the most serious thing ive ever posted i think...

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
Because most of them are dead, and if they were alive, they'd be too busy dictating to worry about a few fanatics who found themselves on the losing side (in other words, ask a silly question.....)

If the prisoners weren't guilty, they wouldn't be in prison. This is because what they're guilty of is being taliban/al qaida supporters and the evidence is their actual bodies being there to be captured.


Someone is guilty if they've committed an offence, the decision of a court doesn't make them so.

woooooo....I agree with Jonny...

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
No one said they aren't. Theres some media hype but nothing worth a damn..hell, if anything, those letters home support the idea that said individuals are being well taken care of.

censored letters? no sunlight in x month? military trials? if thats what you call 'taking care', no thanks.

The US has no place to put them other than where they are and, as Tacitus stated, the lack of laws elsewhere means that if we want being a terrorist to be illegal, we have to try them as criminals our damn selves.

dont tell me you dint have laws against terrorism. so you couldnt have trialed for example that guy who started that massacre a few years ago (religious fanatic, a lot of shooting with the fbi or whatever, in the end a large part of his group killed themselfs, i forgot the name of that fvillage, sorry)
if the us-goverment can proove that these people currently are held in cuba were in any way involved in the attacks of 9/11 or were planing new attacks, then there should be a legal basis to trials them. if not your goverment has no right to imprison these people.

[oldtown]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]censored letters? no sunlight in x month? military trials? if thats what you call 'taking care', no thanks.

dont tell me you dint have laws against terrorism. so you couldnt have trialed for example that guy who started that massacre a few years ago (religious fanatic, a lot of shooting with the fbi or whatever, in the end a large part of his group killed themselfs, i forgot the name of that fvillage, sorry)
if the us-goverment can proove that these people currently are held in cuba were in any way involved in the attacks of 9/11 or were planing new attacks, then there should be a legal basis to trials them. if not your goverment has no right to imprison these people.

First off as far as his claims from his letters, they are just that his claims, most of the cells i saw appeared to be outdoors so the no sunlight thing makes little sense....

As far as no right to hold them????? These are all enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield during the war in afganistan...they have every right to hold them and give them military tribunials as planned...The main reason these 2 have come to light being of british decent is that they face the death penalty whereas if tried in britain (assuming there was a law to try them under) they wouldnt face death as there is no death penalty in UK.

This guy in his letter commented on how many books he has read, is sending letters to his folks,doesnt sound like he is in some hole with no light or comforts.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by oldtown
These are all enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield during the war in afganistan...they have every right to hold them and give them military tribunials as planned

Being an enemy combatant isn't enough itself - that would make them an ordinary POW, who have to be repatriated at the 'cessasation of hostilities'. what exactly are they supposed to have done?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by G_frog
Being an enemy combatant isn't enough itself - that would make them an ordinary POW, who have to be repatriated at the 'cessasation of hostilities'. what exactly are they supposed to have done?

Traded gay porn online illegally!

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by oldtown
First off as far as his claims from his letters, they are just that his claims, most of the cells i saw appeared to be outdoors so the no sunlight thing makes little sense....

As far as no right to hold them????? These are all enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield during the war in afganistan...they have every right to hold them and give them military tribunials as planned...The main reason these 2 have come to light being of british decent is that they face the death penalty whereas if tried in britain (assuming there was a law to try them under) they wouldnt face death as there is no death penalty in UK.

This guy in his letter commented on how many books he has read, is sending letters to his folks,doesnt sound like he is in some hole with no light or comforts.

personally i dont give a damn if they are from britain or not. they are not treated as normal criminals and not as pows. the us goverment just made up a new status called 'enemy combatants' without any legitimation to deny these people their rights.

[oldtown]

http://www.nypl.org/branch/central_u...rs/encomb.html

that will give you the history of enemy combatants classification...they are not pow's however the US has given them basically same rights as such as far as geneva convention but in any event our laws do have precedence for using this clasification and their rights will fall under this. They will have military tribunals and not go through the court system, but it is not some made up term being applied and has been used in the past.



The act of detaining enemy combatants is not an act of punishment. Rather, it is intended first and foremost to prevent enemy combatants from continuing to fight.


There is no international law that requires the detaining power to "accuse" enemy combatants of crimes, bring charges against them, or put them on trial. Nor is there any law requiring the detaining power to release enemy combatants and send them home prior to the end of hostilities.

The war on al qaida is ongoing last time I looked.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by oldtown
http://www.nypl.org/branch/central_u...rs/encomb.html

that will give you the history of enemy combatants classification...they are not pow's however the US has given them basically same rights as such as far as geneva convention but in any event our laws do have precedence for using this clasification and their rights will fall under this. They will have military tribunals and not go through the court system, but it is not some made up term being applied and has been used in the past.

okay, that would take a while to wade through, but from first glance there are a few points i don't understand.

- How the laws of the US can take precedence over the geneva convention (which certainly would classify these individuals as POWs), based solely on the rulings of its own courts. Does this mean the US has 'implied withdrawl' from the Convention, as older laws which conflict with newer legislation are subject to 'implied repeal'? Or can US courts exercise juristiction over international agreements, and if so, how?

- Is it really possible to be charged with simply fighting against the US by a US military tribunal? That seems to be implied, but it sounds ridiculous.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by oldtown
There is no international law that requires the detaining power to "accuse" enemy combatants of crimes, bring charges against them, or put them on trial. Nor is there any law requiring the detaining power to release enemy combatants and send them home prior to the end of hostilities.

The war on al qaida is ongoing last time I looked.

The 'war' an al qaeda is not a war in the sense of international law, and more than the 'war on drugs' is. However, the Geneva Convention would consider combatants in the afghanistan war to deserve POW status based on their involvement in that. Since that's over, the convention would require their release.

[wu_trax]

since these people were captured during the war in afganistan (which is over now, as already said) they are prisoners of war (at least if i understood article 4 A 1 of the geneva convention correctly).
if i read on to article 5, its the us-goverments job to proof that these people are not PoWs.
but if they could do so, they would become ordinary criminals which deserve a normal trial according to us-laws.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by G_frog
The 'war' an al qaeda is not a war in the sense of international law, and more than the 'war on drugs' is. However, the Geneva Convention would consider combatants in the afghanistan war to deserve POW status based on their involvement in that. Since that's over, the convention would require their release.

I must have missed where al Qaida and the Taliban surrendered.

If they were considered POWs, then they could be legitimately held until hostilities cease--which is starting to look like it could be many years away.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I must have missed where al Qaida and the Taliban surrendered.

If they were considered POWs, then they could be legitimately held until hostilities cease--which is starting to look like it could be many years away.

they still have some more rights than the 'Enemy Combatants' in cuba have right now.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I must have missed where al Qaida and the Taliban surrendered.

If they were considered POWs, then they could be legitimately held until hostilities cease--which is starting to look like it could be many years away.

law is such a beautiful thing.

just kill everyone who looks like he could surrender and then forget about declaring an end of the war. hey... we can keep the prisoners locked up until hell freezes over (and probably longer then that)

[W]

This will only turn around and bite america in the ass. They won't hold the stick forever. Lets see what happens when <country X> considers itself above US and international law, and has the power to enforce it.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by W
This will only turn around and bite america in the ass. They won't hold the stick forever. Lets see what happens when <country X> considers itself above US and international law, and has the power to enforce it.

obviously the us will try to stop <country X> from gaining such power

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
law is such a beautiful thing.

just kill everyone who looks like he could surrender and then forget about declaring an end of the war. hey... we can keep the prisoners locked up until hell freezes over (and probably longer then that)

The US didn't just "forget" to declare the war over; both al Qaida and the Taliban are still fighting--or hadn't you noticed? It makes no sense to declare a war over if the other side is still shooting at you and has absolutely no intention of stopping, and it would be utter stupidity to free prisoners under such circumstances as you'd just be supplying more soldiers to the enemy.

[inf]

American freedom inside a prision of hatred.

These prisioners are being held illegally, infact America is acting (argueably) as bad as Iraq was (supposedly).

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Tactitus
The US didn't just "forget" to declare the war over; both al Qaida and the Taliban are still fighting--or hadn't you noticed? It makes no sense to declare a war over if the other side is still shooting at you and has absolutely no intention of stopping, and it would be utter stupidity to free prisoners under such circumstances as you'd just be supplying more soldiers to the enemy.

oh - it was more of a general statement.

on the other hand the same could be said about the 'war' in iraq. still they decllared the end of the war because it sounded better then saying "we will keep fighting for a few more months".

[wu_trax]

looks like they at least have to rethink their iraq-strategy
i didnt expect them to run out of money that fast

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
If the prisoners weren't guilty, they wouldn't be in prison. This is because what they're guilty of is being taliban/al qaida supporters and the evidence is their actual bodies being there to be captured.

So being in Pakistan is a crime now?

A crime that deserves the death penalty no less?

Originally posted by Tactitus
Apparently, the US has said they are willing to repatriate these men but that there appears to be no UK law under which they could be tried; so repatriating them would essentially mean they'd just be released--which we are not willing to do.

I'm no expert but couldn't we try them for High Treason?

This poor deluded soul. Peanut butter was not an american invention.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by Proteus
I'm no expert

You're at cambridge aren't you? That's usually good 'job experience' for treason.

Originally posted by Proteus
but couldn't we try them for High Treason?

i'm fairly sure they would have to have tried to kill the Queen for that.

I've no idea why it would be impossible to charge them with ordinary treason though.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I must have missed where al Qaida and the Taliban surrendered.

If they were considered POWs, then they could be legitimately held until hostilities cease--which is starting to look like it could be many years away.

Formal surrenders, like formal declarations of war, are basically a thing of the past. The fact that an international interim authority with legal jurisdiction has replaced the government of the taliban in afghanistan is sufficient, especially when you consider that the taliban didn't control many of the factions still fighting anyway.

i'm not sure where al qaeda come into this, while members may well have been involved in the conflict, they were not a seperate power/party in the conflict. Nor is it possible to be at war with al qaeda in the sense of international law.

While i accept the reasoning behind drawing an analogy between the effort to destroy al qaeda and a war with a nation-state, it also highlights the limits of reasoning through analogy.

[inf]

Originally posted by G_frog
i'm fairly sure they would have to have tried to kill the Queen for that.

treason doesn't just cover the killing of the monarchy.

[Ste]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...000273,00.html

nice long article on the british detainees in guantanamo bay.

In the face of international criticism, the US now permits reporters a restricted visit to Camp Delta. Here, the officials talk carefully of "detainees"; never, ever, of "prisoners". In his office, General Geoffrey Miller, who heads the mission, brushes off questions about three-year-old Nusaba's pain. Each of the 680 men held - the largest proportion of them Afghans and Pakistanis - is a dangerous terrorist, he says: "Everyone here, as they came in, was a great threat. We've gone through a very thorough screening process before any enemy combatants came to Guantanamo, [to ensure] that they both have intelligence value to help us win the global war on terrorism, and that they pose a threat to the US or our allies."

Other officials, however, have been less keen to support US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's initial boast that the prisoners were "very tough, hardcore, well-trained terrorists"; off the record, some have privately admitted that detainees included those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Among the 40 or so men so far released from the camp are several pensioners.

And I didn't know this:

Guantanamo's newest and most notorious addition is Camp Iguana, which holds children whom the US regards as enemy combatants. It is less formidable than the adult version: the wire fence is just 12ft high and the all-night floodlights are softer. A 20ft long rectangle has been cut from the green canvas surrounding the camp, so that the children can see the Caribbean sea. "It adds a certain tranquillity to the environment," says Dave Wodushek, who runs Camp Iguana. He is saddened that people so young are held here: the four children, believed to be Afghans, are as young as 13. He blames those countries which use children as soldiers.

The boys incarcerated here live two to a flat, where they spend at least 21 hours a day. With permission from their guards, they can cross the black tape line in front of the fridge - inside are pretzels, peanut butter, fruit, and a packet of beef jerky that is probably not halal. In the freezer lies a half-eaten Hershey chocolate bar. The regime is strict, and formal education lasts two hours a day, with group therapy sessions provided once a week. Board games and half-completed jigsaws lie on a table in the living area. At other times, intelligence agents come to their flats to interrogate them. Wodushek says that the children are respectful and compliant, but sometimes cry: "They ask when they are going home," he says.

That outrages me even more!

[Proteus]

Originally posted by G_frog
You're at cambridge aren't you? That's usually good 'job experience' for treason.

I don't know what you're talking about...

Now if you'll excuse me I have to hide these Buckingham Palace floor plans.

[BesigedB]

Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
Two people isn't equal to a thousand at all, especially when the "thousand" are innocent civilians and the two are fanatics trying to cause more suffering.

assumed innocence.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by G_frog
Formal surrenders, like formal declarations of war, are basically a thing of the past.

I was using "surrender" in the sense of "stop fighting," not a political declaration.

The fact that an international interim authority with legal jurisdiction has replaced the government of the taliban in afghanistan is sufficient, especially when you consider that the taliban didn't control many of the factions still fighting anyway.

So the fact that the Taliban is now a just a small faction is sufficient justification to release their captured "soldiers" so they can resume fighting?

The Third Geneva Convention says that prisoners are to be repatriated after the 'cessation of hostilities.' This, at least, makes sense and is ultimately for the protection of the prisoners themselves. If combatants can be compelled to release prisoners before the end of hostilities, then there will be another disincentive to take prisoners at all.

[oldtown]

Originally posted by G_frog
Formal surrenders, like formal declarations of war, are basically a thing of the past. The fact that an international interim authority with legal jurisdiction has replaced the government of the taliban in afghanistan is sufficient, especially when you consider that the taliban didn't control many of the factions still fighting anyway.

i'm not sure where al qaeda come into this, while members may well have been involved in the conflict, they were not a seperate power/party in the conflict. Nor is it possible to be at war with al qaeda in the sense of international law.

While i accept the reasoning behind drawing an analogy between the effort to destroy al qaeda and a war with a nation-state, it also highlights the limits of reasoning through analogy.

However, you seem to forget the fact that the US was not at war with Afghanistan rather a group that had its main base there but is other places as well ..Al Qaida

When hostilities cease with them then you can make your argument.

[oldtown]

also to those who insist that those at Guantanamo Bay should be considered POWS.....

POW status if:

"[T]he organization (a) is commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, (b) uses a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, (c) carries arms openly, and (d) conducts its operations in accordance with the laws of war." (Elsea, i). Meanwhile, "Groups that do not meet the standards are not entitled to POW status, and their members who commit belligerent acts may be treated as civilians under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC). These 'unprivileged' or 'unlawful combatants' may be punished for acts of violence for which legitimate combatants could not be punished." (id., i).

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

[Vaio]

As most if not all of these poor misunderstood innocents who must have been just out for a stroll in Afghanistan round about the same time as some US soldiers were running around shooting innocent people are muslims, can it be said that it's the Will Of Allah and not US policy that is to blame ? and therefore Allah really doesn't like them.

Vaio

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vaio
and therefore Allah really doesn't like them.

Like all religious zealots, I'm sure they think it's just part of a larger plan.

[Tzencath]

Everyone knows their guilty right? yeh, no argument, it's not like he took a quick trip to the curry house, got drunk, and decided to fight for the taliban for the last popadom or anything, he was there to fight no argument.

HOWEVER the reason everyone over here is MAINLY getting hyped up is because whatever they've done, these are british citizens, we're ****ed off with america and their stupidity, and we don't want our people being tried by a bunch of american prats.

we want them tried by our big prat, tony blair

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tzencath
Everyone knows their guilty right?

Guilty of what?

Are we having a blanket definition of "a terrorist"? What if someone went to Afghanistan to "fight" for the Taleban, but ended up only delivering supplies, or helping out at base camp, or whatever else. Surely that would make them guilty of lesser crimes compared to someone who spent a year murdering and torturing, right?

And if this is the case, what punishment is deserved by either crime?

[G_frog]

Tactitus, you're right on that and i should follow the news more carefully. Just to be clear though, I wasn't suggesting that Taliban loyalists (or any other POWs) be released into their custody. Clearly custody should go to the present Afghan authorities. I stand by my other comments.

Oldtown, you're an idiot.

Inf, he specified high treason.

[oldtown]

Originally posted by G_frog
Tactitus, you're right on that and i should follow the news more carefully. Just to be clear though, I wasn't suggesting that Taliban loyalists (or any other POWs) be released into their custody. Clearly custody should go to the present Afghan authorities. I stand by my other comments.

Oldtown, you're an idiot.

Inf, he specified high treason.

care to elaborate as what you are referring to that i said which you disagree instead of resorting to juvenile name calling....

my last post simply described what the basis was for defining those held in cuba as enemy combatants as opposed to pows as some suggested they should be. If you were unable to follow the post ask for clarification or feel free to stick to your chosen method of avoiding intelligent debate.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Tzencath
Everyone knows their guilty right? yeh, no argument, it's not like he took a quick trip to the curry house, got drunk, and decided to fight for the taliban for the last popadom or anything, he was there to fight no argument.

We don't know they're guilty. We have no idea where they were picked up from, what they were doing at the time or even what they are suspected of doing. This is the problem, and you simply can't presume guilt.

If they aren't military they are civilian and it doesn't matter what label you give them (POW, unlawful combatent, whatever) you can't ignore their human rights.

[W]

Originally posted by Ste
We don't know they're guilty. We have no idea where they were picked up from, what they were doing at the time or even what they are suspected of doing. This is the problem, and you simply can't presume guilt.

If they aren't military they are civilian and it doesn't matter what label you give them (POW, unlawful combatent, whatever) you can't ignore their human rights.

So soldiers have no human rights?

[Ste]

Originally posted by W
So soldiers have no human rights?

Soldiers have human rights and extra rights given to them by the Geneva Treaty.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Ste
If they aren't military they are civilian

That definition seems a bit lacking to me. How are terrorists classified? If a civilian picks up a gun and shoots at your soldiers is he/she still a civilian? If a soldier puts on civilian clothes is he still a soldier? How do you tell?

The real world doesn't appear to be black and white, there are shades of gray.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Tactitus
That definition seems a bit lacking to me. How are terrorists classified? If a civilian picks up a gun and shoots at your soldiers is he/she still a civilian? If a soldier puts on civilian clothes is he still a soldier? How do you tell?

The real world doesn't appear to be black and white, there are shades of gray.

And as we all know soldiers and civilians have rights but the people who are "in-between" have none? Down with gray! Up with absolutist objectivism!

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
And as we all know soldiers and civilians have rights but the people who are "in-between" have none?

Strawman. Looking back over this thread I don't see where I, or anyone else, have asserted that they have no rights.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Strawman. Looking back over this thread I don't see where I, or anyone else, have asserted that they have no rights.

It was a joke you arab hating, fag-bashing nationalist.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by seventh
its still wrongful death

Originally posted by seventh

america deserves things like september 11th

hmmm... nice logic.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
gray

I see you have abandoned UK spelling. Turncoat

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
I see you have abandoned UK spelling. Turncoat

Suggestive spelling heh.