Guantanamo Bay

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Jan 5, 2003.

  1. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    Over 600 people of 43 different nationalities have been held for over a year at Guantanamo Bay, contrary to international law, without charge or trial or access to legal representation. They are not allowed to see or speak to anyone else and are given 15 minutes of exercise twice a week. We are told these are the most dangerous terrorists, yet there has been no evidence offered that any of them has even committed a crime. They are described as "unlawful enemy combatants" which is a categorisation that does not exist in law, even US law: if someone is bombing you, it is clearly not "unlawful" for you to engage them in combat. The US was in this case the "unlawful combatant". Several hundred of these "unlawful combatants" have already been massacred by US forces in Mazar-i-Sharif.
    Is the US not putting itself forward as the defender of justice? Does the rule of law not apply to the US? Why is the US refusing to allow its citizens to be subject to the International Court of Justice? Is this the kind of New World Order we are all supposed to be subscribing to? Is nobody ASHAMED?
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #2
    Yeah, I always thought this whole thing was kinda curious myself. What has the US got to lose by giving these "enemy combatants" a trial? One would think a year would be enough time to extract all the information they know. Now the few but sometimes vocal Bush supporters here are going to jump on this thread and reply "Of course we have to detain them because they're EVIL MURDERERS and TYRANTS who want to KILL OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT YOU MORONIC LIBERAL IDIOTS?!?!?" and then cease to participate once they are presented with calm reason, preparing their caps lock key for the inevitable showdown that will happen over on the next national missile defense thread.

    World: Our president is an idiot, but please realize we (Americans) didn't all vote for him, and be merciful to us when the surface of the earth has been scorched and pulverized in the name of such things as "freedom" and "liberty."
     
  3. thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    Thanks (and I like the bit about the Caps Lock!!) :D
     
  4. macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #4
    No we didn't vote him in. The chads did:D
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #5
    Hey!

    Of course we have to detain them because they're EVIL MURDERERS and TYRANTS who want to KILL OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT YOU MORONIC LIBERAL IDIOTS?:D

    Yes, just to tell you something about that. Can you see that the US is doing the same thing as the vietnamis did with american soldiers after the Vietnam war? At list the american soldiers were in Vietnam but this time the american soldiers went to the other country and took this people, so that means that could be any body there. May be some one loking around that was catch by an upset american soldier, that happens a lot. I'm telling you becaue th Nationa Guard took me to jail (here in my country) 4 weeks ago just because I was around them and they said to the judge I was carryng a gun (I din't), just imagine that scenario but bigger.

    I bet there are inocent people like any of us in there. All we can do is to trust in the judgment of the US goverment (yeah right).
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #6
    Re: Guantanamo Bay

    This is just too funny, I had to respond....

    Actually a number of the prisoners were allowed to see representatives from their home countries, some have even been transferred to their home country.

    http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page4271.asp

    On October 28, 2002, the Department of Defense announced that it had released four detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Oct. 26, 2002.

    The Red Cross makes frequent visits to Gitmo to check up on the detainees.

    http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList199/5C867C1D85AA2BE541256C94006000EE

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm


    Completely false, the prisoners are allowed to speak to each other regulary and are given more than 15 minites of exercise.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_x-ray.htm
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm

    The prisoners also receive religious and recreational items including nearly 600 books in languages including Pashto, Russian, Chinese and Tadjik; headwear and prayer beads; and leisure materials.

    http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList199/5C867C1D85AA2BE541256C94006000EE

    Don't forget that various European organziations, as well as the UN and Red Cross were making a big fuss about it. Then they were invited to tour the camp where they did and said that it was not as bad as a number of European newspapers had stated.

    The detainees are no longer at Camp X-Ray, they're now at Camp Delta.

    Never mind the fact that they were caught running around Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda, we all know that Al-Qaeda is a peace loving humanitarian organization. They were they to learn how to leave peacefully and to help their fellow mankind. :rolleyes:

    If you honestly believe that the men in Gitmo are innocent then you need to wake up. The real world isn't as nice as you Europeans like to think it is.

    Who started this war? The US? No, it was the nice Al-Qaeda men who decided to hijack 4 planes and fly them into buildings, luckily the bastards never made it to their fourth target.

    The US didn't start the war, flying planes into building filled with innocent civilians violates the Geneva Convention. That's what started this war. It also violates the laws of engagement.

    Complete utter myth, before you starting spreading your LIES you need to check your facts.

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,186592,00.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1681513.stm
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,607924,00.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,776841,00.html

    No where does it implicate the US as massacring Taliban forces, and the Guardian has written some very critical pieces on the US.

    You want to talk about a massacre at Mazar-i-Sharif then you can talk about the one in 1998, that one the Taliban performed. Here are just a few sources on that one...

    http://www.hrw.org/reports98/afghan/
    http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/massacre_rr98_11.htm


    The ICJ is a farce, that's why. Countries who initially signed the treaty were given the option to take exemption if they saw fit, thus not having their citizens placed under the treaty. How convenient for them.

    We're living in an uncertain world where we need to be vigilante and cautious. We're not dealing with a country or millitary here, we're dealing with a terrorist organization that has no borders, that can blend in easily and most of all wants to kill anyone who doesn't see their way. They don't care whether they're American or European, they will kill you. Look at what they've done so far and look and what's been stopped. They would have poisoned one of the water supplies in Rome, they would have blown up a plane on it's way from Paris to Miami, they would have blown up an airport. How can you sympathize with these people.

    Sometimes taking the high road just doesn't work, you need to go down to their level if you want to win.

    Also, for next time, please check your FACTS before you type.
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #7
    Re: Re: Guantanamo Bay

    Are you sure that's where the war started? Have you ever asked why they flew those planes into the into buildings?

    I have no sympathy or respect for any terrorist group who kills people, nor do I have any sympathy or respect for governments that do the same.

    I still don't understand why these people aren't givin a fair trial. I thought that was one of the things America was pround of, freedom to a fair trial, or does that just apply to Americans. Come to think of it that's just Patriotic Propaganda.
    I wouldn't be supprised if there are innocent people in prison camp x/delta.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Re: Re: Guantanamo Bay

    The references you give do not appear to help your case. We are told nothing about the 4 "returnees", probably because they were cases of mistaken identity in the first place.

    So what?
    Sure, they can speak to each other as they are not gagged. Nowhere is my claim about exercise refuted.

    At the behest of the ICRC. That's less than one book each to last a year.

    It's a question of due process, which these men are being denied, just like the 52 American Somalis who were flown out of the States and dumped in Somalia without warning or trial. It's not good enough for the "world's policeman" to be so corrupt.
    The whole point is that WE DO NOT KNOW. Nobody has produced any testable evidence, nobody has been brought to trial. This is a travesty of justice being perpetrated by a nation which claims it is acting in our interests for the sake of freedom. It certainly wasn't any of the detainees who flew the planes, was it?

    On the contrary, none of the links you so helpfully posted makes it clear that US forces were NOT involved.

    This is the self justification of the lynch-mob. Think about how many people on death row in the States are found to be wrongly convicted, even WITH "due process". It's the minimum acceptable standard for a supposedly free and democratic society. Would you be happy being treated like this?
    It could be any one of us in there.
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #9
    Re: Re: Guantanamo Bay

    Freudian slip?
     
  10. thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Yes, I noticed that one, too!! :D :D
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #11
    Re: Re: Re: Guantanamo Bay

    Jumping to conclusions aren't we?? If there were cases of mistaken identities the media would be all over it, the men would be suing the US and they'd be causing a stink over it.

    Did you read the links that were provided??

    They provided 600 books, not one book to 600 detainees. They set up a mini library, it's safe to say that not all of the detainees are reading all the books at the same time.

    Can we get a link for the 52 American Somalis dumped in Somalia?

    You probably think our government staged it, along with all the other plotted attacks and statements that have come from Al-Qaeda.

    No, the scumbags who flew the planes are rotting in hell right now. It's their close friends that are being detained at Gitmo.

    Oh ok, so I guess a quote like "There appears to be no evidence that the US knew of the deaths, nor that American officials saw or were involved in putting prisoners into unventilated trucks. " doesn't make it clear.

    There's no denying that US and British special forces were at the scene after the revolt had started, but there is ample evidence that the US did not massacre hundreds like you claim.


    It's a very small number, and in this day in age it is almost non-existant. Sure there were some who were wrongly convicted years ago and some have been vindicated and others are looking for their justice.

    Well first off I would never join an known terrorist group such as al-qaeda.

    Do you really think the men at Gitmo were on holiday in Afghanistan and just happened to wander into an Al-Qaeda training camp and were given weapons? It's not like they were caught sleeping in some hotel or out by the pool, they were caught after firefights with coalition forces, they were caught while trying to escape firefights or while trying to escape to Pakistan. Don't you wonder why Arabs or Chechens are in Afghanistan fighting? Do you honestly believe that they are innocent?

    Stop denying who they really are.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #12
    Re: Re: Re: Guantanamo Bay

    How so? It's possible to be both vigilante and cautious.
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #13
    Yes, I suppose it is. Might want to look up "vigilante" in the dictionary, though.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #14
    Ack, so I added the e by mistake.
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    * hidden between worlds
    #15
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #16
    Well that would be very convenient if the detainees were classified as prisoners of war.

    You see they're not, so the rules don't apply. The whole POW thing seems to be sticking point for many people, they believe they should be classified as POW's while others don't think so.

    Thanks for playing.
     
  17. thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    On the contrary, it is quite clear from the Geneva Convention that they ARE prisoners of war, whether the US chooses to call them that or not. Thanks for the link which makes this abundantly clear, noht.
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #18
    So the sticking point seems to be: Should the captured al-Qaida prisoners be classified as prisoners of war or not?

    My question is, what does the U.S. have to lose by classifying them as such? Why must the government be such asses? The argument always boils down to something stupid like: "Well, we would have to abide by the Geneva Convention IF the detainees were prisoners of war, but they're not, because look, they weren't wearing UNIFORMS when they were captured! Haha!" Or, "They're not prisoners of war because they weren't fighting for a government!" To me this seems a lot like weaseling one's way out of responsibility.

    This is not Combat Against Terror. This is a War on Terror. War......... prisoners......... prisoners taken during a war........ prisoners of war. I don't understand the confusion here.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #19
    On the contray, it is NOT clear that they are to be classified as prisoners of war. A formal declaration of war was never made and Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization that has no ties to any nation. If you look at Article 2 of Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, which you claim makes it abundantly clear then you would notice it says...

    "Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

    Article 4 goes on to say...

    "Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
    (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
    (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    (c) that of carrying arms openly;
    (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

    Had they been Iraqi soldiers caught then they could be classified as POW's even though no war has been declared. They are soldiers in an army of a nation that signed the Geneva Convention and are therefore guaranteed the rights under the Geneva Convention. The Al-Qaeda cowards are part of a terrorist organization that is not recognized as a military for any nation, nor have the ever signed the Geneva Convention.

    If an IRA member was caught, are they considered POW's? No, they were treated as criminals in the British court system. If anyone of the detainees at Gitmo are brought to US soil then they would have to be put into the Justice System.

    It's useless arguing because you believe one thing and I believe another.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #20
    It's all very political.

    Look at the post above for an explanation on why we could get away with not classifying them as prisoners.

    It's not like they're being treated poorly, they get three meals a day, health care, they can practice their religion freely and they have lesiure activities.

    There has been no declaration of war, you can declare a war against a terrorist organization it has to be against a state. All it comes down to is politics. It's cool to call it a war because the media gets more out of it than calling it an Operation, which is what it is.
     
  21. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #21
    wrong.

    the Al-Qaeda terrorists are not POWs, nor are they covered by the Geneva convention. The Geneva Convention is to protect the soldiers of a nation, not members of a faceless, nationless, terrorist group. Al-Qaeda is not a recognized nation by any country and thus it's members are not entitled to any rights given to normal soldiers.

    that is explicitly stated in the Geneva Convention.

    Al-Qaeda is not recognized as an "army" of any sort by any country, and thus the claims of Al-Qaeda rights under the Geneva Convention are effectively flawed.

    Interesting to note however that while many European countries continue to criticize America's treatment of the captives, they say nothing about the continued political quagmire that continues to this day in Cuba. Political "dissenters" are thrown in jail and there has not been a free election in Cuba for decades. Free speech? Ha. That too has remained oppressed, even today.

    Why is it that Europeans are so obsessed with criticizing the actions of the United States that they fail to take a stand against the actual perpetrators?
     
  22. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #22
    I firmly agree with your statements.

    Had I read your post before my previous one, I would not have had to post it.
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #23
    All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided: -- three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws -- water -- medical care -- clothing and shoes -- shelter -- showers -- soap and toilet articles -- foam sleeping pads and blankets -- towels and washcloths -- the opportunity to worship -- correspondence materials, and the means to send mail -- the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening.

    As usual, the complaints about the Gitmo prisoners are quite overblown. They are being treated quite well and in the spirit of the Geneva Convention, even while not technically classified as POWs.

    Juventuz,
    You point on the IRA terrorist not being considered a POW is an excellent one.
     
  24. thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    Sections 1, 2(a), 2(c) and probably 2(d) seem to cover them quite nicely. And if they are not PoWs, then they are criminals, and subject to normal judicial process. "Unlawful enemy combatants" is not an option. The PoW classification is presumably to prevent enemy combatants being tried for murder. I can just imagine the spectacle if they were.
    What part of "weaseling out of it" do you not understand?
     
  25. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #25
    "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict..."

    Read it carefully. The use of the term "armed forces" is used in this context to describe the military of a recognized country, not a group of AK-toiting thugs.



    "...belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied..."

    Al-Qaeda does not have any territory of it's own, occupied or otherwise. Afganistan was controlled by the Taliban who assisted Al-Qaeda. Thus following from this, section 2 and any sub-section thereof cannot apply to the terrorists of Al-Qaeda as they have no territory or country of their own.

    Bingo. Except as non-American citizens, they are not entitled to any due process. As they are not citizens of the United States, they are thus not protected by the Bill of Rights. Examine the John Walker Lindh case for a moment. He recieved due process of law and had access to an lawyer. As an American citizen he is entitled to these rights. There is no wide-reaching legal contract or treaty that requires the United States to allow any non-American citizen to enter any type of judicial process.

    Of course it is. These people are:

    a) Part of an outlawed international terrorist group, they are, in the most direct definition of the word, "unlawful." They observe no laws nor follow any.

    b) They are not enemy soldiers. If they were, they would be given due process. Thus the designation of "enemy combatants" is as flattering and respectful of a title they are likely to receive.
     

Share This Page