By: mongu - 28th March 2003 at 19:38
Hang on a second everyone.
It doesn’t actually matter what we (or maybe even the majority) think of Al’Qaeda or what should be done to them.
What DOES matter is the legal envoironment:
1. The Taliban detainees ARE PoW’s because they were officers and servants of a soveriegn country who were captured by US soldiers.
2. Al’Qaeda detainees ARE NOT PoW’s because they were not acting in the name or on the behalf of a nation state. They are therefore subject to the usual criminal law.
3. As there are two types of detainee the treatment of detainees will also be of two types – Taliban detainees should have been kept in their uniforms and subjected to the full rigamorole of the Geneva Convention as enemy Pows. Al’Qaeda detainees should have been subject to criuminal proceedings as per the US legal system.
4. In both cases this has not happened – the GC was not complied with, nor were the criminal cases dealt with. In fact the US circuit Court has ruled that US Courts have no jurisdiction, becayse Guantanamo Bay is not US sovereign territory (even though it is!)
5. The US government is therefore not only breaking rules all over the place, it is also breaking US law!
6. I am not a lawyer and appreciated there are deep legal issues in each of my points but my view remains that my points are factual in nature and taken individually, they are beyond dispute.
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th March 2003 at 09:42
“The detainees from Afghanistan are not POW’s. They are terrorists and criminals.”
I am sure Saddam would agree… he has a similar policy toward the Kurds…
“aid and abet other criminals who commit terrorist attacks on defenceless people.”
Whereas the Brave Americans and British drop bombs from 20,000ft like to fight face to face.
“As far as the US is concerned they are a special case due to the connection back to 9/11. The usual conventions do not apply. “
I am sure Saddam could also decide that the conventions shouldn’t apply to allied forces that don’t have UNSC approval for this attack. If the US has the leeway perhaps Saddam should too.
Of course neither has the leeway to make such decisions.
“In any event, I was simply referring to the fact that the persons taken to Cuba do not fit the definition of a POW. “
Only because the definition of POW assumes a war between states or those wanting statehood.
There is a declaration of universal human rights that has been put together by the west for the wests consumption. The inprisonment in cages, bound and without legal council constitutes kidnapping.
“Bush did use the the term ‘crusade’ once and we all know the phony issue that was made about the use of that particular term. “
Of course… to be a crusade you’d have to go after one particular religion. Bush is not. His silly war on terrorism is merely a pathetic act of revenge on one terrorist group called al quada… once he can say most of them are dead the whole world will be safe from terrorism again and who should we thank????
“I don’t think it matters how the terrorist vermin in Guantanamo Bay is treated.
Did Al Qaeda care when they hijacked those four planes, hacked open the passengers throats, forced other passengers to the back of the aircraft and made them phone their loved ones to tell them they were about to be murdered?”
Great… lets all act like mindless killers… they did it first!!!
“The treatment they are receiving in Cuba is too bloody good for them – they have no right to live and neither have any of their followers, and I don’t care if I offend anyone with that view because the constant moaning of the bloody human rights brigade and Amnesty International and other holier-than-thou individuals is sick and disgusting.’
You are obviously an intellectual. Yes, of course those the US captured in their fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan are those very same people that flew planes into the WTC, the pentagon and the ground. That is why we are complaining about their rights… despite the obvious fact that they must be dead.
Very funny that of the prisoners in Guantanamo only those who were American citizens were given legal council and kept not in cages bound hand and foot, but sent to America… really strange that. Funny almost.
Double standard?
Like perhaps parading Iraqi POWs in the interests of getting more Iraqis to surender but then claiming Iraqi violations of the Geneva convention when the Iraqis use US and UK captured personel for the same propaganda purpose.
Yes, the same Country that had advisers in a certain central american country where a standard practise was to put prisoners in full body casts and take them on helicopter flights out over water… funny how plaster impedes the human ability to swim… but of course as sticklers to the GC they of course protested and didn’t allow such things to happen (12 times on record presumably a few other times without American advisors).
By: ELP - 28th March 2003 at 00:48
Tailiban Johnny is a U.S. citizen. He was apprehended outside the U.S. but there are laws in place like sedition that cover punishment of U.S. citizens. Timothy McVey was a U.S. citizen captured by local police passed on to Federal authorities. So far “sedition” hasn’t been used per se but it involves more than it’s actual definiton in the dictionary. An example would be: A few citizens talking about how to overthrow or damage the elected government. No problem. Overt planning to do this is, is sedition, which a U.S. citizen could be charged with. Of course it can vary with the manner of different areas federal judges and how a federal prosecutor decides to charge the accused.
The Buffalo Six: They were captured on U.S. soil so they get a trial ( lucky for them )
The Gitmo people: They were captured in a battle zone as terrorists and are not considered soldiers. Matter of opinon? Sure. But ownership is 90% of the law and we aren’t going to do something stupid by putting them back into circulation where they can have another shot at us, just so we can appease a bunch of bleeding hearts. They are dangerous and committed to destroying us. They aren’t going anywhere until we know what their intent is, so get over it.
By: Comet - 27th March 2003 at 13:49
IKBrunel – I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say. I have just visited the website of Amnesty International and they are indeed whining on about how concerned they are for the vermin held in Cuba.
They also seem more concerned by treatment of Iraqi POWs by the coalition than by how the Iraqis are treating American POWs, but then that’s just typical of them.
To all those who think that the UK is a civilised society because of how we treat criminals. Are these the hallmarks of “civilised”: Old people scared to leave their homes for fear of being mugged. Old people scared in their own homes because yobs are allowed to run riot without any fear of punishment from our “justice” system. Teachers attacked in the classrooms because school discipline is a thing of the past. Criminals given early release from jail only to reoffend. People who do have the guts to defend themselves against criminals having to pay compensation because some burglar gets hurt. Police protecting paedophiles. The thing that killed Sarah payne was a known paedophile who had been released early from jail. If that bloody thing had served a half decent sentence then Sarah Payne would be alive today. I could go on and on here.
By: kev35 - 26th March 2003 at 17:03
IKBrunel.
“I don’t think it matters how the terrorist vermin in Guantanamo Bay is treated.”
An interesting point of view. It is how we treat these people which makes us different from them. Don’t get me wrong, I have no love for them. They should be tried, and if found guilty executed. What I don’t agree with is this limbo state they are kept in. Don’t you also find it odd that the so-called ‘American Taliban’ has been tried in a criminal court and imprisoned? Double standard? His colleagues are still waiting to find out what their actual status is.
“Did Al Qaeda care when they hijacked those four planes, hacked open the passengers throats, forced other passengers to the back of the aircraft and made them phone their loved ones to tell them they were about to be murdered?………….”
Emotive words. But coming down to that level makes us no different to them does it? If there is sufficient evidence against these Taliban, and I should think there is, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. America, and the rest of the Western world prides itself on it’s justice and morality, so use it, not throw it out of the window and become as barbaric as the perpetrators of these crimes.
“Those who go whining on about protecting the rights of terrorists and bloody criminals really make me want to vomit. The treatment they are receiving in Cuba is too bloody good for them – they have no right to live and neither have any of their followers, and I don’t care if I offend anyone with that view because the constant moaning of the bloody human rights brigade and Amnesty International and other holier-than-thou individuals is sick and disgusting.”
Well, we definitely agree on one thing, our beliefs might be different but we are equally passionate about them. Perhaps you should remember that those who are fighting in Iraq are doing so to bring some semblance of human rights to the people of Iraq. Does your attitude toward the ‘constant moaning of the bloody human rights brigade’ mean you would prefer Iraq and it’s people to remain under Saddam Hussein? You can have it one way or the other, unfortunately not both.
Regards,
kev35
By: ink - 26th March 2003 at 15:47
IKBrunel,
The difference between a civil society and a savage, barbaric one is this. When someone is acused of a crime (however dispicable) in a civil society they are considered innocent until proven guilty and are given due legal process in a court of law. A good example is the guy that blew up a government building in Oklahoma, he was given a fair trail at the end of which a jury decided that based on the evidence he must be guilty and the judge sentenced him as he saw fit based on the defendent’s crimes and his conduct in court. America, as far as I can tell, is a civil society and frankly if I was American that would be the thing I’d be most proud of. After all it wasn’t all that long ago that there was massive discrimination against non-whites in America so the civility of current American society is something amazing and should be treasured. Anyone who tries to change this is in fact an enemy of America (at least thats how I’d see it) and should be stopped.
You know Yugoslavia (or Serbia & Montenegro as its now known) is fighting really really hard to reestablish a civil society for its people. You know why? Because we really missed it when it was gone… And so will you.
By: Sauron - 26th March 2003 at 15:45
Right on IKBrunel!
Regards
Sauron
By: IKBrunel - 26th March 2003 at 15:31
I don’t think it matters how the terrorist vermin in Guantanamo Bay is treated.
Did Al Qaeda care when they hijacked those four planes, hacked open the passengers throats, forced other passengers to the back of the aircraft and made them phone their loved ones to tell them they were about to be murdered? Did they care when they rammed the planes into buildings, causing a huge fireball and literally melting hundreds of people? Did they care when two of the buildings collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people, including over 300 members of the New York Fire Department?
No, they did not, they bloody well celebrated it!!!!!!!!!
Those who go whining on about protecting the rights of terrorists and bloody criminals really make me want to vomit. The treatment they are receiving in Cuba is too bloody good for them – they have no right to live and neither have any of their followers, and I don’t care if I offend anyone with that view because the constant moaning of the bloody human rights brigade and Amnesty International and other holier-than-thou individuals is sick and disgusting.
By: Rabie - 26th March 2003 at 12:40
was the aleged al-quieda troops actually internatioanl terrists or ireegula unit sof the afgan (taliban) army – if the altter – ie fioghting for afganistan (taliban) agaisnt usa, uk, etc then surley they are POWs – IMHO of course 😉
rabie 😉
By: Geforce - 26th March 2003 at 01:50
Never said that my friend from across the ocean. I`m just following the discussions between you and Mongu + Kevin.
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th March 2003 at 01:47
…so what
about a gap? At least we’re talking….that’s the difference. I guess you’re too good for us Geforce.
By: Geforce - 26th March 2003 at 01:37
Seems like the biggest gap in this forum is between the British and the Americans. Us continentals don`t have much to add here 😀
By: Sauron - 26th March 2003 at 01:11
Mongu and Kev
I make no moral distinctions actually. I do what I believe you most likey do… judge their deeds regardless of their loyalties or the way they are outfitted. In any event, I was simply referring to the fact that the persons taken to Cuba do not fit the definition of a POW.
You both know very well that the term ‘war’ is sometimes used in the context of a ‘war against drugs’ or ‘war against crime’ or a ‘war aganst this or that’. I do appreciate the effort you both made to have the detainees reclassified as POW’s though.
Bush did use the the term ‘crusade’ once and we all know the phony issue that was made about the use of that particular term.
🙂 🙂
Regards
Sauron
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th March 2003 at 21:50
..well consider this
Because i’m born after Vietnam…so far i have never felt my government seriously let me down…maybe it’ll happen sometimes in the future, but from my perspective my government is without question the less of all evils in the governments of the world…which includes all those European ones you guys have high regards with. I don’t believe all governments are bad since that would be anarchy, but i do believe that there are some rather bad seeds in the government. The problem i have is for example, people said they don’t believe anything the US media said, fine, but why when it’s “other’s” media it’s taken as golden truth? You don’t have to believe anything i said, but why believe everything my enemy said?
By: kev35 - 25th March 2003 at 21:19
Vortex,
shall we agree to disagree? Let’s get back to discussion. I have nothing against Americans in general, it’s just the odd few I have a problem with and the decisions they make. I feel the same about my own country and my people. Some I trust, some not.
Regards,
kev35
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th March 2003 at 21:02
hey Kev
what you are insinuating about Americans hurt me just as much so don’t go off and say what i’m saying is a “rant”, venomous, etc… while what you’re saying is correct. I hear every word you said, and i don’t agree…that means i don’t hear it in?
By: kev35 - 25th March 2003 at 20:44
Sauron
Originally posted by Sauron
The detainees from Afghanistan are not POW’s. They are terrorists and criminals. They are also people who beat up on defenseless women and aid and abet other criminals who commit terrorist attacks on defenceless people. As far as the US is concerned they are a special case due to the connection back to 9/11. The usual conventions do not apply.Sauron
What are the detainees from Afghanistan then? Ok, they’re not prisoners of war because it wasn’t a war, although President Bush stated that operations in Afghanistan were part of the war against terrorism. They can’t be criminals because under American law even your vilest criminal is entitled to a trial so what are they. The only reason they are still there is because the American Government haven’t a clue what to do with them.
Regards
kev35
By: kev35 - 25th March 2003 at 20:35
Re: Re: Re: the question is…
Vortex.
“Talk about arrogance…i’m capapble of listening, my ears may not be as good as before but sound waves are still being processed. I’m incapable of accepting things you’re saying, that’s all…i do have that right as an American don’t i? No? Don’t have that right either?”
Yes you have that right but from the tone of your posts it is obvious that although you may listen it is doubtful that you hear. Remember I have that right as well, as does everyone else on this forum. You are, rightly, an advocate of free speech, agreed? Why then do you always try to shout people down? Every post you make comes across as a rant. Why not try discussion? After all it is a discussion forum.
“If you understand the psyche of Americans after 9/11 then what you are saying can be construed as a THREAT and basically we Americans have to “shut up” with our views?”
Please, Americans weren’t the only victims of September 11th, they came from across the globe. What has September the 11th to do with the Geneva Convention? I’m not asking you to shut up, just to discuss things calmly and rationally. Make a point instead of a speech full of vitriol and venom.
Regards,
kev35
By: mongu - 25th March 2003 at 20:31
So morally, you regard the Al’Qaeda detainees differently to captured Republican Guard soldiers, or differently to SS soldiers in the concerntration camps??
As for not being at war, whilst it was never declared formally, the US administration has repeatedly maintained that they were “at war against terrorism” therefore anyone captured is a prisoner of the war, surely?
By: Sauron - 25th March 2003 at 20:21
The detainees from Afghanistan are not POW’s. They are terrorists and criminals. They are also people who beat up on defenseless women and aid and abet other criminals who commit terrorist attacks on defenceless people. As far as the US is concerned they are a special case due to the connection back to 9/11. The usual conventions do not apply.
Sauron
Sign In
March 25, 2003 at 12:04 am