Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay
    #2176853 -

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
11 January 2003


The Bush administration was accused of violating human rights afforded by the Geneva conventions yesterday by persistently refusing to allow 600 prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay access to lawyers, the courts or relatives.

The British government was also criticised for failing to protect the rights of the eight Britons among the prisoners.

A year after the Pentagon first began transferring al-Qa'ida and Taliban suspects to the US naval base on the south-east tip of Cuba, human rights campaigners and lawyers have accused the administration of creating an unprecedented legal black hole.

Amnesty International said: "No access to the courts, lawyers or relatives; the prospect of indefinite detention in small cells for up to 24 hours a day; the possibility of trials by executive military commissions with the power to hand down death sentences; and no right of appeal. Is this how the USA defends human rights and the rule of law? This legal limbo is a continuing violation of human rights standards which the international community must not ignore."


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Swami]
    #2176925 -

Swami said:
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
11 January 2003


The Bush administration was accused of violating human rights afforded by the Geneva conventions yesterday by persistently refusing to allow 600 prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay access to lawyers, the courts or relatives.


..including children  :mad2:  And they have already admitted that most of the prisoners are 'minor combatants'.


--------------------
:sleepingcow:  :penguinmonkey: :blah:

JOIN MAPS -> www.MAPS.ORG

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: MetaShroom]
    #2177368 -

Well, if these people didn't kill our people, they'd be fine :smile:


--------------------
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2177396 -

What happened to the concept of a trial? If found guilty, then they should be punished. Should you be locked up merely for being accused of a crime?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Swami]
    #2177418 -

Interesting site:

http://www.cagedprisoners.com/


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2177438 -

Kill our people? What are you talking about??? We invaded their country...what do you expect them to do...bake us cookies and let us fuck their daughters? It isnt like anyone in the taliban flew a plane into one of our buildings...


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2177476 -

The Taliban had a dream. That was all. They wanted to establish an Islamic emirate that (in their ideology) was to be the closest to the Shariah of Abu Bakr's time and Khilafah. In fact, the Taliban was one of the first countries to offer sympathy to the United States after 9/11 - they also denounced such an attack as a crime against Islam. They refused to hand over Osama bin Laden because the U.S. lacked the proof to directly link him to 9/11 - and according to conservative Islamic ideology, it's quite rude to kick a guest out of your home/land for no apparent reason. While the majority of the Taliban are Ultra-Conservative, few of them have the guts to carry out "martyrdom" operations because of their own personal and religious conviction, in particular the widely ignored hadith where the Prophet Muhammad says, " 'O Allah! A slave of yours was injured in battle and to refute the pain he lodged his blade through his chest'; Allah then said, "Tell them that Paradise is forbidden to Him because my slave has taken his own life unjustly.' "


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2177615 -

enimatpyrt said:
Well, if these people didn't kill our people, they'd be fine :smile:


You've already had this arguement shot down in flames and yet you still persist.  They are all being held without charge, can you show us some proof that they killed people?


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2177842 -

People that run around fighting wars without a uniform are not aforded the rights of the geneiva convention per the geniva convention itself. During an armed conflict, only ?combatants? are permitted to take a direct part in hostilities. Noncombatants who do so commit a war crime and lose any protected status that they might have?that is, they are not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and any attacks on people or property may be prosecuted as common crime. Combatants are all members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict except medical and religious personnel. They cannot be punished for their hostile acts and if captured can only be held as POWs until the end of hostilities.Taking a direct part in hostilities usually means attacking enemy combatants or military objectives.
The armed forces consist of all organized armed forces, groups, and units that: are under a command responsible for the conduct of its subordinates to a party to the conflict; are subject to an internal disciplinary system that enforces compliance with the law of armed conflict; and whose members, at least when deployed on military operations, wear uniform or combat gear that distinguishes them from the civilian population.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2177995 -

Is there a war going on in Afghanistan? There's fighting, does the Geneva convention apply when there is no declared war and what are the rules of engagement then?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: falcon]
    #2178031 -

Reprisal is a legal term in international humanitarian law (IHL) describing a particular kind of retaliation. To be a reprisal, it must be undertaken for the purpose of forcing, or inducing, enemy forces to cease their own violation of IHL. It is a self-enforcement of the laws of war, for reprisal is undertaken not in retaliation or punishment, but rather to force the other side to stop its violation. For this reason, a reprisal is technically an action that, if done on its own, would constitute a violation of IHL.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2178215 -

Makes sense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2179982 -

Quote:
mntlfngrs said:
People that run around fighting wars without a uniform are not aforded the rights of the geneiva convention per the geniva convention itself. During an armed conflict, only ?combatants? are permitted to take a direct part in hostilities. Noncombatants who do so commit a war crime and lose any protected status that they might have?that is, they are not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and any attacks on people or property may be prosecuted as common crime. Combatants are all members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict except medical and religious personnel. They cannot be punished for their hostile acts and if captured can only be held as POWs until the end of hostilities.Taking a direct part in hostilities usually means attacking enemy combatants or military objectives.
The armed forces consist of all organized armed forces, groups, and units that: are under a command responsible for the conduct of its subordinates to a party to the conflict; are subject to an internal disciplinary system that enforces compliance with the law of armed conflict; and whose members, at least when deployed on military operations, wear uniform or combat gear that distinguishes them from the civilian population.



Firstly, if you're going to cut and paste, you could at least acknowledge your source (unless you were trying to pass it off as your own words, in which case I'd recommend a spellchecker).

Secondly, it doesn't even answer my question. We only have the US's word that any of the people held at gitmo were even found fighting on the battlefield in Afghanistan, because as I said before, they've not been charged with anything. Take one of the British captives for instance. Moazzam Begg was kidnapped from his flat by agents in Pakistan and handed over to the US. That hardly qualifies him as being an enemy combatant as your quote describes.

Also, read article 5 of the Geneva Convention:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Article 4 relates to how to determine whether someone qualifies as a POW. Since they are being held without charge and have not yet had any kind of tribunal, they should be treated according to the Geneva Convention.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Zahid]
    #2179998 -

Zahid said:
The Taliban had a dream. That was all. They wanted to establish an Islamic emirate that (in their ideology) was to be the closest to the Shariah of Abu Bakr's time and Khilafah. In fact, the Taliban was one of the first countries to offer sympathy to the United States after 9/11 - they also denounced such an attack as a crime against Islam. They refused to hand over Osama bin Laden because the U.S. lacked the proof to directly link him to 9/11 - and according to conservative Islamic ideology, it's quite rude to kick a guest out of your home/land for no apparent reason. While the majority of the Taliban are Ultra-Conservative, few of them have the guts to carry out "martyrdom" operations because of their own personal and religious conviction, in particular the widely ignored hadith where the Prophet Muhammad says, " 'O Allah! A slave of yours was injured in battle and to refute the pain he lodged his blade through his chest'; Allah then said, "Tell them that Paradise is forbidden to Him because my slave has taken his own life unjustly.' "


Nice way to sugar coat a terrorist regime that opressed an entire nation and tortured it's residents. I didn't know you were a Jihadi or that you bought into this bullshit man. This post is most dissapointing. Why don't you move over there and martyr yourself. I am sure you would soon find out there aren't any virgins waiting for you in hell. You could say hi to the idiot that started this insanity Husseini while you are there though.

They knew Osama did it. He admitted to it on tape. He was already an international terrorist before 9/11 and they harbored him. I expect to see your esteemed one eyed leader give himself up soon if reports I have seen of him and UBL having a bit of a falling out are true.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: shakta]
    #2180037 -

This whole post is retarded. Your worried about human rights violations. Go try and change the talibans customs. Go fight for the rights of all the women in the area that are on the recieving end of human rights violations every day. You defending a group of people, most of whom are guilty of some terrorist activity. Go defend and fight for a group of much larger, much more innocent oppressed. Another thought, the US is the worlds leader when it comes to human rights and working to help people in other countries. You attack them because they do care about human rights and so youll be listened to.


--------------------
(( (( NEVER EVER SHAKE A BABY )) ))

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Gilgamesh]
    #2180117 -

Gilgamesh said:
This whole post is retarded. 


That is a matter of opinion.


Gilgamesh said:
Your worried about human rights violations.  Go try and change the talibans customs. 


Why would "I" go try to change the "talibans" customs?

Gilgamesh said:
Go fight for the rights of all the women in the area that are on the recieving end of human rights violations every day. 


That is thier fight...how does it concern me?


Gilgamesh said:
You defending a group of people, most of whom are guilty of some terrorist activity. 


Source?

Gilgamesh said:
Go defend and fight for a group of much larger, much more innocent oppressed. 


I only fight for my own oppresion.

Gilgamesh said:
Another thought, the US is the worlds leader when it comes to human rights and working to help people in other countries.  You attack them because they do care about human rights and so youll be listened to.


That must be it.... :rolleyes:

Quote:
Gilgamesh said:Another thought,...


Quit while your ahead. :smirk:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2186633 -

Obviously the info is easily found and my point is to bring it to your attention. If I was trying to pass it off as my own I would get it from somewhere more obscure that the first page of a search. My apologies anyway. And I don't think there is a question as to their status. They didn't have a uniform or identifiable insignia so article 5 is not relevant.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2187660 -

It wasn't just the first page of a search, it was the [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q="During+an+armed+conflict%2C+only+%93combatants%94+are+permitted"]only[/url] result.

Anyways, I still don't see how you've done anything other than re-assert what you've already said.

And I don't think there is a question as to their status. They didn't have a uniform or identifiable insignia so article 5 is not relevant.

How does this apply to people like Moazzam Begg who were not even on a battlefield (he was effectively kidnapped)? Does this mean that the entire world is now a perpetual battlefield, and that any one of us in civilian clothing can now be held without due process?

I'm also wondering whether you actually read article 5 at all. The point I am trying to make is that it makes it clear that if there is any doubt as to the status of a person being held, they are still entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. As I've already said, these people are being held without charge, where is the evidence of these tribunals that declare them exempt from the Geneva Convention?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2188449 -

Edame said:
enimatpyrt said:
Well, if these people didn't kill our people, they'd be fine :smile:


You've already had this arguement shot down in flames and yet you still persist.  They are all being held without charge, can you show us some proof that they killed people?


I'll apologize in advance for my sarcastic, caustic comments.

Prisoners captured on US soil are required to be given a trial and the rights of habeus corpus (most likely misspelled).  Prisoners captured in another country and kept on foreign soil have no such rights.  Our constitutional rights protect those on American soil.

Bottom line, I couldn't care less about them.  If they were members of al-q, they should be sentanced under the RICO or conspiracy laws (since you seem adamant about extending American law and Constitutional protection to people who aren't within the borders thereof).  If they are members of the taliban, they should be tried for human rights violations, by members of an international war tribune, aka, the World Court.

Show me where a law exists that constitutional rights must be given to combatants that are not on American soil.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2188502 -

its not about constitutional rights.

if they are a terrorist, charge them with a crime related to terrorism.

if they are taliban, charge them with human rights violations.

give them their lawyers or whatever it is you do after that.

you DONT detain people indefinately without charging them, its cruel and pointless.

it cant be that hard to bring charges agains them, anyway. they've had a lot
of time to do it.

really.. there isn't any reason not to. if we picked them up, charge them
with whatever crime we captured them for committing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "torture-lite" and human rights after 9/11 Edame 883 4 06/28/03 08:08 AM
by Cornholio
* Human Rights... the Bush Way
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 kykeon 10,441 122 05/06/03 12:12 AM
by kykeon
* US out of UN human rights panel Weardo 671 4 11/28/02 04:31 PM
by SkiTTLeBrOW
* Should the US Follow the Geneva Convention?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Innvertigo 4,241 72 04/02/03 03:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* America is Great: just not right now
( 1 2 3 all )		 PGF 4,747 48 06/21/02 03:26 AM
by iglou
* Rise of the far-right in France and Europe
( 1 2 3 4 ... 710 711 )		 circastes 303,442 14,200 02/23/25 11:10 AM
by Brian Jones
* What are our rights? z@z.com 1,213 18 06/19/03 03:30 PM
by z@z.com
* Crimes against humanity
( 1 2 all )		 Xlea321 2,567 27 04/17/03 09:17 PM
by Ellis Dee

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,419 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 48 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 18 queries.