.N. does not have the force of law. For example, if the U.N. ratified a resolution dissolving Norway as a country, Norway does not thereby cease to exist as a nation. Any legal overlay one may want to apply to the U.N. exists as a treaty. Under U.S. law treaties require ratification. There are two points here: one, I don't believe the U.S. has ever ratified the U.N.'s specific declaration of human rights. Two, the ratifying authority always trumps what it ratifies. What this second point means is whatever has force to bind a thing, can also loose that thing. This is why a nation may ratify a treaty and then later reject, or modify the same. This is important for your case as the U.S. Congress passed the Military Commissons Act (MCA) in 2006 (I've previously referred to this in the thread). If you wish to make a human rights legal argument contra the U.S. you need to look into the confines of U.S. law, not the U.N.

Note: several of your citations from the Declaration on Human Rights speak to criminality. That is a civil designation and does not apply to combatants in Guantanamo regardless.
No country in the world has ever ratified the UN declaration on human rights, as it doesn't need that. It is universal, and not only applies to every single state in the world, it also, and even more so, applies to EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET. You may argue that US law says otherwise, however, those in gitmo will still have the protection of the human rights. It's quite simply untouchable. It cannot be altered, it cannot be broken. Not in any case whatsoever.

It also have an authority in the human rights court(in haag or geneve?), but you're right there, that one requires ratification, and I believe the US has withdrawn from that. However, I wouldn't see that a sign that you're "off the hook", I would see that as a sign to grap a point stick and storm the white house to prevent massive crimes against humanity.

Also, you seem to only argue on the legal issue, and seem quite happy that your country is stomping on one of the most fundamental things in our world to prevent another Hitler? It doesn't bother you the slightest that you are breaking the human rights, if you twist it so that it does not apply to you? I wonder how you sleep at night. BTW, I see no reason at all why you should be upset when Al Qaida is chopping off heads, chrashing planes and cutting off limbs. You're happy that you are doing it yourself, so you should be happy when others do it to you.

What would you say if the Taliban won the war and made a camp like gitmo?

As for the criminal stuff, there is no hint at all that those rights are limited to criminal charges, they are applied to every field and situation. For example, when it states that noone is to be detained without being informed of his charges, that applies to guantanamo bay as well as your average joe robbing a gas station.