British Navy Sailors

[buffycat]

Haven't innocent people gone to Gitmo...

Yep, lots. I guess that is what you get when you offer 'rewards'. Currently there is a Canadian boy who has been held there now for five years - since he was a mere child of 15.

[Figleaf]

There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy.

Who did each of these men kill and where is your proof?

One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier.

Yes. But DID he kill an American soldier? Where is your proof?

Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence.

So you say. But then where is it?

... I don't suffer fools gladly.

Self-hatred must tax your spirit greatly.

[Figleaf]

One detainee, Omar Khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier.

Ding-Ding-Ding

This round goes to: M.Dancer

You've gotta be kidding.

[Figleaf]

There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy. One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier. Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence.

If there is evidence, why can't these dudes be given a trial?

Since when do enemy combatants get trials? When have they ever had trials?

I suppose when it was decided they weren't prisoners of war but instead, fighters in a criminal terrorist organization.

But criminals get trials, don't they?

[DogOnPorch]

You've gotta be kidding.

He's accused of killing a US Medic with a grenade and wounding several others. Dad was one of the top fellows in Al-Qaeda...before he was killed in a shootout. Unfamiliar with the family?

-----------------------------------------------

Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.

---Osama bin Laden: Time Magazine Dec 1998. (Responding to the question "are you trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons?")

[Figleaf]

You've gotta be kidding.

He's accused of killing a US Medic with a grenade and wounding several others. Dad was one of the top fellows in Al-Qaeda...before he was killed in a shootout. Unfamiliar with the family?

I've seen the news. He's ACCUSED. Accused is not proven. And right now he's being held, incommunicado, without trial, by the accusers.

Again, I put the very simple question, where is the proof, even any evidence, that connects these men to any crimes?

You know, I honestly can't believe that you guys don't understand this concept. You don't imprison people without trial if you think you're interested in justice.

[Canadian Blue]

I'm uncomfortable with the whole "enemy combatant" label. If he was fighting the Americans during a war in Afghanistan he should be treated as a POW, same with anyone captured during a conflict.

Gitmo should be shut down, I don't see how its making the US any safer, and if anything it is hurting the image of Americans abroad.

[DogOnPorch]

You know, I honestly can't believe that you guys don't understand this concept. You don't imprison people without trial if you think you're interested in justice.

I had no part in the arrest of Omar Khadr or any other "accused terrorist". However, his own family admits Al-Qaeda connections.

Again, I put the very simple question, where is the proof, even any evidence, that connects these men to any crimes?

You'd have to ask the Americans about that.

I've seen the news. He's ACCUSED. Accused is not proven. And right now he's being held, incommunicado, without trial, by the accusers.

Prisoners are generally held by their 'accusers'. I can't think of one case where POWs are held by 'non-accusers'...perhaps you can.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Remember the words of Chairman Mao: 'It's always darkest before it's totally black.'.

---Sen. John McCain

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm uncomfortable with the whole "enemy combatant" label. If he was fighting the Americans during a war in Afghanistan he should be treated as a POW, same with anyone captured during a conflict.

Gitmo should be shut down, I don't see how its making the US any safer, and if anything it is hurting the image of Americans abroad.

"Gitmo" is a US Naval Station with a long history going back to the Spanish American War. It is the oldest US Navy Base outside of the USA. The detainment camps are just a part of the action.

The image of Americans is more important to Canadians than Americans (i.e. "Please love me.")

[Figleaf]

You know, I honestly can't believe that you guys don't understand this concept. You don't imprison people without trial if you think you're interested in justice.

I had no part in the arrest of Omar Khadr or any other "accused terrorist". However, his own family admits Al-Qaeda connections.

I fail to see how that makes a whit of difference to the point you're responding to.

Again, I put the very simple question, where is the proof, even any evidence, that connects these men to any crimes?

You'd have to ask the Americans about that.

At least hundreds, probably many thousands, of people have been asking that for years now. Eventually it makes sense to draw the conclusion that it doesn't exist.

I've seen the news. He's ACCUSED. Accused is not proven. And right now he's being held, incommunicado, without trial, by the accusers.

Prisoners are generally held by their 'accusers'. I can't think of one case where POWs are held by 'non-accusers'...perhaps you can.

POWs are not accused of anything. To receive Geneva Convention protection they disclose their status to their captors. As for criminal, they are held briefly by their accusers the police, but the police must hand them over to the courts within a very limited time.

[moderateamericain]

I'm uncomfortable with the whole "enemy combatant" label. If he was fighting the Americans during a war in Afghanistan he should be treated as a POW, same with anyone captured during a conflict.

Gitmo should be shut down, I don't see how its making the US any safer, and if anything it is hurting the image of Americans abroad.

"Gitmo" is a US Naval Station with a long history going back to the Spanish American War. It is the oldest US Navy Base outside of the USA. The detainment camps are just a part of the action.

The image of Americans is more important to Canadians than Americans (i.e. "Please love me.")

Im sorry if some little bastard threw a grenade at my buddies id shoot the mother fucker. There would not be a trial.

[Figleaf]

Im sorry if some little bastard threw a grenade at my buddies id shoot the mother fucker. There would not be a trial.

So you're saying the feeling is mutual.

[DogOnPorch]

POWs are not accused of anything. To receive Geneva Convention protection they disclose their status to their captors. As for criminal, they are held briefly by their accusers the police, but the police must hand them over to the courts within a very limited time.

I believe you'd need to be a signiture member of the convention and also wearing a uniform to actually fall under the rules of the old Geneva Convention of 1929. Generally they would be thought of as partisans and dealt with accordingly. The Russian Front of WW2 is a good example...or bad as the case may be...of the absense of any rules like the Geneva Convention..even for the soldiers in uniform. This is not to say it's OK to mistreat prisoners if they are caught sans uniform or not members of the Convention. But once you're in the realm of partisans, the rules are a lot greyer. The Third Convention provides the answers...or does it?...as there is also a little thing called Unlawful Combatants.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);

that of carrying arms openly;

that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.

4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In prison, those things withheld from and denied to the prisoner become precisely what he wants most of all.

---Eldridge Cleaver

[geoffrey]

You would then know that Article 5 of the convention requires the detainers to convene a tribunal to decide if an individual is a POW, a civilian combatant or otherwise. Taking away POW rights still affords the detainee basic civilian rights... which in the free world means access to a speedy trial.

The other argument would be that these people are mercenaries as they are compensated by a politically motivated faction to fight against Americans. That's a whole different set of treatment guidelines.

These people should be tried, and then imprisioned or jailed. A year I can see as being reasonable in highly complex cases, maybe even two. But some of these people have been in there for 5 plus now. Why? It's rather silly if you ask me.

Morally I'm not ok with that. I have little issue seeing these peopled hanged or jailed forever for their crimes, but they do need to be tried and convicted. Those that have been denied a speedy trial and are later found to be innocent should be entitled to some form of compensation.

I have little doubt, however, that a solid 98 or 99% of those in Gitmo are guilty. The American's don't just arrest people for fun. Most of these are likely bona fide terrorists or combatants. Let's try them.

[Figleaf]

POWs are not accused of anything. To receive Geneva Convention protection they disclose their status to their captors. As for criminal, they are held briefly by their accusers the police, but the police must hand them over to the courts within a very limited time.

I believe you'd need to be a signiture member of the convention and also wearing a uniform to actually fall under the rules of the old Geneva Convention of 1929. ...

Well that's interesting, though not exactly germane to the point involved in our latest exchange.

You would then know that Article 5 of the convention requires the detainers to convene a tribunal to decide if an individual is a POW, a civilian combatant or otherwise. Taking away POW rights still affords the detainee basic civilian rights...

Good post, Geoffrey. If the Gitmo prisoners are as bad as Bush says, it should not be that hard to convict them of crimes in a fair and open trial. Mind you, technically it seems to me that if their alleged crimes arose in Afghanistan, then it is in Afghanistan that they should be charged.

[M.Dancer]

There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy.

Who did each of these men kill and where is your proof?

One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier.

Yes. But DID he kill an American soldier? Where is your proof?

Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence.

So you say. But then where is it?

... I don't suffer fools gladly.

Self-hatred must tax your spirit greatly.

Poor poor Figleaf....

[M.Dancer]

There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy. One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier. Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence.

If there is evidence, why can't these dudes be given a trial?

Since when do enemy combatants get trials? When have they ever had trials?

I suppose when it was decided they weren't prisoners of war but instead, fighters in a criminal terrorist organization.

But criminals get trials, don't they?

Does it hurt?

[M.Dancer]

I'm uncomfortable with the whole "enemy combatant" label. If he was fighting the Americans during a war in Afghanistan he should be treated as a POW, same with anyone captured during a conflict.

Gitmo should be shut down, I don't see how its making the US any safer, and if anything it is hurting the image of Americans abroad.

Prisoner of war is a honourable status accorded to legitimate soldiers following the orders of their legal leadership. These fellows are treated as mercenaories would be under the law, but in actuality they are the hitmen of a criminal organization.

The legal knot is, since they were not captured on US soil, they are not subject to US criminal law, therefore they are subject to military law, the power that captured them.

In reality, they are being treated as fairly as they should be, the normal method would have been a bullet in the back of the head.

That being said, to compare mercenary criminals to the British hostages, you would have to be a raving idiot or have an agenda beneath contempt.

[M.Dancer]

Personally I am all for considering these criminals, POWs.

Except that,

It gives a sovereign legitimacy to what are paid hitmen.

POWs tend to be held until the cessation of hostilities and are subject to martial law.

[DogOnPorch]

geoffrey: These people should be tried, and then imprisioned or jailed. A year I can see as being reasonable in highly complex cases, maybe even two. But some of these people have been in there for 5 plus now. Why? It's rather silly if you ask me.

If it was the city jail and you're waiting for your DUI trial...yeah, it would be silly. But it's more akin to a POW camp...some here might wish to draw comparisons to the Hanoi Hilton. John McCain spent 5 and a half years getting tortured there for being a "Yankee Air Pirate". Back then, the same sorts of folks who worry about terrorists in prisons now were busy following Jane Fonda and siding with the North Vietnamese. So these days I hear the outrage...but can't help think about ol' Hanoi Jane and how stupid her behavior seems now. You know...ratting out POWs...shooting at US planes. She thought she was doing a good thing oddly enough...but, now, she'd need an armed guard at a Veterans Day Parade.

The 'other side' often seems OK with plain old killing of captured soldiers...often in the most gruesome way possible. Not too much worry about that...

geoffrey: You would then know that Article 5 of the convention requires the detainers to convene a tribunal to decide if an individual is a POW, a civilian combatant or otherwise. Taking away POW rights still affords the detainee basic civilian rights... which in the free world means access to a speedy trial.

What in your opinion is a competant tribunal? Who decides? It's pretty grey as I mentioned.

geoffrey: The other argument would be that these people are mercenaries as they are compensated by a politically motivated faction to fight against Americans. That's a whole different set of treatment guidelines.

I agree...but in this case they should wear some identifying feature...even street gangs are capable of this. In my opinion we make this whole affair far too complex. You wanna be treated like a soldier? Wear a uniform.

Figleaf: Well that's interesting, though not exactly germane to the point involved in our latest exchange.

I believe the original articles of the various Geneva Conventions are still in effect...the additional articles just expand the various conditions and exceptions as we've noted.

M.Dancer: In reality, they are being treated as fairly as they should be, the normal method would have been a bullet in the back of the head.

As was the fate of partisans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.

---Ho Chi Minh

[M.Dancer]

.

M.Dancer: In reality, they are being treated as fairly as they should be, the normal method would have been a bullet in the back of the head.

As was the fate of partisans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.

---Ho Chi Minh

Lets not forget that 99% of those who sit in Cuba were captured whilew fighting. Not while on holiday, not while shopping for groceries, not walking the kids to school. Captured while fighting. Some surrendered, some just forcifully taken down.

And what separates these fellows in Cuba from all the other prisoners captured in Afghanistan during the defeat of the Taliban army is that non were native afghani.

[Guthrie]

Camp X-Ray is an illegitimate concept brought to fruition by criminals.

It has gained not a single bit of useful information and none of the confessions coming out of gitmo are any more believable than the 15 confessions given up by those well-treated British sailors/marines

finally, the detainees will be released, the place will be torn down and instead of a holocaust war museum (which it should have) it will be replaced by storgage sheds or a new training area

and none of the nimrods who thought it was a good idea will be any the wiser for watching this insult to humanity come and go - there's the bad news

[GostHacked]

I have a problem with the POW angle, The US is not at war with Iran. So how the hell can they be considered POWs???

To me Iran could have just termed them 'ENEMY COMBATANTS', and held them indefinately, like all those in Gitmo. Instead it looks like those Brits were simply treated as tresspassers.

[ScottSA]

Camp X-Ray is an illegitimate concept brought to fruition by criminals.

It has gained not a single bit of useful information and none of the confessions coming out of gitmo are any more believable than the 15 confessions given up by those well-treated British sailors/marines

finally, the detainees will be released, the place will be torn down and instead of a holocaust war museum (which it should have) it will be replaced by storgage sheds or a new training area

and none of the nimrods who thought it was a good idea will be any the wiser for watching this insult to humanity come and go - there's the bad news

Woody, this is why you're not ever taken seriously by anyone. You start off with wild-eyed pronouncements using ridiculously over the top language and terminology, proceed to indefensible statements and conclusions based on nothing more than emotion, and then wrap up the lot with a return to more wild-eyed trumpeting. "Holocaust museum"? Do you ever cringe in abject shame when you read back over your posts?

[Canadian Blue]

Even if these detainees were "enemy combatants", wouldn't they still require a competent tribunal to determine their status.