Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
Soulforged has addressed this, but if you are attempting a legal argument to justify a human rights claim then the above is incoherent. If you're not attempting a legal argument for any human rights claim then the U.N. is irrelevant.

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.
I think you are confused. I'll explain. If someone claims a human right, the claim alone is not enough. As mentioned before: if I claim a human right to disco, my claim carries no weight alone. If the U.N. declares I have a right to disco this also is insufficient for the reasons I explained in the previous post. So, if you wish to argue any human rights position and someone like me challenges or asked the wherefore of the claim, you need to justify that claim over and above simply saying it's universal or just is or some such.

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.
I think your passion is running away with you some.

What would you say if the Taliban won the war and made a camp like gitmo?
I would say the inmates would be in a far better situation than say what Daniel Pearl faced.


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.
Actually the very notion of a charge implies criminality. The word charge implies a breach of some sort. A captured combatant isn't charged from the capture alone.