Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I was projecting the reaction I expected to see from some of pro-Bush crowd. I guess you missed that.Click on the link to the Amnesty International website for details.
Aside from that, do you not classify people who have been kidnapped from their homeland, hooded and bound, transported thousands of miles to a foreign country, and incarcerated for years without charge inhumane? If you don't, then I guess the reason you're not seeing the credible proof is because you're not human. That's cool, but being human is kind of a necessity when considering the nature of of the word.
The rest of your post is garbage, so I've dumped it in the trash can.
first off you stated in one of your previous posts that the US is in breach of the 4th geneva convention...then you go on to cite treatment of POW's
given that the 4th geneva convention is regards the status of civilians in war....and infact it is the third geneva convention that regards the treatment of POW's
secondly i presume by your post that if they call the military action the "war on terror" and that the combatants taken in it are to be considered POW's then they do have the protection of the 3rd geneva convention but they dont have rights to trial...they are merely held until the end of the war...
and thats where the problem lies
the US was partly held up to clarify the situation in the november 2004 trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan which paved the way for the Combatant Status Review Tribunals
from those trials there were 38 people who were deemed never to have been combatants but only 4 of those have been released
not to mention all the scandals about translators making mistakes during those hearings
its all over the place but people in this forum on both sides are over simplifying things either due to ignorance or misunderstanding of the facts....the former of which is pathetic and the later of which applies to almost everybody on the planet due to the complexity of the situation
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Even though bush calls it a war, it legally isn't, its a 'conflict'. The President is forbidden to declare war, only Congress can, and they didn't. But the president can invole the country in conflicts.It's semantics, I know, but thats how he can get away with his crap.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd FlooAside from that, do you not classify people who have been kidnapped from their homeland, hooded and bound, transported thousands of miles to a foreign country, and incarcerated for years without charge inhumane? If you don't, then I guess the reason you're not seeing the credible proof is because you're not human. That's cool, but being human is kind of a necessity when considering the nature of of the word.
Charges are for criminals, these people are that and more, but jurisdiction makes it difficult to process them.
So, Do I have a problem with the scenario you describe? No. Is it inhumane? No.
Without reason is one thing, without charge - that's something else entirely.
We have very good reason for holding most of the detainees. And while ideally I agree that we should have more of this mess sorted out by now, I really think the priority is getting rid of the terrorists who are still out there. Letting more of them out isn't the solution.
Originally posted by docb77
Charges are for criminals, these people are that and more, but jurisdiction makes it difficult to process them.So, Do I have a problem with the scenario you describe? No. Is it inhumane? No.
Without reason is one thing, without charge - that's something else entirely.
We have very good reason for holding most of the detainees. And while ideally I agree that we should have more of this mess sorted out by now, I really think the priority is getting rid of the terrorists who are still out there. Letting more of them out isn't the solution.
So you don't mind at all that innocent people might be held there? Innocent. Like you. Innocent.
Yeah, it bugs me. But there are innocent people caught in any war. There are innocent people in any prison system in the world. It sucks and we should look for ways to make it happen less often, but not at the expense of releasing an exponentially greater number of persons who are not innocent.
personally, if my incarceration meant that 500 people who wanted to kill my family were locked up too - I'd take it.
Originally posted by jaden101
first off you stated in one of your previous posts that the US is in breach of the 4th geneva convention...then you go on to cite treatment of POW'sgiven that the 4th geneva convention is regards the status of civilians in war....and infact it is the third geneva convention that regards the treatment of POW's
secondly i presume by your post that if they call the military action the "war on terror" and that the combatants taken in it are to be considered POW's then they do have the protection of the 3rd geneva convention but they dont have rights to trial...they are merely held until the end of the war...
and thats where the problem lies
Maybe I should have made it clearer, but the stuff in bold type was quoted. However, I highlighted the disregard for both the 3rd and the 4th convention as they both apply, depending on which way the detainees are deemed to be classified. I appreciate your demand for clarity, though.
Originally posted by jaden101
its all over the place but people in this forum on both sides are over simplifying things either due to ignorance or misunderstanding of the facts....the former of which is pathetic and the later of which applies to almost everybody on the planet due to the complexity of the situation
As you say, the misunderstanding of the facts is unavoidable due to the distortions created by the administration.
Originally posted by docb77
Charges are for criminals, these people are that and more, but jurisdiction makes it difficult to process them.
That's a totally ignorant comment. You should do some research before presenting such a supposition.
Originally posted by docb77
So, Do I have a problem with the scenario you describe? No. Is it inhumane? No.Without reason is one thing, without charge - that's something else entirely.
We have very good reason for holding most of the detainees. And while ideally I agree that we should have more of this mess sorted out by now, I really think the priority is getting rid of the terrorists who are still out there. Letting more of them out isn't the solution.
Again, a load of unfounded crapola.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
That's a totally ignorant comment. You should do some research before presenting such a supposition.Again, a load of unfounded crapola.
prove it.
What human rights organizations have visited these prisons? What abuses are taking place? Who's still imprisoned that we "know" is innocent? What jurisdiction do these "unlawful combatants" fall under?
Have any of those answers?
I'm not the one denying reality here. Amnesty international... pfeh. you expect me to believe them? They're as bad on the left as the leftists claim foxnews is on the right.
Originally posted by docb77
prove it.What human rights organizations have visited these prisons? What abuses are taking place? Who's still imprisoned that we "know" is innocent? What jurisdiction do these "unlawful combatants" fall under?
Have any of those answers?
I have no interest in feeding you like a baby, but you could start by reading any number of the released detainee's accounts of their stay there. Hint: Google can help you there.
Also, you could check out Michael Winterbottom's 'The Road To Guantanamo'...
Originally posted by docb77
I'm not the one denying reality here. Amnesty international... pfeh. you expect me to believe them?
You're right. Amnesty International are all about infringing individual liberty and taking your money. Don't trust them. They're bad.
Pff, silly boy.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I have no interest in feeding you like a baby, but you could start by reading any number of the released detainee's accounts of their stay there. Hint: Google can help you there.Also, you could check out Michael Winterbottom's 'The Road To Guantanamo'...
Ok, I googled it. Yep, you're right there are some awful stories out there. You know what else I googled - "released detainees credibility". You know what I found? Nothing about the detainees.
Then you point me to a dramatization of the stories of 3 suspected terrorists. Yeah, real credible. I don't trust the govt. all that much, but I'll take their word over possible terrorists with an axe to grind.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You're right. Amnesty International are all about infringing individual liberty and taking your money. Don't trust them. They're bad.Pff, silly boy.
I never said they didn't have noble goals. I just said that they were liars.
-edit-
This is kind of old, but I think these guys are just as reputable as the ones you're parading:
from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31759
"Since nothing the White House could say would convince her that the Guantanamo detainees are being treating humanely, maybe the testimony of freed detainees themselves will. It won't make a difference to hardened America-haters, of course, but let the truth be known:
Last weekend, 18 Afghans were released from detention in Cuba after 16 months of questioning in U.S. custody. They flew home and were held briefly in a Kabul jail. The Boston Globe reports that "nearly all of the former detainees enthusiastically praised the conditions at Guantanamo and expressed little bitterness about losing a year of their lives in captivity, saying they were treated better there than in three days in squalid cells in Kabul. None complained of torture during questioning or coerced confessions."
Sirajuddin, 24, a Kandahar taxi driver, said: ''The conditions were even better than our homes. We were given three meals a day – eggs in the morning and meat twice a day; facilities to wash, and if we didn't wash, they'd wash us; and there was even entertainment with video games.''
"There is no need to lie," Sayed Abasin, 21, told the Chicago Tribune. "I'm telling you the facts. They treated us very well." His record from Cuba shows he was seen 37 times by the Gitmo medical staff, for everything from knee pain to sinusitis.
The freed detainees said they were allowed to pray five times daily, exercise and were given books written in Pashtu. Upon their release, as parting gifts, the Afghan men received new shirts, jeans, tennis shoes and gym bags (to carry their Korans). "
Originally posted by docb77
Ok, I googled it. Yep, you're right there are some awful stories out there. You know what else I googled - "released detainees credibility". You know what I found? Nothing about the detainees.Then you point me to a dramatization of the stories of 3 suspected terrorists. Yeah, real credible. I don't trust the govt. all that much, but I'll take their word over possible terrorists with an axe to grind.
Apart from being in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region, what credible proof is there that the Tription Three were terrorists? Absolutely none.
Originally posted by docb77
I never said they didn't have noble goals. I just said that they were liars.
Sure, you said that. Sadly, it's an assumption not based in reality.
Originally posted by docb77
This is kind of old, but I think these guys are just as reputable as the ones you're parading:from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31759
World Net Daily, credible? Ahahahaha...
"The crusty ex-journalist-turned-White House heckler"
Fleischer:
Ari Fleischer? As in soooooo not this presidency? As in press secretary so four years ago? As in, no longer relevant? Doing commentator spots on CNN and FOX news should be enough not to legitimacicse ARI FLEISCHER!
And that's fine, we can discuss Clinton v. Bush administrations all you want. But, one did not extend a middle finger to the other democratic nations, while "spreading democracy", did it? This war is uncalled for, AND pointless. There's a difference! If the democrats were in charge, at least there whould be a media savy reason for it. And the President would have the chutzpah to follow the script! Bush doesn't even know what that means!
Originally posted by docb77
Who's still imprisoned that we "know" is innocent?
Hey man, for all I know you are a terrorist...do I want you in a concentration camp for that....hell yes....but would I really support it? No....because there are human rights....and believe me or not...they apply to Muslims as well.
How can the US government continue to hold more than 500 people for nearly 3 years without any sort of charge? How can the US government get away with the continuing torture of detainees? How can the US government proclaim the absolute power of freedom, while denying it to these people absolutely? It is despicable.
Ego, selfishness, hypocracy, etc...
As you say, the misunderstanding of the facts is unavoidable due to the distortions created by the administration.
if the law was concrete there would be no misinterpretation of their status...i hardly think its the fault of the US that the UN cant make a decent law to save their collective ass...let alone the fact that they never do anything to enforce their will because if they did then we can be pretty sure that we would never have been in this situation in the first place
you could start by reading any number of the released detainee's accounts of their stay there
why...because they dont have an axe to grind and are completely unbiased?...mmm
amnesty international william schultz said that despite the publicised charges of torture that he didnt actually know whether it was going on.
the red cross who is the only independant organisation to be given access to guantanamo found the following
"humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions."
we cant exactly take the UN humam rights commission report seriously when it says that keeping alive the prisoners who are on hunger strike by force feeding them is a form of torture cause you can only imagine what they would say if the US just let them starve themselves to death