|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay
#2176853 - 12/14/03 01:14 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
MetaShroom
菌类人
Registered: 06/02/02
Posts: 1,462
Loc: East Anglia UK
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Swami]
#2176925 - 12/14/03 01:48 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
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 And they have already admitted that most of the prisoners are 'minor combatants'.
-------------------- JOIN MAPS -> www.MAPS.ORG
|
enimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: MetaShroom]
#2177368 - 12/14/03 05:14 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well, if these people didn't kill our people, they'd be fine
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
#2177396 - 12/14/03 05:26 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Zahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Swami]
#2177418 - 12/14/03 05:35 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,670
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
#2177438 - 12/14/03 05:42 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Zahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
#2177476 - 12/14/03 05:54 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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.' "
--------------------
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
#2177615 - 12/14/03 07:10 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
enimatpyrt said: Well, if these people didn't kill our people, they'd be fine
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". 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.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2177842 - 12/14/03 09:13 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,032
Last seen: 24 minutes, 33 seconds
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2177995 - 12/14/03 10:21 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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?
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: falcon]
#2178031 - 12/14/03 10:33 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,032
Last seen: 24 minutes, 33 seconds
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2178215 - 12/14/03 11:36 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Makes sense.
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2179982 - 12/15/03 03:12 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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". 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.
|
shakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Zahid]
#2179998 - 12/15/03 03:18 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
Gilgamesh
Religious Iconin training
Registered: 09/13/00
Posts: 14
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: shakta]
#2180037 - 12/15/03 03:31 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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 )) ))
|
Azmodeus
Seeker
Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Gilgamesh]
#2180117 - 12/15/03 04:15 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gilgamesh said: This whole post is retarded.
That is a matter of opinion.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Gilgamesh said: You defending a group of people, most of whom are guilty of some terrorist activity.
Source?
Quote:
Gilgamesh said: Go defend and fight for a group of much larger, much more innocent oppressed.
I only fight for my own oppresion.
Quote:
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....
Quote:
Gilgamesh said:Another thought,...
Quit while your ahead.
-------------------- "Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Lest we forget. "
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2186633 - 12/17/03 10:02 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2187660 - 12/18/03 10:55 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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?
|
enimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2188449 - 12/18/03 05:12 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Edame said:
Quote:
enimatpyrt said: Well, if these people didn't kill our people, they'd be fine
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.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
#2188502 - 12/18/03 05:30 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: ]
#2188526 - 12/18/03 05:39 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Holding these prisoners in limbo is a test to see how far the administration can stretch people's rights before the majority of American's complain. As there is little criticism, further tests will be performed on other groups to find what, if any, limits there are.
Those that do not voice their objection NOW, will have no room to gripe when their rights are violated at some future time.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Swami]
#2188701 - 12/18/03 08:01 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
My understanding is that POWs remain in detention until the war is over. As we are reminded every day, the war is not over yet.
pinky
--------------------
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
#2188941 - 12/18/03 09:46 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
enimatpyrt said: 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.
the constitution is there to protect the rights of US citizens, not foreign nationals captured on US soil but we dont have that right any more.
Quote:
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.
there are none, US citizens have been charged as enemy combatants until just recently. the real problem is that as a POW they are soldier and should be treated as military/militia POWs, they do not get an attorney, no trial nothing. Giving them civil liberties makes them political prisoners and not POWs. they do deserve the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention if they are a GC pact country, if not they dont deserve anything more than what US soldiers recieved in Viet Nam.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Phred]
#2188956 - 12/18/03 09:52 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said: My understanding is that POWs remain in detention until the war is over. As we are reminded every day, the war is not over yet.
pinky
What war, are we still fighting Afganistan, I keep hearing WOMD and Sadam Hussein, what happened to the media coverage of the Afganistan vs. USA
does it strike anyone as strange that Saddam has violated less than 20 UN resolutions regarding WOMDs and the US has violated more than 400, we have nukes, and a chem/bio warfare library that we allow these foriegn powers the access to?
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2189140 - 12/18/03 11:15 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Edame said: 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?
So there is one guy that there is doubt about. All the others that were on the battlefield and without uniform or insignia are illegal combatants. You can't take one instance out of thousands and use that to argue your point in regards to the thousands. You r point is valid in the case of the one.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Swami]
#2189334 - 12/19/03 01:20 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Swami: Holding these prisoners in limbo is a test to see how far the administration can stretch people's rights before the majority of American's complain. As there is little criticism, further tests will be performed on other groups to find what, if any, limits there are.
The Orwell inside me fears this to be the case.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Sclorch]
#2189340 - 12/19/03 01:27 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Or maybe they just don't have any legal standing besides those few that are american citizens caught on american soil. If there was any leagal question why wouldn't some left leaning group take the government to trial over it. There are groups with the resources and the desire to damage the administration in any way they can. If they could they would don't you think? Plenty of lawyers who would take this cause if they had a leg to stand on.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2189350 - 12/19/03 01:34 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Um... ACLU
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Sclorch]
#2189366 - 12/19/03 01:53 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
zacly. ACLU has only concerned themselves with american citizens and immigrants. And I fully applaud them on that. American Citizens and immigrants should not be held under tha same status as the illegal combatants. ACLU seems to understand that the rest of the detainees are without legal standing.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2190314 - 12/19/03 12:11 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So there is one guy that there is doubt about. All the others that were on the battlefield and without uniform or insignia are illegal combatants. You can't take one instance out of thousands and use that to argue your point in regards to the thousands. You r point is valid in the case of the one.
I don't really know what else to say, I don't know whether you're being deliberately obtuse or you just don't understand. I didn't say that my example of Moazzam Begg was the only person held in suspect circumstances, it was one I remembered off the top of my head (and which you avoided actually commenting on). It makes no difference if the US are treating one person or a thousand people inhumanely, if they are doing it to one then as far as I'm concerned the whole operation is suspect.
You've still failed to mention anything of substance in response to article 5 of the Geneva convention either. Where is the proof that the other prisoners were captured on the battlefield without uniform or insignia? Where is their tribunal to determine these things?
Or maybe they just don't have any legal standing besides those few that are american citizens caught on american soil. If there was any leagal question why wouldn't some left leaning group take the government to trial over it. There are groups with the resources and the desire to damage the administration in any way they can. If they could they would don't you think? Plenty of lawyers who would take this cause if they had a leg to stand on.
Didn't you know? Most of the prisoners are not allowed access to lawyers, and if they are, they are ones appointed/vetted by the military.
Anyway, according to the BBC today, it looks like these people are entitled to rights afforded to US citizens:
Quote:
US court grants Guantanamo rights Detainees being held by the US military at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should have access to lawyers and the US court system, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The court said their detention was contrary to US ideals.
It did not accept that the US Government had "unchecked authority".
The ruling relates to the case of a Libyan national captured in Afghanistan and currently being held at Guantanamo.
About 660 people are currently being held as "enemy combatants" at the base.
"Even in times of national emergency... it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," said the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It added it could not accept the position that anyone under the jurisdiction and control of the US could be held without "recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement".
The decision comes shortly after another US federal appeals court ruled that US authorities did not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on US soil as an "enemy combatant".
That ruling, by the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, related to the case of so-called "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.
enimatpyrt said: 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.
Show me where I said anything about the constitution before the BBC article above. I'm talking about basic human rights, and the Geneva Convention. For all your assertions that these people are already guilty, they haven't been charged with a single crime.
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". 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.
|
enimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2190370 - 12/19/03 12:30 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Prisoners of war are kept until the end of said war, or until trading of POW's commenses. Some of the detainees have been released. I am sure that their standard of living in Cuba is much higher than it was in some shitty cave in Afghanistan.
If you don't want to have your "human rights" taken away, don't join a fucking terrorist organization that pisses off the most powerful nation on earth. I'm not gonna shed a tear for them.
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
#2190605 - 12/19/03 01:36 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So where's the proof that they are terrorists?
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". 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.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2190671 - 12/19/03 01:50 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Edame: So where's the proof that they are terrorists?
If they're locked up at Guantanamo, they're obviously terrorists. Duh!
hehehe
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2192194 - 12/20/03 01:15 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't say that my example of Moazzam Begg was the only person held in suspect circumstances, it was one I remembered off the top of my head (and which you avoided actually commenting on). Moazzam Begg's and other EU citizens have a different set of circumstances than the majority of the detainees. Are you being obtuse in not seeing the difference between them and the majority of the detainees? Obviously their are questions in his case that would make article 5 applicable. But can you explain why his name was on a money transfer found in the possession of Al-Quiada? As for the rest of the detainees I think inhumane is too strong a word to describe how the rest of them are being treated. I doubt they had it so good before.
You've still failed to mention anything of substance in response to article 5 of the Geneva convention either. Where is the proof that the other prisoners were captured on the battlefield without uniform or insignia? Where is their tribunal to determine these things? Where is the proof that they weren't? How can one prove that they were? Should soldiers all carry video cameras? Article 5 refers to cases where there is a question. In the case of Mr. Biggs and a few others I think there is a question and it should apply to them. I don't see why you say there is a question about all of the detainees. And who decides if there is a question? Obviously you think there is a question but people believe all kinds of things, but that doesn't make those things true. The tribunal comes in after there is a question. If the rest of the world also thinks that there is a question then they should be bringing resolutions to the table at the UN to demand they be brought before a tribunal. I don't know if there have been any attempts to do this. Obviously the US would veto any such resolution but the exposure is the important thing here. I don't think any one nation should be able to veto anything BTW.
Didn't you know? Most of the prisoners are not allowed access to lawyers, and if they are, they are ones appointed/vetted by the military. A lawyer can file suit on their behalf. Plenty of them would (and now obviously a couple did) if for no other reason then to make a name for themselves. This goes to show that even if they are denied access they can still get representation if their case is arguablely good enough.
I don't think the courts ruling means a whole lot right now. It was really just a way to keep the question open and move the case to the Supreme Court. The SC has already expressed that they would hear the case.
Understand me here. It isn't that I think that they all should be held indefinitely. I tend to agree with the recent court ruling in that to hold them without charging them indefinitely goes against the ideals of America. I think that the ideals of the Constitution should be applied to all people no matter where they come from. The constitutional ideals are for all people. My point is that as far as the law is concerned I'm not sure there was any wrong done . Except of course in the case of those few you bring up.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2192482 - 12/20/03 06:32 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Moazzam Begg's and other EU citizens have a different set of circumstances than the majority of the detainees. Are you being obtuse in not seeing the difference between them and the majority of the detainees?
And yet they are being held in the same circumstances and the same conditions. If there is such an obvious difference, then why is the US ignoring it and continuing to deny them the most basic of human rights?
Obviously their are questions in his case that would make article 5 applicable.
Article 5 applies to all of the detainees, and yet as far as I'm aware, it is still ignored for all of the detainees.
But can you explain why his name was on a money transfer found in the possession of Al-Quiada?
I can't explain that any more than I can explain why George Galloway's (a British MP) name was on seized Iraqi documents. These were later found to be forgeries, as were the Niger Yellowcake documents that Bush was so quick to announce as 'proof'. That alone is hardly enough to declare guilt of anything.
As for the rest of the detainees I think inhumane is too strong a word to describe how the rest of them are being treated. I doubt they had it so good before.
I don't think that this changs the fact that they are not free, and are being held against their will whilst being denied access to their families or lawyers. If the US has evidence that they have committed crimes, then by all means charge them and put them on trial. The fact that they haven't been charged with anything, their denial of lawyers, and the planned military 'courts' with the odds deliberately stacked against them all point to what I'd call inhumane treatment. I suspect that the US's 'evidence' aginst these detainees is so flimsy that they would be laughed out of a normal court.
Where is the proof that they weren't?
The onus is on the US, as the captors and the ones accusing them of wrongdoing, to prove their guilt, not the other way around.
How can one prove that they were?
My guess would be sworn statements from soldiers and commanders at the very least. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with the US, if they can't prove that the detainees did anything wrong, why should they continue to imprison them?
Should soldiers all carry video cameras? Article 5 refers to cases where there is a question. In the case of Mr. Biggs and a few others I think there is a question and it should apply to them. I don't see why you say there is a question about all of the detainees. And who decides if there is a question? Obviously you think there is a question but people believe all kinds of things, but that doesn't make those things true. The tribunal comes in after there is a question. If the rest of the world also thinks that there is a question then they should be bringing resolutions to the table at the UN to demand they be brought before a tribunal. I don't know if there have been any attempts to do this. Obviously the US would veto any such resolution but the exposure is the important thing here. I don't think any one nation should be able to veto anything BTW.
I think that there is a question, and many people have been asking this, but as we found out with Iraq, the Bush administration doesn't listen. Just a few people I've found to have spoken out:
John McCain: "I think the conditions are adequate, in some cases more than adequate. But my concern is the disposition of the prisoners," he said. ... "These cases have to be disposed of one way or another. After keeping someone two years, a decision should be made."
Lord Steyn (UK judge): "The procedural rules do not prohibit the use of force to coerce the prisoners to confess," he said.
Lord Steyn quoted officials as saying: "It's not quite torture but at close as you can get."
He said the quality of justice did not comply with international standards for fair trials.
"It may be appropriate to pose a question - ought our government to make plain publicly and unambiguously our condemnation of the utter lawlessness at Guantanamo Bay?"
Possibly even the Military lawyers themselves: The Guardian quotes a source close to the military legal establishment as saying that a team of lawyers assigned to the detainees has been dismissed after complaining about the way the planned military tribunals have been designed.
The rules include allowing government representatives to monitor conversations between the lawyers and their clients.
A group of lawyers told Vanity Fair magazine that such rules made a fair trial for the detainees impossible. They are planning a lawsuit against the government, arguing that they were given unlawful orders, the magazine reports. ... And in October, a former US appeals court judge, John Gibbons, told BBC News Online that justice was being "totally denied" to the detainees in Guantanamo.
"They don't have access to lawyers; they have had no hearings; they are just in limbo. That's as clear an example of justice denied as you can find," he said.
Understand me here. It isn't that I think that they all should be held indefinitely. I tend to agree with the recent court ruling in that to hold them without charging them indefinitely goes against the ideals of America. I think that the ideals of the Constitution should be applied to all people no matter where they come from. The constitutional ideals are for all people.
And yet these people are being denied anything even approaching those 'ideals'.
My point is that as far as the law is concerned I'm not sure there was any wrong done . Except of course in the case of those few you bring up.
Do you not think that holding people indefinately without charge and no access to a lawyer is OK as far as the law is concerned?
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". 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.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2192493 - 12/20/03 06:41 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think that is yet to be decided in the supreem court. they usualy don't hear cases where the law is already clear.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2192503 - 12/20/03 06:53 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What do you think though? Would you accept the same treatment of US citizens by a foreign government?
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". 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.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
#2192510 - 12/20/03 07:05 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I said what I think. Constitutional principals should apply to all people evenly. But in law it is not what you know but what you can prove.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
|