livendive 8 #1 July 11, 2006 QuoteThe Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. Of course Tony Snow says "It's not really a reversal of policy." Full text of the article is here. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #2 July 11, 2006 Good for Bush. Glad to see that he's finally putting human rights above fear. Hopefully this will lead to the guilty people in Gitmo being punished for what they've done, and the innocent people there released. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #3 July 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. Of course Tony Snow says "It's not really a reversal of policy." Well, it isn't. Since the only consistent policy of this White House is to deceive the people at every opportunity, that continues unchanged.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #4 July 11, 2006 under which administration was that not the policy?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 July 11, 2006 Quote The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. Geneva Conventions apply to military folks that wear a uniform. If you dress as a civilian, you're not a military person, and therefore are not accorded rights via Geneva Convention.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #6 July 11, 2006 QuoteQuote The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. Geneva Conventions apply to military folks that wear a uniform. If you dress as a civilian, you're not a military person, and therefore are not accorded rights via Geneva Convention. You're wrong. Where did you get the idea that the Geneva Conventions only apply to military folks? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 July 11, 2006 Quote Where did you get the idea that the Geneva Conventions only apply to military folks? Military columnist for the NYPost, Ralph Peters.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #8 July 11, 2006 Quote Military columnist for the NYPost (...I forget his name at the moment). ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #9 July 11, 2006 I think the main beef is that, under international law, they're either (a) soldiers or militia entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention (which means they can't be tried for murder), they must be treated humanely, and they can't be held in secret w/o their home countries being notified (although they can be held for the duration of the armed conflict), or (b) criminal defendants, who can be tried for assault, murder, etc. - but must be promptly notified of what they're charged with and arraigned before a court of law, afforded the assistance of counsel, and have a right to speedy trial. The Bush Administration was trying to fabricate a Category #3 where it didn't exist: non-military fighters who are neither entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention nor entitled to be charged, arraigned, to communicate and be represented by counsel and be tried without delay. And basically every other genuinely democratic nation in the world condemned that as being a clear violation of the most basic tenets of the rule of law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #10 July 11, 2006 HEY! What's wrong with the NYPost?!?! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #11 July 11, 2006 Quote (b) criminal defendants, who can be tried for assault, murder, etc. - but must be promptly notified of what they're charged with and arraigned before a court of law, afforded the assistance of counsel, and have a right to speedy trial. Thanks for the clarification. It's nice to learn something. BTW, the NYPost columnist simply advocating terminating them in place.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #12 July 11, 2006 QuoteHEY! What's wrong with the NYPost?!?! Insufficient bandwidth for a response.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #13 July 11, 2006 Quote or (b) criminal defendants, who can be tried for assault, murder, etc. - but must be promptly notified of what they're charged with and arraigned before a court of law, afforded the assistance of counsel, and have a right to speedy trial. Playing devil's advocate here, how do US criminal courts get jurisdiction over people who have never been subject to US law? A fair number of people on here routinely visit the position of "If you don't like our laws, you're free to move to another country." How can they reconcile that position with imposing our laws on people who've never been to our country? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #14 July 11, 2006 Quote Playing devil's advocate here, how do US criminal courts get jurisdiction over people who have never been subject to US law? I personally don't believe the Geneva Convention should apply to terrorists or their kind. They're basically thugs, and we shouldn't give them any creditability.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #15 July 11, 2006 QuoteQuote or (b) criminal defendants, who can be tried for assault, murder, etc. - but must be promptly notified of what they're charged with and arraigned before a court of law, afforded the assistance of counsel, and have a right to speedy trial. Playing devil's advocate here, how do US criminal courts get jurisdiction over people who have never been subject to US law? Blues, Dave We kidnap them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #16 July 11, 2006 QuoteQuote Playing devil's advocate here, how do US criminal courts get jurisdiction over people who have never been subject to US law? I personally don't believe the Geneva Convention should apply to terrorists or their kind. They're basically thugs, and we shouldn't give them any creditability. How do you establish that they are terrorists without some kind of fair and impartial hearing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #17 July 11, 2006 Quote Geneva Conventions apply to military folks that wear a uniform. If you dress as a civilian, you're not a military person, and therefore are not accorded rights via Geneva Convention. Um... no. Have you read the conventions? The third Geneva Convention, signed and ratified by the US, covers soldiers and militias. The fourth Geneva Convention, signed and ratified by the US, covers everyone not covered by the third. "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." -Geneva 4, Art. 4 Pretty clear, yes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #18 July 11, 2006 QuoteQuote Geneva Conventions apply to military folks that wear a uniform. If you dress as a civilian, you're not a military person, and therefore are not accorded rights via Geneva Convention. Um... no. Have you read the conventions? The third Geneva Convention, signed and ratified by the US, covers soldiers and militias. The fourth Geneva Convention, signed and ratified by the US, covers everyone not covered by the third. "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." -Geneva 4, Art. 4 Pretty clear, yes? I've not read it. Just curious. Don't they have to represent a particular country, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #19 July 11, 2006 No. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party). edited for clarity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #20 July 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. Of course Tony Snow says "It's not really a reversal of policy." Well, it isn't. Since the only consistent policy of this White House is to deceive the people at every opportunity, that continues unchanged.What he said. They're gonna tell you what you want to hear. Elections coming up, don't ya knowI 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #21 July 11, 2006 Sorry, completely off subject but was wondering if the POPs were able to pull off a Texas record over the weekend. Hope ya did'nt have to much trouble getting home with the weather and the Mooney, very nice for her age. Now as far as Gitmo, I'm sure there will be many more court battles before those detained are offered their day in a court. Maybe an international court would be in order? Not sure if this would be the best solution but one to look at. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #22 July 11, 2006 Quote How do you establish that they are terrorists without some kind of fair and impartial hearing? They have a dirty towel wrapped around their head, and they're shooting at you with AK47s and RPGs? That sounds like a reasonable starting point.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #23 July 11, 2006 Quote No. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party). So, with your understanding of the Geneva Convention, what is the US doing wrong here?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #24 July 11, 2006 Quote Now as far as Gitmo, I'm sure there will be many more court battles before those detained are offered their day in a court. Maybe an international court would be in order? Not sure if this would be the best solution but one to look at. International courts are really slow. There are people from the Rwanda genocide in 1994 that are still waiting for an international tribunal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #25 July 11, 2006 QuoteNo. They just have to be a national of a country party to the convention (both Iraq and Afghanistan are) and held captive by another party to the convention (the US is also a party). edited for clarity. How about the Sudan? There were insurgents captured from all over the place who went to Afghanistan for Jihad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
