LOOK AT THIS ONE: Gitmo Poll

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The real issue with Gitmo is whether the US has any moral right to continue occupying that part of Cuba.

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

The real issue with Gitmo is whether the US has any moral right to continue occupying that part of Cuba.

"Moral right" and "Gitmo" in the same sentence makes me shake my head in disgust. The US is using "Gitmo" specifically to get around the question of "rights".

All of this debate about the GC and whether these prisoners where wearing the appropriate uniforms is all BS. The fact is that the US is using Gitmo, and the legal limbo it provides, so that they operate in the "grey" area and do what ever they want to the people imprisoned there.

All the legal mumbo jumbo aside, I believe that everyone that defends the existence of Gitmo, smiles on the inside with the knowledge that they are beating the system and beating the lawyers and beating the prisoners.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

That depends on whether the conditions you stated were actually fulfilled

Conditions b,c, and d were NOT filled. Therefore they are not legally considered EPWs/POWs, per the GC. That's what I was getting at. Yes the GC does give the benefit of a doubt to the prisoners, but since these detainees are not legally held under the GC, nothing in the GC applies to them. That should be agreed on. A sound argument here would be a moral-based one. The portion of the GC I pasted 100% proves that how they are held is indeed legal. However, is it morally correct? That's a better question to ask.

No, it proves nothing except that's what Bush/Rumsfeld claim. You have no independent evidence of anything, and neither does anyone else. No independent hearings have been held to investigate the validity of Bush's claims. Benefit of the doubt goes to the prisoners, not the captors.

The ICRC has already expressed an opinion that the US is in the wrong on this one, and the ICRC is specifically authorized under the GCs to make such a determination.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

US troops often don't meet those requirements. Would you be OK with indefinite imprisonment of US troops by, say, China?

We support every one of those. Please tell me how my buddies and I do not meet those requirements?

A. All of us are part of a command structure. I report to a superior, he reports to a superior, etc.

B. We wear uniforms, easily recognized.

C. We carry our weapons openly. They are not concealed under clothing.

D. We abide by the laws of war, ALWAYS.

So again, how do we not meet the above criteria?

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

All the legal mumbo jumbo aside, I believe that everyone that defends the existence of Gitmo, smiles on the inside with the knowledge that they are beating the system and beating the lawyers and beating the prisoners.

You are making dangerous assumptions. I do not condone the torture of human beigns, no matter what pieces of s**t they are. I support Gitmo because we need to detain dangerous men in this world. I also support interrogators being punished for wrong doings against prisoners. I expect humane and fair treatment of all prisoners. Yet, I still support Gitmo. But of course if you'd rather release men back into the world who would slit yours, your parents', and your dog's throats given the chance, then by all means, protest for their release. Now as for the ones who are there innocently, well then I hope they get the heck out of there real soon. It's a shame they're there for them, but for all the bad ones, I'm glad they're there.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

You have no independent evidence of anything

Well, I did just give you Article 4 of the Geneva Convention that provides evidence that the US can legally hold the detainees there because they do not legally fall under the Geneva Convention. But I guess it's not evidence unless it supports your side. I didn't just make that crap up, go look at it for yourself. You can argue with me, but you can't argue with hard fact, in this case, a direct copy of the Geneva Convention.

Quote

Benefit of the doubt goes to the prisoners, not the captors.

Legally, it does not. They are clearly not under the GC, thus they don't get benefit of the doubt. Is that morally right...that's up for debate. But it is absolutely legally right.

Quote

The ICRC has already expressed an opinion that the US is in the wrong on this one

Well who cares what their opinion is? They're not there, they have no idea. And secondly, this is America, we don't just let foreigners tell us what to do. No I'm not being a hardheaded maniac; do you think it's all good if your neighbor tells you how to live your life and what you're doing right and wrong. Would you honestly go through life doing everything to appease your neighbor? No, you would not. This is the exact same relationship with the US and ICRC, Amnesty International, etc. We can't just be pushed around by the opinions of our neighbors.

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

Quote

All the legal mumbo jumbo aside, I believe that everyone that defends the existence of Gitmo, smiles on the inside with the knowledge that they are beating the system and beating the lawyers and beating the prisoners.

You are making dangerous assumptions. I do not condone the torture of human beigns, no matter what pieces of s**t they are. I support Gitmo because we need to detain dangerous men in this world. I also support interrogators being punished for wrong doings against prisoners. I expect humane and fair treatment of all prisoners. Yet, I still support Gitmo. But of course if you'd rather release men back into the world who would slit yours, your parents', and your dog's throats given the chance, then by all means, protest for their release. Now as for the ones who are there innocently, well then I hope they get the heck out of there real soon. It's a shame they're there for them, but for all the bad ones, I'm glad they're there.

If the US allowed the full protection of the US Constitution and GC for these people I'd believe those that support Gitmo.

But instead the supporters of Gitmo hide allow this BS and chirp propaganda.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[ViperPilot 0]

Well several senators, including 6 democrats, and numerous journalists toured it a few days ago and were very impressed. Why are people so hell bent on labeling American soldiers and intelligence agency employees as terrible people? Is it so hard to believe that overall, most are good people? Sure there are the bad apples, and they have and will be delt with. Saying Gitmo is doing well, even with those words coming from several sentators who were against it at first, is not propganda. Amnesty International and places like that have no basis for their claims about Gitmo except their disdain for this administration. When proof was brought that certain interrogaters were breaking rules, they were delt with, as they should be.
Just remember, no one is claiming Gitmo to be perfect, but don't accuse the workers there of being total bastards just because of what some lunatic organization says or the mere fact that Bush is president.

[rasmack 0]

I'm sorry to respond so slowly, but I am in Switzerland...

Quote

...
Interesting, but I looked further...
...

So did I but it was already becoming a rather lengthy post.

Quote

So, looking further, they do not meet criteria number one, as they are not members of one of the Party's armed forces. They also do not meet criteria number two because they do not meet sub-criterias b, c, and d. Thusly, under full legalities of the Geneva Convention, they are not legally EPWs/POWs.

I am sorry for not having said this clearly, but this is not for you or me to decide. I was pointing out that until their status is decided by a "competent tribunal" they are per definition POW's in the sense that they shall be under the protection of the convention.

Quote

So, legally they can be held as they are now because they do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention;

Uhmm I think I missed the hearing on this matter... Until these hearing are held, it is illegal. A central question in this hearing would be the standard by which you define "fixed sign recognizable at a distance", and "customs of war".

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Quote

Benefit of the doubt goes to the prisoners, not the captors.

Legally, it does not. They are clearly not under the GC, thus they don't get benefit of the doubt. Is that morally right...that's up for debate. But it is absolutely legally right.

The fact that you think there is no doubt, does not make it so.

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

Well several senators, including 6 democrats, and numerous journalists toured it a few days ago and were very impressed. Why are people so hell bent on labeling American soldiers and intelligence agency employees as terrible people? Is it so hard to believe that overall, most are good people? Sure there are the bad apples, and they have and will be delt with. Saying Gitmo is doing well, even with those words coming from several sentators who were against it at first, is not propganda. Amnesty International and places like that have no basis for their claims about Gitmo except their disdain for this administration. When proof was brought that certain interrogaters were breaking rules, they were delt with, as they should be.
Just remember, no one is claiming Gitmo to be perfect, but don't accuse the workers there of being total bastards just because of what some lunatic organization says or the mere fact that Bush is president.

Blah Blah Blah ... more BS supporting Gitmo when you know it wrong, let me quote you... "no one is claiming Gitmo to be perfect"

Let me quote my first post on this topic:

"All the legal mumbo jumbo aside, I believe that everyone that defends the existence of Gitmo, smiles on the inside with the knowledge that they are beating the system and beating the lawyers and beating the prisoners. "

You people sicken me.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[CornishChris 5]

Gitmo - If there is enough evidence to hold these people for three years without trial there should be enough evidence to take them to trial.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[akarunway 1]

Saying Gitmo is doing well, even with those words coming from several sentators =======Dems or GOP they are slimy bastards in the same bed. Hate to highjack the thread but what about all the pay raises they give themselves at the expense of the poor working man. I'm so pissed lately I can;t see straight. Me thinks another Boston Tea party is in order. At minimum

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Until these hearing are held, it is illegal. A central question in this hearing would be the standard by which you define "fixed sign recognizable at a distance", and "customs of war".

Is there anywhere in the GC that says captured persons are AUTOMATICALLY under the GC until proven not by a tribunal? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. However, I would say this is not the case since these captured persons right off the bat do not meet the criteria of "recognizable signs/uniforms." They wear "street clothes" if you will. They look just like the guy selling fruit in the market, just that they have a rifle under their clothes and are just looking for the next person to shoot. So, based on this fact, they wouldn't fall under the GC. I don't think the GC states that they must have a tribunal to declare them not POWs in a case where they don't meet certain conditions of the GC right off the bat. Well, good to be back...

[rasmack 0]

I had completely forgotten this thread. Welcome back

Quote

Is there anywhere in the GC that says captured persons are AUTOMATICALLY under the GC until proven not by a tribunal?

Well, if you're engaged in battle with them, I find it to be a pretty bold statement, that because they are not wearing uniforms resembling your own, there's no doubt that the do not fall under the convention. And as soon as there is doubt...

Btw. the convention also applies to organized resistance.

On another note, does anyone know if there are regular POW-camps in Afghanistan? If yes, it would be nice to know what separates the people going there from the people going to Cuba.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Well, if you're engaged in battle with them, I find it to be a pretty bold statement, that because they are not wearing uniforms resembling your own, there's no doubt that the do not fall under the convention.

Well the GC does not say that if the guy shoots at you, you must automatically consider him an EPW if he is captured. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. They don't need to be wearing uniforms at all like us, they just have to be wearing some sort of uniform. Street clothes do not count. Basically, they are not "playing" by the rules of warfare by not wearing uniforms. This is a rule of warfare b/c it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, at times to distinguish between the enemy and civilians. That is against the rules. Thus since they refuse to follow the rules, they do not receive the rights of the GC. That's just what the whole uniform thing is talking about.

Quote

Btw. the convention also applies to organized resistance.

Yes it does, but the GC states that the same conditions (i.e. uniform, having a command structure, following the rules of warfare, etc.) still apply to resistance forces.

Quote

On another note, does anyone know if there are regular POW-camps in Afghanistan?

There are camps in Afghanistan, but they are mostly run by the Afghans now. We have relatively little control over those (at least for a while now). Much more is controlled by them now; it is their country. We still operate over there, but it's becoming more of an advisory role (i.e. we go out on joint missions with the Afghans, much like Iraq is doing right now).