The Lord Chancellor on Guantanamo:

[kallend 2,182]

www.itv.com/news/index_5bea772c1864e1891d24e106e541c70a.html

jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/uk-lord-chancellor-blasts-us-for.php

...

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

[DZJ 0]

I thought the States stopped caring about British opinion sometime in the eighteenth century?

[billvon 3,132]

>I thought the States stopped caring about British opinion sometime
>in the eighteenth century?

We started caring again when we wanted help fighting our wars.

[StreetScooby 5]

Under which law jurisdiction should the Gitmo detainees be tried? They're not US citizens, and they were captured as "illegal combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at US troops in Afghanistan. Shoot at US troops, and suffer the consequences.

We are all engines of karma

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Under which law jurisdiction should the Gitmo detainees be tried? They're not US citizens, and they were captured as "illegal combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at US troops in Afghanistan. Shoot at US troops, and suffer the consequences.

Who says that they actually shot at anyone, or aided anyone? That's what we were talking about in the other thread. Essentially, there is no burden of proof required to get a one way trip to Gitmo. The only requirements are that you are captured in the theater. That narrows down the area to all of the middle east and Asia. You could be shooting at US troops or simply delivering a goat cheese pizza. Doesn't matter. All you have to do is be captured. So basically, we have to just trust their judgement. Screw that nonsense.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Ever owned a digital watch?

[billvon 3,132]

>They're not US citizens, and they were captured as "illegal
>combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at US troops in
> Afghanistan.

Let's take a look at one of these "illegal combatants."

A Afghani cab driver named Dilawar was arrested and interrogated as an illegal combatant. (No one likes the word "torture", so I'll use "interrogate" instead.) After a few days he was interrogated to death when he did not reveal any information about the insurgency. His crime? He drove his cab by an american base, so they figured he was a suicide bomber.

These are the people we are arresting and killing. It's happening because there are no safeguards in place. There's no judicial oversight. There's no legal protection for them. And for every innocent person we arrest and kill, our chances of ever seeing peace in Iraq and Afghanistan drops a little more.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Under which law jurisdiction should the Gitmo detainees be tried? They're not US citizens, and they were captured as "illegal combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at US troops in Afghanistan. Shoot at US troops, and suffer the consequences.

Under which law jurisdiction should the U.S Contractors be tried? They're not afghan citizens, and they were captured as "illegal combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at afghan troops in Afghanistan. Shoot at afghan troops, and suffer the consequences.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Under which law jurisdiction should the Gitmo detainees be tried? They're not US citizens, and they were captured as "illegal combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at US troops in Afghanistan. Shoot at US troops, and suffer the consequences.

Under which law jurisdiction should the U.S Contractors be tried? They're not afghan citizens, and they were captured as "illegal combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at afghan troops in Afghanistan. Shoot at afghan troops, and suffer the consequences.

I was wondering the samething in concern of merc operations such as Blackwater. Is the execution of mercenaries justified, considering that they fight only for the pay? If a mercenary kills an civilian during a firefight should that person be tried under the laws of the country the killing took place? Should the legal combatants be placed in harms way to rescue mercs? Should mercs be placed on trial in the US or any other country considering that they are, more than less, killers for hire?
If those in Gitmo are in fact mercs and not legal combatants, then they got what they were paid for. If they are not mercs then they should be treated as defined by the Geneva Convention.

Art. 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[warpedskydiver 0]

Art. 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

[AdD 1]

Speaking of mercanaries, a substantial part of the detainies were not captured by US troups at all, but by 'private' bounty hunters.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[rasmack 0]

Quote

I was wondering the samething in concern of merc operations such as Blackwater...

Quote

Art. 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) ... (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict

Blackwater only hires US citizens, so by this definition they are actually not mercenaries. Quite counter intuitive...

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

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

They're not US citizens, and they were captured as "illegal combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at US troops in Afghanistan. Shoot at US troops, and suffer the consequences.

Or they are guys who some other guy told a brother told a wife told milkman told an American were shooting at US troops. Be accused in Afghanistan, suffer the consequences?

Oh sorry, I missed the first part of your post. They're not US citizens, fuck 'em.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?