If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"TinCanMan" wrote in message ...
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. In other words, you're essentially talking about POWs. POWs have rights, that are being denied those held at GITMO. Now, I realise that the US government has decided they have found a legal loophole that allows them to deny these people POW status, but no lawyer alive can change the thruth. It is not relevant that many of these people weren't wearing any kind of uniform when captured, as uniforms were not in use in Afganistan. Inconvenient to our Western criteria, but that is the way of that country. If you don't like it, complain to your elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status. I don't, and I don't have to, as they already agree with me. Unfortunately, the US government couldn't care less about that. Rob |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . ..
You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot them out of hand? I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same respect for the principles of international law most of the past century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all. Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here. Rob |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"David Nicholls" wrote in message ... "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 They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob van Riel" wrote in message om... Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . .. You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot them out of hand? I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same respect for the principles of international law most of the past century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all. Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here. Rob Rob, You are incorrect, once the Twin towers came down the US was at war and as such has the right to self defense. We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those who gave them aid and comfort. Nuff said Jim |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote: They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US purports to support it says: Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. You can find the rest at http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote:
We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those who gave them aid and comfort. I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed their country and buildings. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Watt" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote: We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those who gave them aid and comfort. I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed their country and buildings. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com Unfortunatly they had the wrong leader... I doubt soviets like Stalin, Some Germans I understand disliked the Bavarian corpural too. and I doubt they enjoyed Sherman tanks crossing the rhine or B17 flying over Berlin. War sucks. Jim |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? | suckthis.com | Naval Aviation | 12 | August 7th 03 06:56 AM |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS | TMOliver | Naval Aviation | 19 | July 24th 03 06:59 PM |