Guantanamo Bay has set a dangerous precedent in international law (1 Viewer)

[Willoughby]

The archbishop of canterbury has condemned the holding of people at Guantanamo Bay

article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500496.html

what do u think about this...are the americans letting dictators justify illegal detainment of people?

 

[Goobieman]

These people were caught on the battlefield, opposing US forces.

They are Prisoners of War in everything but name.

POWs are NEVER charged, put on trial or given access to a lawyer.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 

[Willoughby]

These people were caught on the battlefield, opposing US forces.

They are Prisoners of War in everything but name.

POWs are NEVER charged, put on trial or given access to a lawyer.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

well the fact that it is not really a war. You can't have a war against a noun it doesn't make any sense. The bay is a complete stupidity and just gives another thing for people to attack you for

 

[GarzaUK]

Plus POW's have far more rights than the detainees have at Gitmo. There is a doc on Channel 4 on thursday night about a detainee's experiences in Gitmo, should be interesting.

I'd like to say the US treats the detainees humanly, but after Abu Gharib I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Goobieman]

well the fact that it is not really a war. You can't have a war against a noun it doesn't make any sense. The bay is a complete stupidity and just gives another thing for people to attack you for

Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War I

None of these were "wars" and yet the people we captured on the battlefield were POWs.

WHY should these people at Gitmo, captured on the field while fighting us, be treated as criminals rather than POWs?

 

[Goobieman]

Plus POW's have far more rights than the detainees have at Gitmo.

Like what, specifically, and how do you know?

I'd like to say the US treats the detainees humanly, but after Abu Gharib I wouldn't bet on it.

:roll:

 

[cherokee]

Just what would you have the US do with these people?
You think its just the US who ships them to Guantanamo Bay?

I have an idea How about we (the USA) release them all in france

 

[Willoughby]

WHY should these people at Gitmo, captured on the field while fighting us, be treated as criminals rather than POWs?

you say it like they were all captured in afghanistan or iraq fighting the americans:
Here are several cases of people in "gitmo":

M Abdalla - cpatured at a university in Pakistan

Abdur Sayed Rahman - captured at his home in Pakistan. Interesting that the US allege that he was a deputy foreign minister under the taliban. But the deputy foreign minister under the taliban was a near homonym Abdur Zahid Rahman

Salih Uyar - captured in Afghanistan. Accused of wearing a casio watch which is the same model according to the US used in bomb making. A model that hundreds of american soldiers also wear

Mohammed Gul - accussed of being part of Taliban because he had a rifle in his farm house. Nearly all farmers need rifles for self-defence

Bisher al-Rawi - Arrested whilst on a business trip to the Gambia. The US say he was transporting a component for a WMD. It was a battery-charger

Hafizullah Shah - watermelon farmer captured while walking down the street in Afghanistan because he was wearing a olive green military jacket.


Is the US justified in holding these people then?

 

[FinnMacCool]

These people were caught on the battlefield, opposing US forces.

They are Prisoners of War in everything but name.

POWs are NEVER charged, put on trial or given access to a lawyer.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

WHy is it hard to believe that some of us don't trust every single thing the government says?

 

[Goobieman]

WHy is it hard to believe that some of us don't trust every single thing the government says?

What specific information do you have that brings the government's story into question? They say we captured them in battle - why do you doubt this?

One can only wonder where you people were when we brought hundreds of thousands of Germans over here duing WW2. Not ONE of them had access to a lawyer and not ONE of them was put on trial.

POWs dont get a trial. Its that simple.

 

[Goobieman]

you say it like they were all captured in afghanistan or iraq fighting the americans...
Is the US justified in holding these people then?

Yes.
Until such a time we determine they are not a threat.
This is a determination made by the military, not a court, as POWs never, ever, see the inside of a court.

 

[G-Man]

Yes.
Until such a time we determine they are not a threat.
This is a determination made by the military, not a court, as POWs never, ever, see the inside of a court.

I amy be mistaken but I thought all the top Nazi POW's went on trial after WWII? Do you disagree with this? If not, then POW's do indeed meet justice in the courts.

Also who are we at war with, how can the enemy effect a surrender and when will the war be over? After the worlds last terrorits attack? How will we know which is the last 'terrorist attack'?

Terrorism is a crime, being a terrorist is a crime and committing terrorist activities is a crime. Always has been and always will be. This is the jurisdiction of the courts not the military.

You cannot declare 'war' on an ideology nor an individual nor a group of persons. This is just a catchy title dreamt up by those in the whitehouse.

Most of those held at GTB were not picked up from the battlefield. Most were handed in by the Pakistani authorities, abducted from foreign countries (unless there is currently a war going on in Italy - I maybe missed that on the news!) or handed in for reward. Tribal rivalry runs deep in Afghanistan/Pakistan you know. You hand someone in and say he's a terrorist..hey presto $$$$. No evidence required whatsoever and we won't check.

Also, if you are going to arrest everyone who owns a casio watch (or god forbid a mobile phone of the make used to detonate bombs i.e Nokia/Sony) I suggest you will need a far bigger detention facility.

 

[Deegan]

Yes, and the Archbishops here want to allow anyone who can illegally get in to the country, be allowed to stay, no questions asked. I don't care what these religious figures want, sometime their faith in God, leads them to make foolish decisions on our security, we can Ill afford that!

That said, this is an American prison, Europe needs to mind their own business, they have a hotbed of terrorists in their own countries to worry about. We will take the heat for this, but I can't see allowing smart lawyers to fanagle these dangerous men out of their cages. These animals are in a cage for a reason, because they will kill you, me and anyone else they come in contact with.

 

[Deegan]

I amy be mistaken but I thought all the top Nazi POW's went on trial after WWII? Do you disagree with this? If not, then POW's do indeed meet justice in the courts.

They indeed were tried, then tied to a pole, and quickly executed, I agree, let's get on with it!

 

[MSgt]

Plus POW's have far more rights than the detainees have at Gitmo. There is a doc on Channel 4 on thursday night about a detainee's experiences in Gitmo, should be interesting.

I'd like to say the US treats the detainees humanly, but after Abu Gharib I wouldn't bet on it.

You mean like how Brits beat and bludgeon children in the streets? Oh wait...that was just a few soldiers. Silly me for encapsulating your entire country, morals, values, and your military policies and personnel under the same ignorant tidy definition.

Again, this is a war, not law enforcement. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soils, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and in America he is not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[G-Man]

You mean like how Brits beat and bludgeon children in the streets? Oh wait...that was just a few soldiers. Silly me for encapsulating your entire country, morals, values, and your military policies and personnel under the same ignorant tidy definition.

Again, this is a war, not law enforcement. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soils, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and in America he is not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

How can an individual declare 'war' on the US? Its impossible. - thats why they are constantly referred to as 'enemy combatants' - whatever that means - instead of POW's.

Also what 'uniform' are these people supposed to wear. They are from a multitude of different nations and backgrounds - most have probably never met each other - hardly likely to all be dressed the same.

Further, if they all dress the same and sign a declaration of war would that make it ok? I don't think so.

Also, using the above logic if a terrorist kills a couple of thousand US civilains and then is arrested and sent to G Bay he would be released upon the end of this 'war' because we ain't sending them to court. Thats competely absurd. Even now a man is in court for the events of 9/11. As I said terrorism is a crime and the courts are there to deal with it.

Gy, I think you are avoiding the issues many of us have with the procedures at G Bay. The people who are there and were not picked up from the battlefield (i.e most of them) have been ACCUSED of being terrorists. They are given NO opportunity to prove themselves innocent in a court and most of them are not aware of what the charge against them is. This is what we feel is incorrect.

 

[Goobieman]

I amy be mistaken but I thought all the top Nazi POW's went on trial after WWII? Do you disagree with this? If not, then POW's do indeed meet justice in the courts.

You mean the leadership of the german Government?
And some nazis that committed war crimes?
Sure.

But not the oridinary soldier captured on the battlefield.

Lets try not to mix apples and oranges, please.

Also who are we at war with, how can the enemy effect a surrender and when will the war be over? After the worlds last terrorits attack? How will we know which is the last 'terrorist attack'?

Thats a determination our government will make.
Usually, thats how it works -- the winning side released the losing sides prisoners once the war is over.
The war goes on forever? Then the prisoners remain prisoners forever.

Terrorism is a crime, being a terrorist is a crime and committing terrorist activities is a crime. Always has been and always will be. This is the jurisdiction of the courts not the military.

Figthing our soldiers on the battlefield is not a crime.
And when you are captured on the battlefield, the military, not the civil courts, has jurisdiction.

You cannot declare 'war' on an ideology nor an individual nor a group of persons. This is just a catchy title dreamt up by those in the whitehouse.

Get with the times -- your 19th century notion of what constituties a war and/or a declaration of war does not apply in the 21st century.

 

[Goobieman]

Also what 'uniform' are these people supposed to wear. They are from a multitude of different nations and backgrounds - most have probably never met each other - hardly likely to all be dressed the same.

You're beginning to see how your 19th century mindset is no longer applicable in this day and age. Good for you.

 

[Willoughby]

. These animals are in a cage for a reason, because they will kill you, me and anyone else they come in contact with.

how do you know this, they have no chance to prove themselves in a decent court of law

Figthing our soldiers on the battlefield is not a crime.
And when you are captured on the battlefield, the military, not the civil courts, has jurisdiction.

so what about the scores of people who were picked up walking down the street, in their homes, in other countries etc. these were not on the battlefield.

Get with the times -- your 19th century notion of what constituties a war and/or a declaration of war does not apply in the 21st century.

i would prefer to keep the 19th (or to put it properly the 20th) century view of war. I don't want countries declaring war against a tactic or idea and then picking up random people who they have no evidence on.

Guantanamo Bay will not solve any problems, it is completly stupid and i think that it is disgusting that a country that talks about liberty all the time can do something like this.

 

[oldreliable67]

Interesting thread. Lots of strange perceptions about what the people being held at detainee are and are not, and the procedures in place for these people.

You can find out a bit more in this article at CNN. Hint: some of the detainees at Gitmo are seeking asylum in the US.

Source.

 

[Goobieman]

how do you know this, they have no chance to prove themselves in a decent court of law

Since when do POWs go to court?

so what about the scores of people who were picked up walking down the street, in their homes, in other countries etc. these were not on the battlefield.

"Scores"?
I already answered this.
One we determine they are/are not a threat, they will be detained/released.

i would prefer to keep the 19th (or to put it properly the 20th) century view of war. I don't want countries declaring war against a tactic or idea and then picking up random people who they have no evidence on.

The you're simply burying your head in the sand.
The world has changed, and new rules are needed because the old rules no longer apply.

Guantanamo Bay will not solve any problems,

The people detained there will never attack us again. This solves several hundred problems.

it is completly stupid

Yes.
Detaining people actively engaging us is stupid...
...to YOU.

and i think that it is disgusting that a country that talks about liberty all the time can do something like this.

Yawn.
What, exactly do you think we SHOULD do with people we capture on the battlefield?

 

[Willoughby]

ok lets go through this slowly as you don't seem to grasp my point:

What, exactly do you think we SHOULD do with people we capture on the battlefield?

what about the people who were not picked up the "battlefield"? If you look earlier down the post you will see that many were not picked up actively fighting the americans, some were not even picked up in the conflict zone.


btw if Guantanamo Bay is such an important measure why as the US stopped putting people in there?

 

[Goobieman]

ok lets go through this slowly as you don't seem to grasp my point:

Likewise, as you didnt answer my question:
What, exactly do you think we SHOULD do with people we capture on the battlefield?

what about the people who were not picked up the "battlefield"? If you look earlier down the post you will see that many were not picked up actively fighting the americans, some were not even picked up in the conflict zone.

I've answered this. Twice.

For you, I'll do it again:
One we determine they are/are not a threat, they will be detained/released.

btw if Guantanamo Bay is such an important measure why as the US stopped putting people in there?

There could be any number of reasons.
How do any of them indicate that it was a bad idea to put them there to begin with?

 

[cherokee]

ok lets go through this slowly as you don't seem to grasp my point:
what about the people who were not picked up the "battlefield"? If you look earlier down the post you will see that many were not picked up actively fighting the americans, some were not even picked up in the conflict zone.
btw if Guantanamo Bay is such an important measure why as the US stopped putting people in there?

What you dont understand is....The people picked up off the street or in their homes were maybe fingered members of the taliban?. Maybe they held explosives and weapons in their home for the taliban...

But anyway what would you do with these people? Where would you put them?
How do we know at this time the US and the Afghan Gov are not building a prison for them on Afghan soil?

 

[Willoughby]

One we determine they are/are not a threat, they will be detained/released.

and when will that happen

Where would you put them?

before a proper court of law

What you dont understand is....The people picked up off the street or in their homes were maybe fingered members of the taliban?. Maybe they held explosives and weapons in their home for the taliban...

and what about the miscarriages of justice..look at the examples

There could be any number of reasons.
How do any of them indicate that it was a bad idea to put them there to begin with?

my point is that if it was important then to protect american soldiers etc, why is it not important now?