Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Justin wrote: Jim Dixon (2003-12-19 13:30Z) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. If these rights apply to everyone at all times, how does war work? War is clearly a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. Which of those three are suffering deprivation depends on the type of war and particular battle plans. Precisely. Under this viewpoint, [initiation of] war does *not* work. We have zero moral authority to wage war under the system we pretend to operate under. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 21:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's bullshit. Saddam was told by our Chick ambassador (I can't remember her name) that the US had no interest in his dispute with Kuwait, in effect giving Saddam a green light. Commie lie http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html What Glaspie said was: : : The instruction we had during this period was that : : we should express no opinion on this issue and that : : the issue is not associated with America. James : : Baker has directed our official spokesmen to : : emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve : : this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or : : via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that : : these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all : : of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears : : to us? : : : : My assessment after 25 years' service in this area : : is that your objective must have strong backing from : : your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. : : President, have fought through a horrific and : : painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have : : deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that : : would not be any of our business. But when this : : happens in the context of what you said on your : : national day, then when we read the details in the : : two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we : : see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken : : by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, : : parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then : : it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And : : for this reason, I received an instruction to ask : : you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the : : spirit of confrontation -- regarding your : : intentions. Which is diplomat talk for threats and menaces, not a green light. When she asks him to see 'how the issue appears to us this is diplomat code for I cannot state plainly how the issue appears to us because that would constitute making threats. And when she says I ask not in the spirit of confrontation that means If the answer is unacceptable, there may well be a confrontation' --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lzBXFdOUF+tOl6rQBvd0AC1waiR3dN1345QzG0hr 4avCGxaFFDmv2sq/x5Ltz8sQgA0tgllba+DAdFQq7
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Friday 19 December 2003 20:35, James A. Donald wrote: In fact Glaspie told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait, the shit would hit the fan. (That was not her words. Her words were subject of concern, Cite? The google groups article you linked to has two links to possible transcripts. Neither back up your claim.
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 21:21, Steve Schear wrote: I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [] Our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [7] And then she proceeded to tell him that they did have an opinion, an opinion so menacing that it could not be plainly said. Similarly, if you get an offer from a mafia boss, and you find a horse's head in your bed, has he threatened you? Diplomats, like mafia bosses, make their threats by implication, not out loud. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG X+lkzU5AyyMRGqhdagmp2Shx9qHYuvKaYeWi1JiN 4lf43mqw0rS9IzY4mvIWScRSGNQ6NzcX0Kx+ZzpT+
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
At 06:37 PM 12/19/2003, you wrote: In a message dated 12/19/2003 3:38:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Saddam was warned that if he took Kuwait, terrible consequences might well follow. That's bullshit. Saddam was told by our Chick ambassador (I can't remember her name) that the US had no interest in his dispute with Kuwait, in effect giving Saddam a green light. Yep, it was a set-up. Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her to clarify the American position. I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [] Our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [7] steve
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: SNIP Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say probably because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. .. And why would you think that American judicial morality and justice should be dependent on cost? After all it would be cheaper for the cops on a traffic stop to administratively just shoot you in the head for an offense then go through the costs and rigors of a trial. The personal cost for the police concerned would be very high: those who weren't really good at running away would be shot dead. The cost for those hiring the police would be astronomical: wages would have to rise to reflect the danger. The cost for politicians mandating such a policy would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal charges themselves. If the US tried to export its notion of rights, the global reaction would be similar. In either case you could not put a cost on the ensuing chaos. The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are reasonable, because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it. If Saddam had been less of an idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them -- you know, having a good night out. China would like to have more power in its region, but the cost of really pushing for this is much higher than any conceivable gain, and anyway they can provoke the US a great deal with no particular reaction. So the political elite concentrates on increasing the production of Barby dolls and stacking up hundred dollar bills. European calculations are the same: the potential cost of challenging the US is incalculable, the potential gain relatively miniscule. Come on, let's go down to the pub instead. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say probably because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. How far would you have this go? Is the US government to be obligated to ensure these rights to everyone everywhere? Does this mean liberating slaves in China and Saudi Arabia, for example? Opening up Russian jails? Forcing countries everywhere to grant the vote to women, to educate children? Hmmm. Does the application of this principle mean that the US government is going to require the British government to recognize the right to keep and bear arms? ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
In a message dated 12/19/2003 8:33:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say "probably" because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. You deserve a Tim response, but that ain't my style- Of course the USA doesn't currently practice upholding the universal rights that our constitution recognizes, this is why Tim suggests that people need to be shot, or be fucked till dead. And why would you think that American judicial morality and justice should be dependent on cost? After all it would be cheaper for the cops on a traffic stop to administratively just shoot you in the head for an offense then go through the costs and rigors of a trial. Regards, Matt-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: The cost for politicians mandating such a policy would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal charges themselves. No, I think they would be dead. At first opportunity. Or at least, I like to think so.
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
Jim Dixon (2003-12-19 13:30Z) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. If these rights apply to everyone at all times, how does war work? War is clearly a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. Which of those three are suffering deprivation depends on the type of war and particular battle plans. -- I am a carnivorous fish swimming in#+# Banking establishments are two waters, the cold water of art and -*+ more dangerous than standing the hot water of science. - S. Dali #-# armies. - Thomas Jefferson
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are reasonable, because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it. that I would like to oppose. It is rather the fact that in the past it wasn't very feasible. The world is getting smaller. People can fly airplanes now in every part of the world. What you see happening right now is what happened back in the late 1800s and in the early 20th century when the colonies started to rise up. The difference this time around is that the oppressed have the ability to strike back where it hurts: In the homeland. None of the colonial powers got away with it forever, sooner or later the price was too high and to think that the US is above the lesson learned it will be in for a rude awakening. European calculations are the same: the potential cost of challenging the US is incalculable, the potential gain relatively miniscule. Come on, let's go down to the pub instead. Still... I wouldn't count on it though. China is picking up steam, the EU is expanding and the fight over Iraq let Europe to move closer together, not further apart. Aznar and Berlusconi did what they did because they tried to have a voice in the EU that was mightier than it really is (they are afraid to loose subsidies when the EU expands eastward). Berlusconi also is on a power trip and tries to become the next Duce in Italy. Chances are neither of them will survive for much longer. Even with the Berlusconi controlled media in Italy people took notice. The little bit of democracy we have might still make a change. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NLM2lCnxcrW2uuEQK5ZQCeJrNQDq5J7C6Sfl3ePoAid9cH9OIAmwQZ X0cFkSbhnj4LxvYuOgMtO7w+ =ETH9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote: [Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.] From Ramsey Clark's excellent The Fire This Time. http://www.firethistime.org/linesscript.htm TRACK 3 : LINES IN THE SAND Ramsey Clark is a commie liar, and nothing he says can be believed. Saddam was warned that if he took Kuwait, terrible consequences might well follow. The USG did not say 'If you invade, we will destroy you', but it dropped some big hnts. Similarly the USG has not said that if China invades Taiwan, the USG will intervene, but it would be as big a lie to claim that China has been given a green light to invade Taiwan, as it is for Ramsey to claim that Iraq was given a green light to invade Kuwait. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6nmQ6oALALYVD6KMm0uQKHLydJjRTz9vOdEDXU2D 4u6vntrCQzPWGzEVTMYO8Vn5JtY6VgucabFVa03fH
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
At 07:19 AM 12/19/2003, Jim Dixon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Saddam had been less of an idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them -- you know, having a good night out. [Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.] From Ramsey Clark's excellent The Fire This Time. http://www.firethistime.org/linesscript.htm TRACK 3 : LINES IN THE SAND - One day after the Cease Fire, Kuwait announced plans to increase oil exports in defiance of OPEC quotas. The price of crude began to slide. In June '89, they stepped up production again. Iraq was hard hit. [1/74.] SHAKIB OUTAKI OIL ANALYST For every fall of a dollar in the price of a barrel of oil, Iraq lost a billion dollars in income. While Iraq was at war, Kuwait had moved into the Rumailia oil field, shifting a border disputed since colonial times. In November, Kuwaiti officials met with the CIA and agreed: to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq [ ] To put pressure on that countrys government to delineate our common border. The CIA gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure. [1] As oil prices collapsed, Kuwait demanded that Iraq repay its wartime debts. In December, the United States invaded Panama without rebuke from the UN Security Council. The Soviet Empire was in chaos, the global pattern of relationships changing. US War Plan 1002 devised to counter a Russian threat in the Gulf - was updated, and now posed Iraq as the enemy. Early in 1990, General Norman Schwarzkopf briefed congress: Middle East oil is the Wests lifeblood. [ .] It is going to fuel us when the rest of the world has run dry. [2] Schwarzkopf advocated a permanent US presence in the Gulf. But in the wake of Soviet collapse, there were calls to cut military spending. New enemies had to be found. A white paper was drawn up which identified Iraq and Saddam Hussein as: .the optimum contenders to replace the Warsaw pact. [3] There was just one problem. According to the US Army War College: Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. [4] US intelligence indicated that Iraqs desire was to reduce the army and repay their debts. But high unemployment made de-mobilisation impossible, inflation on the dinar was forty percent and rising, and the price of oil continued to fall. In May 1990, Saddam Hussein protested at Kuwaits continuing overproduction: Were it possible we would have endured [ ] but I say that we have reached a point where we can no longer withstand pressure. [5] The Kuwaitis were dismissive, as an American official recalled: When Iraqis came and said: Cant you do something about it? the Kuwaitis said: Sit on it. And they didnt even say it nicely . they were arrogant...they were terrible. [6] Charles Allen, the CIAs Officer for Warning predicted that Iraq would invade Kuwait. His report was shelved. In a diplomatic offensive, Iraq sent envoys to Arab states until Kuwait agreed to a summit. On July 10th new quotas were settled. On the 11th, Kuwait rejected them and announced plans to further increase production by October. Saddam Husseins patience was exhausted. [9/63.] Dr. PHOEBE MARR - US NATIONAL DEFENCE UNIVERSITY I think he came to believe [ .] that Kuwait was over-producing oil not in its own interests but because it was goaded into that by the United States, in an effort to weaken Iraq. On July 15th, the Iraqis wrote to the Arab League and the UN Secretary General listing their grievances; on the 17th Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of economic warfare; on the 18th, troops were sent to the border. Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her to clarify the American position. I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [ ] Our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [7] As the crisis escalated, King Hussein of Jordan went to Kuwait to try and broker a compromise, to be told: We are not going to respond. If they don't like it, let them occupy our territory. we are going to bring in the Americans. [8] As Iraqi forces moved to the front line, the Assistant Secretary of State was questioned in Congress: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait [ .] in that circumstance, is it correct to say [ .] that we do not have a treaty commitment which would oblige us to engage US forces? That is correct. [9] On the 2nd of August, Iraq invaded. --- steve Charles Allen, the CIAs Officer for Warning predicted that Iraq would invade Kuwait. His report was shelved. War is just a
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote: Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her to clarify the American position. I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [ ] Our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab- Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [7] This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies) Nathan Folkert exposes it at some length in http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ng.google.com http://tinyurl.com/2tdwk In fact Glaspie told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait, the shit would hit the fan. (That was not her words. Her words were subject of concern, which the kind of thing that diplomats say when what they actually mean is We are going to cut off your head and nail it to a lamp post with a nine inch nail) --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG UGe4zfpi4sWf5MssuvgX1tOdNtw539Km+25pzq7s 4mkjwbGPuDy/LJkiMtzHD8na/Fnn2ocm+LNkAhuX0
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies) I take it then that the heroic rescue of Private Jessica Lynch is also the truth, while the story about the use of excessive (and unnecessary) to free her is also a commie lie. I am just wondering, but is anything that has happened (or is happening) in Iraq and done by the US / Western powers wrong in your eyes, or simply can they do no wrong? Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NuNWlCnxcrW2uuEQJ/PQCcDO5sjq/Gs/2sVK31cVl/Zdq0v/YAoIuW HYwUlpWDsjD/OUpdCRooFbSZ =FKfd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In response to such damning reports, the Administration contends that the detainees are dangerous terrorists and thus do not deserve any legal protections, much less liberal sympathies. But after two years of investigations at the camp, the Administration has yet to charge any detainee with a crime or bring a case before a military tribunal. Thus, the public has no way to determine what alleged crimes these men are charged with committing, much less whether or not they are guilty. Interesting. If the prisoners at Guantanamo are POWs, why should they be charged with crimes? It is no crime to be an enemy soldier. However, customary practice is to lock POWs up until the conflict is over. This certainly is what happened in the two world wars, at least in Europe; it also happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars. If these are members of al-Quaeda and prisoners of war, should they not be released when and only when al-Quaeda declares the conflict over? Would not a US government releasing them before the end of the war be derelict in its duty? If they are instead unlawful combatants because they have violated the Geneva conventions (because they have carried arms in battle but discarded them and hid among civilians, say) or if they are spies (out of uniform, engaged in espionage), is the US not being somewhat charitable in treating them as POWs? If they are neither POWs nor unlawful combatants nor spies, if they are just terrorists, why is the US obliged to treat them as though they are in the United States? Presumably they were captured outside the US and were not taken into the US after capture. Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. If any of those at Guantanamo is an American citizen, then of course he should be returned to the States and tried for carrying arms against his country. Treason, isn't it? Let us say that by agreement between the US and the Afghan government (which no one seems to deny is the rightful government of the country) terrorists captured in Afghanistan are being held in Guantanamo. Why should US law apply instead of Afghan law? I know for a fact that conditions in Afghan jails are nowhere near as comfortable as those in Guantanamo. An American friend of mine spent six months in a jail in Kabul. If you didn't buy food from the guards, you starved. If you bought coal from them to heat your cell -- tiny windows high in thick stone walls, so no real ventilation -- you were slowly poisoned by carbon monoxide. If you didn't, you froze. It's cold in Kabul in the winter. The beatings were free. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are unlawful enemy combattants. I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs. I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this assessment personally. The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus they should be released, no? Oh, we are back to their being POWs. Fine. In that case, the answer to your question is no. The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the murder of 3000 people in New York City. Is this war over? Not according to tapes attributed to al Qaeda. They still profess to be at war with the United States. Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these you could construe as an act of war. Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not according to news reports. Osama bin Laden remains free. The Taliban remain active. But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed (with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it done deal. Same in Japan. So what's different this time? If they are terrorists and they have proof of this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). Please make your mind up. Now they are terrorists again. I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, than they should be tried no? Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion? Our enlightened western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those primitive cultures in the middle east). The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law. It is to defend the United States. They seem to be doing a good job at the moment. Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next time someone gets blown up. In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce the law in their jurisdiction. There is no US police force with responsiblities in Guantanamo. US law does not apply to Cuba. Nifty, isn't it? Well people, we see your point. But you have to Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest. If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them according to the gospel that we preach. But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually convict them? By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide that I am not a POW and walk free. That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free. In what war has this been common practice? See above. Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to be allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I might require. This right has not been given. What International Law says that unlawful combatants get to contact their governments in this manner? The term unlawful combatants doesn't exist either. So the question is mute. Let's say Human being instead. What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held as a prisoner indefinitely? Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, after they found out, were allowed to
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
Jim Dixon wrote: If the prisoners at Guantanamo are POWs, why should they be charged with crimes? It is no crime to be an enemy soldier. According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are unlawful enemy combattants. However, customary practice is to lock POWs up until the conflict is over. This certainly is what happened in the two world wars, at least in Europe; it also happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars. If these are members of al-Quaeda and prisoners of war, should they not be released when and only when al-Quaeda declares the conflict over? Would not a US government releasing them before the end of the war be derelict in its duty? The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus they should be released, no? If they are terrorists and they have proof of this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). If they are instead unlawful combatants because they have violated the Geneva conventions (because they have carried arms in battle but discarded them and hid among civilians, say) or if they are spies (out of uniform, engaged in espionage), is the US not being somewhat charitable in treating them as POWs? But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually convict them? If they are neither POWs nor unlawful combatants nor spies, if they are just terrorists, why is the US obliged to treat them as though they are in the United States? Presumably they were captured outside the US and were not taken into the US after capture. Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to be allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I might require. This right has not been given. Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly violated as well. If any of those at Guantanamo is an American citizen, then of course he should be returned to the States and tried for carrying arms against his country. Treason, isn't it? Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have been brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did anything wrong. Let us say that by agreement between the US and the Afghan government (which no one seems to deny is the rightful government of the country) terrorists captured in Afghanistan are being held in Guantanamo. Why should US law apply instead of Afghan law? It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not happening? I know for a fact that conditions in Afghan jails are nowhere near as comfortable as those in Guantanamo. May as it be, but that still doesn't make the actions of the US Government right. Or are you telling me right now that Guantanamo Bay and Diego Garcia are part of a humanitarian mission? An American friend of mine spent six months in a jail in Kabul. If you didn't buy food from the guards, you starved. If you bought coal from them to heat your cell -- tiny windows high in thick stone walls, so no real ventilation -- you were slowly poisoned by carbon monoxide. If you didn't, you froze. It's cold in Kabul in the winter. Bad conditions, so help the Afghani government to improve the conditions. Michael
