POW's are held until the end of a war with NO trial as to their guilt. I don't recall hearing of 425,000 court hearings in the U.S. during WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Have a good one!:s4:
Printable View
POW's are held until the end of a war with NO trial as to their guilt. I don't recall hearing of 425,000 court hearings in the U.S. during WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Have a good one!:s4:
Yes, you are right. POWs are not given trials. They have a recognized legal status as a POW, but they are not given trials. If the government had decided to treat them as POWs, we would not be in this legal mess. However, the government did not want to afford them the Geneva Convention rights of POWS, so they argued that they are NOT POWs. My interpretation is that the court is saying, if they aren't POWs, then you need to treat them as civilians and give them trials.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
The whole problem is that the governemtn is trying to have it both ways. They want to say that they are not POWs so that the Geneva Convetnions do not apply. And at the same time say that they are not normal civilian criminals who have a right to due process. They need to pick one or the other OR create a third legal status that the court will recognize as legitimate. Right now, it seems the court does not think the third legal status is legitimate.
Excellent point.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
But as for the third status- I'd expect that a court would not accept it retroactively. You can't change the rules of the game after it has been played, and then declare yourself the winner.
I think you are probably right about the third status not being something the court would accept at this point. I think the governemnt missed it's chance to define a legal status for a foreign person who is not a member of a foreign army (with a name, rank and serial number) but who is still part of an organization waging war against the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkyattic
There are legitimate problems with calling them POWs, becasue they aren't members of a recognized army, and there is no government with which to negotiate their eventual status. Although, I do not think these are the reasons the government did not want to call them POWs --- I think it had more to do with not wanting to afford them rights under the Geneve Conventions. If the governemnt did not want to treat such people as civilians, then the governemnt should have set about creating a new legal definition in a way that would have been acceptatble. My feeling is that they did not do that in good faith, and now after 7 years the court is saying, "Enough already. They're civilains. Get on with it." It's probably not a very good solution, but the court will not tolerate the legal limbo any longer.
Maybe it wasn't a slam; I'll give you credit. But what was the point in posting fact against opinion. Everyone knows what you already stated. So in that regards; it appeared as if you were trying to "rub my nose" in it so to speak. As if you found some damning information to prove me wrong. When there was no right or wrong to what I said. I am glad that you agree that they should be given some status. However I notice that you failed to acknowledge that the Left did vote for Iraq, they did vote for Afghanistan and they did vote for Guantanamo bay and the military Tribunal hearings that were being held ther with overwhelming support.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Are these facts you are just going to ignore? Seems convenient.
It's funny now that your opinion has changed from blaming the Bush administration to now blaming the Government. Your rights have not been infringed. The courts ruling does not even effect you. It effects the detainees of Guantanamo bay by extending OUR rights to them. If you feel that your rights have been trampled upon than I suggest you talk to the Liberals as well as the Republicans. Write or call your congressman and voice your beliefs.Quote:
Well, here now we are talking about MY opinon. And MY opinion is that the government has attempted to create a legal limbo in which a person can be designated an "enemy combatant" and afforded no legal status whatsoever, neither a POW nor a criminal. MY opinion is that by creating such a legal designation, the governemnt has weakend the right to due process in general and has diminished MY rights to due process. If you create a system where you can put someone in prison without charging them, without any access to the legal system, or even the right to have their government or family notidfed of their detention, then how do you KNOW that YOU won't someday find YOURSELF in that hole? Do you just take it on faith that the government will never make that kind of mistake, and wrongly put YOU in prison for something they suspect YOU did? And if it did happen, what would YOU do? What recourse would you have?
Again you've conveniently changed your wording here.. From your last post:
What a load of revisionist history crap. It's not the left wing who can't decide what to do with these people. It's the Bush administration arguing that these people's rights fall under neither the Geneva Convention nor our own Constitution.
Hrm.. nice subtle change of words that slightly contradict your last statement. Previously placing all blame on the administration and now after my posts saying it's the Government. Which I take to be an all encompassing term for the organization that runs our Country and not specifally pointing fingers at a group. Maybe this was an error and you said "government" when you meant to say the Bush Administration. If that were the case then I apologize and you've stayed true to your previous statements.
We're we expanding the scope of this debate? I'm fairly certain that we have remained on topic throughout the course of this thread. Here you contradict yourself again moving away from the word Government and make it seem as if the Bush administration made it happen all by themselves, but again like above maybe when you said "government" you meant to say Bush Administration.. incase you missed the post let me put an excerpt I included in one of my previous posts:Quote:
I don't want to expand the scope of this debate any further, but I do want to say that the legal status of prisoners in GITMO is only one area in which I think the Bush adminsitration has diminsihed the rights of Americans. I agree that the legal battle around the legal status of GITMO detainees may have little practical affect on the rights of Americans. I am far more worried about other erosion of rights that do DIRECTLY apply to Americans on American soil, such as warantless wiretapping and othe kinds of surveilance. Again, I'm not trying to expand the scope of the thread, but I see the GITMO detainee issue as part of a larger pattern of the erosion of American rights.
In the two most critical votes, the Democrats gave their support by a 37 to 6 margin to a Republican amendment tacitly supporting the Bush administrationâ??s policy on the Iraq war; and then voted 30-13 for a Republican amendment explicitly endorsing the use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.
Please show me where I said what you want to do? Here is what my response was to.. this is from your own post:Quote:
Don't telll me what I want to do. I dislike someone else putting words in my mouth. If you want to discuss what I want to do, ask me, don't tell me.
It seems foolish to me to say we need to protect our way of life from these terrorists by giving up the way of life that make us different from them.
To me, we have a compassionate way of life in comparison to a large portion of the world. This is my own opinion and I stick with it; so to me you're suggesting we should practice our "way of life" on many of whom are known terrorists. I'm sorry that i don't believe in being compassionate to a majority of people who wish and attempt/succeed in doing harm to us.
Define War Zone.. Here I'll do it for you:Quote:
I have no compassion whatsoever for anyone who beheads a civilian or practices any other kind of attack on civilians. My opinion is that in a war zone if we thnk we have the coordinates for someone who is suspected of this kind of thing, or any kind of terrorist activity, then we should drop a bomb on them or send in a sqaud to kill them in combat. I'm not in favor of trials for enemies in a war zone. However, my opinion is that if we capture people we suspect are eneimeis in a war zone, then we need to treat them as POWs. If we capture people outside a war zone that we suspect are terrorists, then we need to afford them some legal status so that we can prove those charges. And once those charges are proven, we can apply the maximum legal punishment --- death if possible. I have no comapssion for terrorists --- I just believe in the rule of law.
Main Entry:
war zone
Function:
noun
Date:
1914
1: a zone in which belligerents are waging war; broadly : an area marked by extreme violence
So by that definition a War Zone an occur anywhere making your statement rather vague and unclear. Majority of this paragraph I can agree with. Some things I don't but they are not even worth touching on. So we'll just say we're pretty much in agreement here.
Again here we see Eye to Eye but we see different approaches to the matter. I'm assuming since this post is in regards to the supreme courts ruling to grant habeas corpus to the detainees of Guantanamo, that you are for this. I on the other hand would like my Government.. both left wing and right wing.. to do the correct thing and recognize these individuals as POW. I think you can agree with this also? We seem sort've on the same page when it comes to regards of getting them some sort of due process.Quote:
Well, there it is. That is the real nut of the matter. That's why these people need some kind of legal status. I agree that nearly all of the suspects in GITMO are probably there for the correct reason. I also think that almost all civilians who are arrested by civilian police for routine crimes are guilty of the crimes they are charged with. However, I still believe in due process.
Here you're arguing semantics and it seems to me that you are bringing things up just to argue them. Yes I believe there should be a seperate process from what they have currently. Yes I believe that process should be the same as that of a POW. Is it wrong for me to bundle these as one in the same?Quote:
Earlier you said that your opinion is that the detainiees are POWs, but here you say that your opinion is that there should be a separate process for them. That is not a consisitent opinion. However, I do agree that there may be a need for a different kind of process.
I think this is a GREAT idea and feel you've really hit upon something here.Quote:
It may actually be legitimate to create a separate legal status of "enemy combatant" that applies to a person who is not part of a foreign army but takes up arms against the US. However, my opinion is that so far the governemnt has not managed to create such a status in a way that satisfies either inernational law or the Constitution with regards to due process.
no no. I never meant anyone on this board. We're all friends here. I meant finger pointing at political parties, at Individuals in office, at the media.. etc etc.Quote:
I disagree that I am doing any finger pointing. I especially am not pointing the finger at anyone on these boards if that is what you mean. I am however very critical of the Bush adminsitrtion for its diseragard for due process.
The Bush administration often times got much support from the Democratic party. This is where I feel you're finger pointing. You don't seem to acknowledge that it takes two to tango. If you want to blame President Bush then you need to Blame the democrats as well.. dating back at least to 1998.
That is what I meant by finger pointing.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting but you seemed to take my post as a personal attack and it wasn't. I apologize if it came across that way. I've advocated for people to gain as much knowledge as possible regarding circumstances they wish to choose a stance on. There is no point in saying you are FOR or AGAINST something when you have half the information.
Which; no offense. I feel you only have half the information as you keep looking to the right to blame as opposed to acknowledging that both parties are responsible for Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay and the processes that occured there.
Not retroactively, you're probably right but I think dragonrider has hit upon something to avoid future messes. I think it would be in our nations best interest to consider something similar like this for future incidents. It would solve so many problems that we as Americans and the Detainees have with Guantanamo.Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkyattic
Wishful thinking? Probably so :(
Not my intention to "rub your nose" in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I had already stated that I do not see this debate as left vs. right. Here is my quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Yes, I changed the wording because you objected to it before. How would you have me refer to the poeple in our government who have made these decisions or taken these positions? I am trying to be accomodating here. I've already said I do not view this as a left vs. right issue. I think there are plenty of people on "The Right" who are as concerned about due process as those on "The Left." Certainly there are many on "The Right" who have voiced concern about constitutional issues with the way the War on Terror has been conducted. So, to parse it as finely as possible: I think the Bush Administration took the lead in attempting to define these detainees as something other than POWs or civilian criminals. Anyone on "The Left" or "The Right" who voted for any legistlation supporting that position deserves some criticism as well. They can all share the blame together, Bush, "The Left" and "The Right."Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
That sounds like you trying to rub my nose in it. If you're going to take the high road, you gotta stick with it, man. Gloating over someone taking your point of view is poor form.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
When I was said I didn't want to expand the scope of the debate, I was referring to the fact that *I* was bringing up an off-topic subject like warrantless wiretapping. I didn't want to get way off topic, and debate warrantless wiretapping, just bring it in as what I view as part of a pattern. If you feel it is on topic and wish to discuss it, then carry on. I thought someone might feel I was getting a bit far afield with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
You were chartacterizing what I want to do. I though it was pretty clear. When I said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
It was a direct reference to the quote in which you said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
I was objecting to you saying I want to combat enemies, who video tape beheadings of innocent CIVILIANS/expressed great disdain for us/have claimed responsibility for 911, bombing of US embassies and countless other acts, with compassion. I never said I want to combat these terrorists with compasion, and I objected to you saiying that's what I want.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I am in favor of them having a recognized legal status with due process. If that means they are processed as POWs or as civilians, then there are problems with both approaches, but they at least have a recognized legal status. My main objection has been to 7 years of waiting for some acceptable method of due process. I think the court made the right decision in rejecting the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
No, there is nothing wrong with that, if that is what you meant. And I was not just arguing for the sake of argument. I interpreted your idea as being a new process, not the one for POWs as you had suggested before. I thought you meant something separate from how POWs are processed, not separate from what they have now. I agree with you and the court --- what they have now is unacceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
All I have to say Dragonrider.. is for someone who claims it's not an issue between left and right you sure took the baton and started darting off towards placing Blame solely on the Bush administration
You can not say that it's not an issue between Left and Right and then only point out the short comings of the Bush administration and not show the short comings of all groups/individuals involved.
Say what you like; we're simply commenting on each other's opinions at this point and I don't see this conversation going anywhere but down. So I'm taking this oppurtunity to gracefully bow out since I sense the potential for this to turn into a flame war.
for the most part we agree; but at the same time we disagree. I think this is the closest we're going to come to a conclusion.
Admittingly I really would've liked for you to address the facts I posted on the democrats position on Guantanamo and McCain's position on it. Unfortunately it looks like that is just not going to happen.
Enjoy sir. :smokin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Well, I certainly agree this discussion is going nowhere. However, I don't think it would have devolved into flaming --- I do not engage in flaming.
And I do not agree that *I* framed this discussion as being a left vs. right partisan debate or ran with the partisan baton. If you look back at my posts, they were consistently focused on the need for Due Process. It was some of the various mods who weighed in who initially opened the partisan aspect of the debate, and I did finally respond when P4B said, "Seems that the left wing can't decide whether these people's rights fall under the Geneva Convention or our own Constitution." That realy irritated me becasue it is not the left or the right who had trouble deciding the status of these detainess. It is my opinion that it was the Bush administration who intentionally attempted to muddle the status of the detainees by arguing that they were neither POWs nor civilians, and I did not want to leave unchallenged the idea that it was The Left who had done so. In the same post where I challenged that notion, I intended to clarify that my blame for the Bush administration did not indicate I felt this was a Left vs Right partisan debate --- I said, "I don't think this is a left-wing vs right-wing issue. It is an argument between people who believe in the rule of law and those who would rather sacrifice the rule of law for safety. And I think that is a false choice."
And then you responeded.
And then I responeded.
And then you responeded.
And then I responeded.
And then you responeded.
And then I responeded.
And then you responeded....
And here we are. I'm all for closing it off.
But just to be clear before I sign off:
- I support the right to Due Process and the rule of law.
- I do not see Due Process to be a Left vs Right partisan issue.
- I blame the Bush Administration for leading the fight to muddle the status of these detainees so that thye could not be processed according to the Geneve Conventions or through civilian courts and for failing to find a viable third option. However, my criticism of the Bush administration on this is not motivated by Left vs Right partisanship.
- I blame anyone on both the left and the right for any legistaltion they voted for that helped to pursue this policy of denying due process.
- I think the court was correct in deciding this case, even though I think the results will be problematic.
Man, y'all went back and forth so much here that it exhausts me to read it. I'm not sure anything'll get people who don't believe in the rule of law or due process to ever persuade them otherwise, Dragonrider. Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.
The one person who'd still be in here fighting the good fight with you, Dragonrider, and speaking truth to misperception, is MIA till Wednesday or Thursday. My better half, Mrs. (Birdgirl) Byrd, is cooling her heels in the hospital. We put her in there last night to start her on some new medicine to slow down her heart rhythm. I'll tell her what she's missing.
Not sure how long everyone here in this discussion besides P4B and Birdie and Breukelen Advocaat have been reading this forum. It certainly stands out now compared to what it once was. Major improvement in the tone. Civil debate like this used to be unheard of here. The factthat it exists now really has smartened up the place.
Eh... actually I think Dragonrider and I have come to the conclusion that we both essentially agree with each other for the End Goal Results (due process or process of some sort) but we just view it differently on how we need to get there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Byrd
I hope Birdgirl is alright. Give her my best wishes. I don't know her well but I thoroughly enjoy her posts/discussions as they are typically well written and well informed/educated. Something I greatly admire in people.
I think this would be true of anyone in that situation. Self preservation is a natural instinct. To say that someone wouldn't insist upon it or try to get it is a little bit silly. Of course we would, but what we want and what is *right* are two different things. And what is right or wrong is different from place to place, country to country and from person to person.Quote:
Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.
Again give the Misses my best Wishes. (damn.. I should become a rapper. My rhymes are so awesome.. lol j/k). :thumbsup: :hippy:
Man, you think it was exhausting to READ it, imagine what it was like to WRITE it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Byrd
I'm really sorry to hear about Birdgirl. Give her my best wishes. It's probably best she wasn't reading this at the time, because I doubt it would have helped with the heart rhythm!
Thanks, and let Birdgirl know we are thinking of her.
Pardon my interruption into this quarrel, but on the note of the original topic:
Why are you both(hashi and dragonrider) arguing over prisoners being afforded Geneva convention rights? The United States did not ratify the Geneva convention...so they never have to allow or follow those rules.
Just something to consider.:cool:
Kind of.. It's unclear to me as right now but very good point. Here's an excerpt from a website discussing the united states and the geneva convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshNugz
It sounds to me as if we would still have to abide by the prisoners of war (assuming we could somehow categorizes these 'detainees'/'enemy combatants' as such) because that part was not amended in 1977?
But to be honest I'm really not sure. Here's what's written. Maybe you can read it and tell me what you think?
Quote:
The Red Cross movement (later renamed the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) spearheaded the first Geneva Convention in 1864. The purpose of this first treaty was to protect wounded soldiers and those caring for them during times of war. Twelve nations signed the initial document. Over the following decades, more countries agreed to the convention.
In 1882, U.S. President Chester Arthur signed the treaty, making the U.S. the 32nd nation to do so. The U.S. Senate ratified it shortly thereafter. At the same time, the American Association of the Red Cross was formed (many nations had begun to create their own Red Cross organizations in concert with the first Geneva Convention).
The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.
According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.
Well McCain is entitled to his opinion whether non americans have the right to american rights but the fact is, that 5-4, they are allowed the rights. Majority rules and thus can lie a problem with democracy, do you feel this is a tyranny of the majority? I don't recall when i've ever yelled out misinformation and when i do i'm more then happy to concede. I've said that the US government (bush administration) allows or allowed for water torture, i find this unacceptable, i don't know how McCain feels. They wouldn't have been allowed to even appeal their sentences in the military tribunals so i support the decision. I have no hard feelings i just believe in justice, a consistant and fair process, regardless of nationality, race, sex, wealth because we are all eqaul and should be innocent until proven guilty, not being allowed to be held in captivity like an animal without charge or evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Well they signed it of course, as did most countries. However before they are subject to it, it must be ratified....and the US never did this. Same with the International Criminal Court, etc....they do not participate in international law because they refuse to let the fate of their people be decided by international judges. AKA. they want protection for the abusive guards and soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Sorry for the double post but I couldn't edit, waited too long. Now that I've found coffee I can articulate a bit
Your excerpt is true, the US signed and ratified all four of the original protocols.
Here is a link which provides info on that.
Geneva Conventions 1949 - United States of America reservation text
In reference to topic at hand, whether or not guantanomo prisoners should be subject to it, or prisoners from this war...whichever..
The parts you referred to in 1977 are commonly known as the additional protocols - the US did not ratify these.
They are:
I. Protection of victims in armed conflicts to situations where people are fighting in the exercise of their right of self determination against colonial domination, foreign occupation, or racist regimes.
II. Protection of victims of internal conflicts in which armed opposition controls enough territory to enable it to carry out sustained military operations.
Source for ^^: Geneva Conventions - MSN Encarta
So, the cases of Gunatanamo, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and pretty much every single colonial war are not applicable to the Geneva protocols.
By not ratifying these protocols, the US is essentially open to disregard protection of victims in armed conflicts surrounding colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes...Last I checked, Al Quaeda, and many fanatical groups are fighting because they don't like foreign invaders on their land, disrespecting their sovereignty. Just the same as Vietnam and Korea..
Therefore these "enemy combatants" are not even close to being afforded protection, because the protocol which would offer it to them is not ratified. Basically its a loophole, allowing them to be subject to torture, as we have seen.
LOL...since when did the rule of law or due process in a U.S. Court have ANYTHING to do with a POW during a time of conflict? ONCE AGAIN, how many of the 435,000 Germans detained in the U.S. during WW2 made their way into a U.S. court?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Byrd
As for myself I kind of like it here in the U.S. where my rights as a citizen are granted....some of which you lose when you travel in distant lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Byrd
Now my brother is an exception, due to his job he is a world traveler. Now lets say I were to get the 3:00A.M. wake up call stating that he was caught in the middle of an Al-Quada camp cleaning his AK-47; hell ya I'd feel bad for him but I'd tell the caller to tell him from me, "enjoy the complimentary breakfast....dumbass!".
So what rights under U.S. law OR the Geneva Convention did either Nick Berg or Eugene Armstrong have just to name a few? NONE...both were beheaded! Giving people from this group rights under the Geneva Convention is one thing; giving them the rights of a U.S. citizen is completely wrong!
Have a good one!:s4:
P4B, you keep going back to the idea that these detainees are prisoners of war, and while I might tend to agree with you on that, the government has claimed that they are not POWs. So just forget it -- they aren't POWs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
And even if they were considered POWs, the rule of law and due process do apply to POWs. You are wrong if you are saying it doesn't. The definition of a POW is a legal definition and there are laws that apply to the treatment of people with a legal status of POW. So POWs receive due process in accordance with their status as POWs. You are right that they do not get their day in court, but that doesn't mean they don't have protections under the law or receive due process as POWs. Both civilians and POWs recieve due process, but under different rules.
The reason that they are being given their day in court is because the governemnt has chosen not to process them as POWs, so the court has said they must be given due process under civilian rules. It's the government's blunder, not the court's.
When I refer to the breakdown of the rule of law, I am referring to the government's attempt to designate these people as neither POWs nor civilians. They were attempting to create a situation in which the detainee could not recieve due process as a POW nor as a civilian. They wanted to create a legal black hole in which they could do whatever they wanted with these people, subject to neither set of rules. That is an attempt to circumvent the rule of law by creating a situation in which no laws apply.
Nick Berg and Eugene Armstrong did have rights. Thier rights were incorrectly taken from them and they were beheaded. It's an atrocity, and everyone the world over knows it was wrong. What makes us different from the terrorists is that we respect the rule of law and don't do that kind of thing. I think that is what this court ruling is about --- keeping us from taking a step toward ignoring the rule of law and just doing whatever the hell we want to people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
I agree with ya on what the government, Bush, "wanted" to do but this thread isn't about that; it's about what we have in store for the future. McCain has stated, more/less, that these people should be treated as a POW and the other camp wants these people to have the same rights in a U.S. court as a civilian. Once again, out of 435,000 Germans in U.S. POW camps I can't find anything in regards to their due process in a U.S. court as to whether or not they should be held.
I think when the court made this decision they should have stated just that....these people have rights under the Geneva Convention and will be treated as such.
But once again, what do we do with the people that we are now ready to release but their own homelands won't take them back or when they do return they'll face a fate worse than that of Gitmo?
Have a good one!:s4:
Thanks for looking into that. I was not feeling good last night and couldn't clearly interpret it myself. It seems that you are correct in your interpretation, at least it makes sense to me but that doesn't mean that the court couldn't of ruled in favor of the Geneva convention instead of giving them American rights. It would be up to the choice of the Supreme Court. No one is actually stopping us from giving them rights under the Geneva Convention (aside from the Bush administration) and I feel the Supreme Court had the right idea but went in the wrong directionQuote:
Originally Posted by FreshNugz
Again thanks for clearing that up.. It's very hard for me to think when my entire body is firing off in pain. :(
No, I'm sure that none of the German POWs of WWII had their day in a US court. Due process for a POW does not involve a trial. I think due process for a POW has more to do with their treatment, living conditions, protection from torture, and release at the end of hostilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Probably there is not any one-size-fits-all way to handle all of the detainees anyway. For those that were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq, it makes sense to me that they would be considered POWs. But then you have poeple like the German guy who was picked up in Pakistan for traveling to some religious schools. He was not on the battlefield and not carrying weapons --- turns out he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever. He gets sent to Afghanistan, tortured, sent to GITMO, tortured some more, and is finally released after 5 years when the German Chancellor finally made a personal request to Bush. A person like that is not a POW. He is someone captured in more of a police-type operation outside of the battlefield. He should have had his day in court. I'm sure there are more people who have been captured in that way who should not be processed as POWs. They may all be guilty, but they should be processed properly. This country is coming off like a bunch of hypocrits when we tell the rest of the world the RIGHT way to do things, and we don't even follow those rules ourselves.
I've got no idea what should be done with the people whose countries don't want them back. I haven't really heard much about that.
Indeed. And the sooner more people realize this, the sooner it can change.:jointsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
AP: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo - Yahoo! News
Reason number 1,0001 that validates the high court decision on Guantanamo and 10,001 why we're not held in high regard in the part of the world we're allegedly saving (or the rest of it). We cannot let this sort of thing go on or even be a rare occurrence. Not if we're pretending to be the arbiters of freedom and democracy.
Human rights and justice/due process. That's all it's about. The alternative is nothing more that idiocy and hypocrisy.
Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo
WASHINGTON - Medical examinations of former terrorism suspects held by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders, according to a human rights group.
For the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far, Physicians for Human Rights had doctors and mental health professionals examine 11 former prisoners. The group alleges finding evidence of U.S. torture and war crimes and accuses U.S. military health professionals of allowing the abuse of detainees, denying them medical care and providing confidential medical information to interrogators that they then exploited.
"Some of these men really are, several years later, very severely scarred," said Barry Rosenfeld, a psychology professor at Fordham University who conducted psychological tests on six of the 11 detainees covered by the study. "It's a testimony to how bad those conditions were and how personal the abuse was."
Continued: Refer to link for complete story
AP: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo - Yahoo! News
Very nicely written. I agree completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
These are not American citizens! The constitution covers Americans. These people would kill you in a second and we want to give them the same rights as me or you.
Crazy.