M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Even if these detainees were "enemy combatants", wouldn't they still require a competent tribunal to determine their status. Are you suggesting the process was otherwise? Based on what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Amnesty International, there are numerous accounts of people who have been innocent people being sent to Gitmo. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that the military commissions violate international law. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Even if these detainees were "enemy combatants", wouldn't they still require a competent tribunal to determine their status. Their status is determined by international law - if there is a tribunal, it should also be international - the Buschistas are afraid of international involvement because any international tribunal looking at Gitmo would incarcerate more Buschistas than current detainees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Amnesty International, there are numerous accounts of people who have been innocent people being sent to Gitmo. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that the military commissions violate international law. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng Sorry, where is the proof that thy are innocent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Poor poor Figleaf.... That post, and the one following it are in violation of the forum rules in two respects: First, in both cases you have failed to trim the quotes. Second, neither of them is in furtherance of discussion of issues. I'll refrain from reporting them, but you owe everyone an apology (again). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Poor poor Figleaf.... That post, and the one following it are in violation of the forum rules in two respects: First, in both cases you have failed to trim the quotes. Second, neither of them is in furtherance of discussion of issues. I'll refrain from reporting them, but you owe everyone an apology (again). How about you apologise for your sexist and homophobic insults? Okay DB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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. Could you explain to me what exact problem you are having comprehending the difference between the concepts of 'accused' and 'proven'. Until you grasp that distinction your commentary will persist in being simply worthless blather. 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. !!! Since when? According to what? Why are you wasting everyone's time with such absurdities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 How about you apologise for your sexist and homophobic insults? Okay DB? I'm unaware of having made any sexist or homophobic comments. Who or what is DB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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. Could you explain to me what exact problem you are having comprehending the difference between the concepts of 'accused' and 'proven'. I certainly could explain but that would be giving your straw man some merit. Since I have never claimed the charges were proven, I see no reason to follow your tangent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 How about you apologise for your sexist and homophobic insults? Okay DB? I'm unaware of having made any sexist or homophobic comments. Who or what is DB? ADD is not a defence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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. !!! Since when? According to what? Why are you wasting everyone's time with such absurdities? Lets try again. Even for people like you, who have the time it seems to badger and waste. The arresting powers were the US military They were arrested on US Soil US law does not apply The arrestting power have the autority to detain them. Now there are those who disagree. They have went to the SCOTUS to settle the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Since I have never claimed the charges were proven, I see no reason to follow your tangent. Your assertions about the prisoners implicitly accept the unproven accusations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Since I have never claimed the charges were proven, I see no reason to follow your tangent. Your assertions about the prisoners implicitly accept the unproven accusations. And you implicity reject them, going so far to suggest with out anything to support your absudities that they have no evidence against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 no, certainly Britain claims to show proof -- but British proof of anything is notoriously questionable -- GWB said they had proof that Iraq had niger uranium - nobody but the right wing choir will blindly believe what the British are peddling - especially when it's tied to the illegal Buschista Regime as this story is You have to be joking. The satellite positions and quadrants Iran produced were verified by Iran when they released them before they realized they should not have released them. The satellite posiitons were already authenticated by China and Russia. So your trying to engage in this ridicukous britain is a liar because its tied to the and I quote "Buschista" regime can not change that fact. Iran fabricated a crisis and then of course releaed the soldiers as it always intended to do as a propaganda ploy to make it look good. I am extremely annoyed today with former Iranian Ambassador Ken taylor and his absolutely idiotic statement to the Canadian press, that Iran did the right thing and acted reasonably and gave a message it wants peace. Listen up you idiot Mr. Taylor, they did the wrong thing-they invaded iraq, illegally abducted British soldiers in the lawful execution of international law asnd then paraded them about humiliating them for political purposes. Releasing them means sweet fck all. You don't give brownie points to a terrorist for backing down. That is what cowards do. Doing the "right thing" after doing the wrong thing, should not be rewarded or applauded becasue all that does Mr,. Taylor you gigantic twit is fuel Iran into doing it again thinking it can get kudos if it kidnaps people then releases them. You don't under any circumstance when a country releases people it held illegally send them a message they are good people and did the reasonable thing. You remain absolutely silent because they are watching every movement you make during the release seeing how you react to decide if they should do it again. God this Taylor is a twit. I can not believe he was an Abassador let alone got people released. He is parroting the exact reaction iran wants-look at us.....look at how wonderful we are releasing your soldiers-this is like a thief after being caught red handed with the stolen goods asking people to acknowledge him as being a good honest person since he admitted he was a thief after he was caught. Give me and my stomach a rest. As for all these posts that ignored the original post-the point is Iran acted like an outlaw state, and like the coward it is backed down because the British understand the game and did not blink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 what satellite images and quadrants did Iran produce? you can show them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 what satellite images and quadrants did Iran produce? you can show them? Forgive me if I don't bother asking what the point of this question is. Are you alright or are you running a fever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Since I have never claimed the charges were proven, I see no reason to follow your tangent. Your assertions about the prisoners implicitly accept the unproven accusations. And you implicity reject them, going so far to suggest with out anything to support your absudities that they have no evidence against them. I don't reject the accusations, I am asking that they put forth the evidence. They have yet to offer ANY evidence, let alone adequate evidence, after all this time makes me question whether such evidence exists, but they could fix that by just giving the evidence they say they have. Meanwhile, it is against decency and human rights to imprison people without trials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 ...Listen up you idiot Mr. Taylor, ...Mr,. Taylor you gigantic twit ...God this Taylor is a twit. ... Reported. INSULTS Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it). People who have a history of antagonistic behaviour will be treated more harshly than those who do not. Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 The problem is Iran went into Iraq waters to abduct the 15 British. Its childish bafoon like behaviour and muscle flexing and of course only you Figleaf would twist it around to have the British who were abducted flexing muscle. You and Polynewbie need to get a hotel room and get it over and done with. How does Rue feel about Israel's muscle flexing which happened in international waters and 10 people were killed. Also, the ship that was attacked was not a military ship. Will you try to justify your hypocrisy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 All the people(and lo, there are many on this board) have had a rude awakening to discover that it might not be the U.S. who bitch slaps Iran. With typical hard line arrogance, Iran has stepped on a hornet's nest of their own making. Sabers will rattle. Both sides will try to stare down the other. And the U.S. will not need to lift a finger to see Iran has bitten off more than it can chew. Sharkman's reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Iran is being deliberately provocative and on the day before Ahmadinejad was to appear at the U.N. I doubt that was a co-incidence. Ahmadinejad is dangerous and is deliberately trying to up the ante by committing an act of war. Fortunately calmer heads are prevailing at the moment. I'll bet the sailors will be released eventually after they 'apologize for being in Iranian waters'. Neither does it matter where they were as they were acting under a UN mandate and were acting in good faith, don't forget The Royal Navy are there as part of a UN mandated operation to ensure safety for shipping and help prevent and smuggling. Also if they actually were in Iraqi waters, then so was Iran - interesting isn't it to what an Islamic state morph into a worlwide terroriest organization. . Scriblett's take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 This is just more obvious evidence that Iran is a troublemaker that needs to be set straight. Jerry Seinfeld shares his thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 So now you are an expert on acts of war? How about blockading ports? Heh. Heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Because civilized nations don't immediately pounce on, attack and arrest the military or police forces of a neighbour when they stray across the imaginary border in the middle of an ocean or lake. They simply point out the error, and send them on their way. The Iranians, of course, are not a civilized nation. Heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 This was an interesting thread to go through. Was there a final verdict in regards to where these soldiers were captured? Iran's Revolutionary Guards may not have breached international laws when they seized 15 Royal Navy personnel last year, new documents have shown. The Ministry of Defence insisted the eight sailors and seven Royal Marines were taken at gunpoint while two miles inside Iraqi waters, but the position now appears less clear cut. a report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act has shown that the Navy personnel were taken in disputed territory rather than in Iraqi waters, as Parliament was told. The sea boundary had been decided by coalition forces without the Iranian authorities being informed, the internal report claimed. It apparently contradicted the Defence Secretary Des Browne’s speech to the Commons in which he said there was "no doubt" that HMS Cornwall was "operating in Iraqi waters". The internal MoD paper, headed "Why the Incident Occurred", was sent to the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup. It stated that since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s there had been "no formal ratified" border in the area. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1895896/MoD-account-of-Iranian-kidnap-in-doubt.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.