Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)

"TinCanMan" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jul 2003 14:29:19 -0700, (Clintok) wrote:

Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad, and
that wont always land you in paradise.

Some of them....maybe. But certainly not all of them. Dozens have been
released as being harmless, some after over a year of captivity
without charge or representation, or apology come to that.

This is why you're supposed to either try or charge people. Otherwise
it's just a gulag. If you have the evidence try them in a real civil
court - judges can get security clearances you know. If you don;t have
the evidence, then why the hell are you even holding them?

Don't let your prejudices let you tar them all with the same brush.

Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks
enjoying
the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants,
having
been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be
detained
in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You
don't
get to decide when that is, the detaining power does. Some of them may
eventually be charged with war crimes and as such will be tried by a
military tribunal, the details of which are not yet firm. At that time
they
will be accorded rights to defend themselves, til then they wait. I'm sure
you don't agree with any of this but, that's too bad. You have no say in
the
issue. They are in GITMO. They are going to stay there untill hostillities
are over. There have been any number of unsuccessful attempts to change
their status and they are still there, these past 18 mos. Whining on
USENET
is pretty much useless. There is simply no legal venue to try combatants
that have not comitted war crimes. If you don't like it, complain to your
elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.

If they are POW's then they should be covered by the various Geneva
Conventions - but the US has explicitly denied them the rights under those
Conventions.

David