[quote=“tigerman”]
you’re not that stupid are you? Do you really think that if the US adheres to the Geneva Convention all other nations or terrorist entitiess/organizations will do the same. Get real.
There is no cause and effect relationship here.[/quote]
And if you’re that stupid NOT to believe that we’re responsible for doing so, then perhaps GC should be abandoned altogether.
Get priorities straight. Don’t stray!
[quote]
Daltongang:
Perhaps you should invest in a moat. It would really go rather well with your siege mentality.
HG[/quote]
Because I state the facts of the situation I should get a moat?
Alien:
This hyperbole. How does the fact that the Geneva Convention does NOT protect unmarked soldiers (behind the lines agents, etc) mean that it should be scrapped?
Fact: Geneva does not cover the prisoners in Guantanamo
Fact: Guantanamo prisoners are NOT subject to protections of US law and constitution.
Fact: Other nations do not respect the Geneva Convention
Bewildering non sequitur: Then let’s get rid of the Geneva Convention. America is no better than Pakistan.
[quote=“tigerman”]
you’re not that stupid are you? Do you really think that if the US adheres to the Geneva Convention all other nations or terrorist entitiess/organizations will do the same. Get real.
There is no cause and effect relationship here.[/quote]
What? Would you please stop evading the issue. You claim that the US is in violation of the Geneva Convention with respect to its treatment of detainees at Gitmo.
In fact, the detainees at Gitmo are not even entitled to Geneva Convention protections. Nonetheless, the US is affording them treatment that would qualify as treatment under the Geneva Convention.
Now, if you disagree with that, please explain how the US is violating the Geneva Convention. And do so without comics, if you can.
Anyway, the US humanitaruian treatment of enemy combattants in other wars has never resulted in reciprocal treatment of US POWs at the hands of our enemies. I guess you’ve never read about Japanese atrocities in WW2 Japanese POW camps, or about how US POWs were treated by the North Vietnames… gee, there’s a thread on this site about a Japanese camp in Taiwan… check it out.
That reads funny when posted by you. 
[quote=“fred smith”]
Fact: Geneva does not cover the prisoners in Guantanamo[/quote]
How convenient.
Ditto
Yeah? And?
Sorry, but I too must go AWOL (meetings and work stuff) for a while. Don’t get too sharp and lucid without me!
If your argument simply boils down to the fact that “life is unpleasant for the detainees and their families” because of their detention, then absolutely… no one wants to be locked up, regardless of how good the food is.
However, the words 'concentration camp" have a particular reference in the minds of everyone here. And it is disingenuous to say the least to use dictionary definitions to justify using the words, when there is an obvious (if not necessarily logical) and highly emotional link to the Nazi concentration camps.
There are some strong points to be made, though.
HGC’s (?) comment that the mere appearance of impropriety is not going to help win the media war. (supporters of the detention policy may complain that this is unfair because it is largely exaggerated emotional statements that contribute to such impressions.) Nevertheless, if the enemy wants to wage a war of civilisations, it is surely important that the war is won, and seen to be won, with the values of your civilisation intact.
there is the moral question. these people are being held as enemy combatants. there are good reasons why combatants are held in such a way as hostilities progress… an army has to be free to operate and these people have to be out of the battlefield (you can’t release them back into it.)
(By the way, trying to fix an accusation of breaking the Geneva convention, is a mistaken line of attack… Freddie has already shown why…)
However, these are conventions were rules for a different kind of war… they weren’t framed with long wars against terrorism in mind… and there are clearly some problems with speeding up the process of deciding who may be set free.
Is it right to keep people in detention just to minimise security risks in the aggregate, even though many might just be “journeyman mercenaries” to coin a phrase?
I think not.
Let me use a (bastardised) Rumsfeld quote “These people are dangerous… one of them bit a guard” to illustrate that the intention of the administration is to use the current rules to keep these people locked up for as long as possible. They can protest (probably rightly) that they are within current rules… yet that is is little bit disingenuous, too
So, somewhere between Alien’s emotive rhetoric and the ‘written-law’ based replies of her debators, there is a middle ground, where i inhabit. i recognise that the US is not technically doing anything wrong and I cannot agree with the absurd rhetoric of its accusers… but I think the principles behind the written rules are being, err, slightly bruised.
Yes, a damned fine idea.
[quote]Argument: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to a war against terrorism.
HRW Response: The U.S. government could have pursued terrorist suspects by traditional law enforcement means, in which case the Geneva Conventions indeed would not apply. But since the U.S. government engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan - by bombing and undertaking other military operations - the Geneva Conventions clearly do apply to that conflict. By their terms, the Geneva Conventions apply to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties.” Both the United States and Afghanistan are High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions.
Argument: A competent tribunal is unnecessary because there is no “doubt” that the detainees fail to meet the requirements of Article 4(A)(2) for POW status.
HRW response: Article 5 requires the establishment of a competent tribunal only “[s]hould any doubt arise” as to whether a detainee meets the requirements for POW status contained in Article 4. The argument has been made that the detainees clearly do not meet one or more of the four requirements for POW status contained in Article 4(A)(2) - that they have a responsible command, carry their arms openly, wear uniforms with distinct insignia, or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. However, under the terms of Article 4(A)(2), these four requirements apply only to militia operating independently of a government’s regular armed forces - for example, to those members of al-Qaeda who were operating independently of the Taliban’s armed forces. But under Article 4(A)(1) these four requirements do not apply to "members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militia
[quote=“Alien”][quote=“Cold Front”]
Now it’s my turn to ask questions. What are these real issues, in your opinion? [/quote]
Who is living? Who is dying? Why? For what reason? What do we ultimately hope to achieve?[/quote]
Alien, you haven’t really answered my question. You’re simply asking even more general questions, and the more questions you ask, the further afield you get from what I assume was your original point for starting this thread: what is the status of the Guantanamo detainees?
I don’t mind discussing these questions you raise, but you have hijacked the current discussion, which was narrowly focused on Guantanamo and the historical precedents Bush has for keeping the detainees there without due process of law.
I read somewhere that the methods of execution will include gas. I wonder will we gas them all in mass or one at a time. Efficiency and all that.
What exactly is the rational behind refusing them a fair trial or at least a public one.
[quote]Cold Front: We’re at war. It’s important for subtle moral clarifications and principle-mongering to be put aside.
Arab- and Muslim-Americans are Americans, and they are deserving of the full protection of the rights of every American. However, some of them have supported groups closely allied with the Islamic terrorists. Thus, it’s understandable that some intelligence agencies, given the nature of the threat, would need to closely watch their activities.[/quote]
[/quote]
Hahaha! Tom Tomorrow rides to the rescue again.
You can try and pretend that 9-11 didn’t happen and that everything is business as usual. Most Americans, however, are taking the threat more seriously than that.
As far as I’m aware the US hasn’t met even the minimum standard of making sure all of the inmates of Camp Delta ‘belong’ there. The only conditons for being caged there I’ve heard are being Arab, being in Afghanistan, and being fingered by someone as Taleban or Al Queda.
I’d feel a whole lot better as an American citizen if the US government would at least conduct some sort of serious determination process before it cages someone up for years without charges or trial.
That’s just me though. I’m funny about things like that. Blame it on my education. I do. Those frickin’ civics and American history teachers fed me a load of hogwash. We’re no different than anyone else. Just more sophisticated about pretending to be.
Yeah, I’m getting cynical as I’m being dragged towards the edge of the precipice by our own homegrown ‘Al Queda’ extremists. The only consolation I have is I imagine my counterpart in the Islamic world, a moderate Muslim, arguing constantly too with his brood of fanatics.
“But Tigershebab, it’s wrong to target innocent civilians with violence. Our way doesn’t allow that sort of behaviour towards innocents.”
Tigershebab: “There are no innocents among the infidels. They’re a gutter people with a gutter religion who are out to kill us all and take our lands and wealth. That’s a fact which no good Muslim dare deny.”
“But how about you Cold Koran? Surely you understand what I’m saying when I plead with you not to let hatred and extremism cloud our minds?”
Cold Koran: “Stop spouting meaningless cliches at me. There is no ‘extremism’ in defense of the Koran.”
“But you, Fuad Smithhabib, surely you know they’re all not evil subhumans just because they’re Christians and Jews.”
Fuad Smithhabit: “The only good Christian and Jew is a dead Christian and Jew.”
Allah Akbar, I say, throwing my hands up in despair. Are there no reasonable men alive anymore? Have we all completely lost our reason and given into fanaticism instead?
My own dream is that one day ‘moderate Muslim’ and I will get together and cut out all these middle men:
"Salim, you make a mean cup of joe. Look, I’ve got a proposal for you. What say we skip Armageddon and let those goyishe kop duke it out among themselves.
“Honorable Infidel, that is a very good plan . . .”
And so it went. Problem solved. The 50,000 or so troublemakers on both sides ended up in a great free-for-all rumble on the plains of Armageddon and the rest of us normal people who were raised right were able to get on with our lives once again.
Case closed.
You have a fantastic imagination! Fanatics don’t argue. Or have you forgotten the images and stories from the Taliban’s rule in Afghanastan?
Alien likes to argue from a highly emotional stance that is not subject to rules of logic or fact.
So first she is upset that Geneva Convention is not being applied then when she finds out it does not legally apply, we are left with a comment like “convenient huh?” What does that mean? Laws are laws. Then the fact that the US constitution does not protect the rights of non-Americans is also treated with contempt. With such a poor understanding of the legal underpinnings coupled with the inability to stay focused on the key issues that she originally raised herself, how can these topics be debated? So I accuse you of slander, but whoops according to the definition of slander I don’t have a case. So I can ask with knowing suspicion, “Yeah, well we know why that doesn’t apply here don’t we?”
Then there is this constant implication that the rights of Arab Americans are being infringed upon. Okay. Prove it. Where is the proof that Arab Americans have been unfairly inconvenienced or suffered loss of rights?
Have they been put into internment camps? lost their jobs at sensitive institutions such as the Dept of Defense, etc. airlines? So what’s the beef?
Now IYBF is correct to point out that while technically the US government is not at fault, it is tripping around some fine lines when it comes to moral and ethical issues involved. Most people are naturally not very sympathetic to the rights of people involved since many of them placed themselves in highly damning positions. It is extremely unlikely that any of these people were caught shopping in their local grocery store and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and bundled off.
If anyone wants to discuss the fine lines here ala IYBF’s comments, I believe it would provide an interesting and topical debate. This is precisely the area that is currently being debated in international bodies governing international law (or the attempt at it) and human rights. The issue is nebulous but that’s precisely why discussing it now is so important and I would argue morally interesting.
Let’s define it as what responsibility does the US government have to these people particularly relevant would be right to legal representation and right to a speedy trial. These are areas where even I as one of the fattest pillars of Fascism have concerns.
I for one find the Human Rights Watch arguments rather clear. Maybe you could address what you find so problematic with them.
Lighting fires to the east and attacking from the west now Fred?
HG
Ah, the old ‘we are better but if others violate the conventions you can’t demand us to follow them’ argument … 
I disagree: she didn’t say Nazi-style concentration camps or something like that, so any association to that is your “mistake”.
As well by strict definition there is nothing wrong with using the term, in fact ‘concentration’ does certainly explain those camps and must not necessarily include torture, gassing or other atrocities.
And certainly harsh conditions are present there - or does anyone argue against that?
If the Geneva Conventions don’t cover those arrested than surely the US has no right to detain them either, else the Canadians could just walk over to Alaska and arrest some US citizens there by labelling them whatever they like. Just come up with a catchy term and you can do whatever you want.
Furthermore I would like to see some proof that all those arrested were actually fighting the US soldiers so that the argument of ‘they must wear a uniform’ sticks. As far as I can see that the US detains anyone they consider a (terror) suspect - and as such they should be treated differently from those (actively) fighting for your argument to work.
If they weren’t involved in active fighting or other attacks they can only be accused of comitting or trying to commit a crime (what crime?) and thus should be trialed in accordance with the laws.
So what if they are really innocent - just a mistake, another casualty in the ‘war against terror’?
Spook:
What the hell are you talking about? No one is making the statements that you are using to satirize our positions. In fact, it is blatantly dishonest. My point has always been that the same stick should be used to measure everyone AND it is the Muslims who are the terrorists not the other way around. They must be prosecuted (terrorists) and not supported by the population or the population is complicit as well. What is difficult to understand or morally reprehensible about this position. The West does not need to “understand” Islam or Arab societies if that means surrendering to moral equivalence. If you hit me with a club, I don’t care what your childhood was like or how your mother did not understand you. I don’t understand you either but no doubt that is a discussion for a different day.
HGC:
Human rights watch is certainly entitled to their views on US policy. There is more debate however and the organization is not the only one to have an opinion, but thanks for sharing.
I believe there are historical precedents for arguing either way, yes, the Chinese were not recognized as the official government but their soldiers were given protection under the Geneva Convention (which was not necessarily reciprocated). The Taleban were not recognized by the US government hence no protection under previous treaties signed by Afghan governments, their troops were often fighting rearguard actions or saboteurs and terrorists NOT wearing discernible uniforms. I would argue as others that this means the Geneva Convention does not apply.
Yes, from a moral (but not heartfelt in my case) view, the ethics of this are questionable but again, I doubt very seriously that any of those in Guantanamo are being held on the basis of some random decision or because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many have since been released. So… I guess the others will be released when and how it bests suits US security interests. Do I sympathize with the detainees or have a problem with their detention? No. Is it an ethical issue that should be debated? Certainly, but you will not see me advocating for change in this regard though I am open to hearing more about it.
Finally, why is this of such importance? Is it only because the US is doing so. How many other countries have also used questionable arrest and detention when security is involved? How many European countries in fact? I take your point but it seems that there is a brigade of activists out there who only spring into action when the US government is involved. Why not France? UK? Greece? Turkey? AND THEN let’s not even begin with the countries which make not the slightest pretense to show concern for such legalities.
Spook, it is unfortunate that you took your eighth-grade civics teacher more seriously than even he took himself. It’s also a pity you haven’t continued to read and develop your mind as you’ve gotten older. In many ways, you have a good mind. But even the best mind is fighting a hopeless battle if it doesn’t stimulate itself with good books, fresh ideas and honest debate.
The U.S. is a great place, but the U.S. government still has to make compromises between its principles and security just like any other entity under attack.
Hahaha! This is a viewpoint that can only be held by someone who isn’t even a little familiar with the societies of the Middle East.
I have no hatred or extremism towards the Muslims. How can you define a position as extremist that is supported by the vast majority of the American population, by its courts and legislature, and enforced by its executive branch? It is you, not I, that is extremist in his views.
Sorry for the length.
Now I don’t know how reliable the Miami Herald is but they are dropping names all over the place in this piece and I’d presume they’d have their arses sued to heaven if they were misquoting or making it up. I do acknowledge that the style is quite flakey.
It seems from this article that there is concern within the US military itself about who is being locked up at “Gitmo”. With big detentions also taking place in Iraq I’m somehow reminded of the disastrous “Strategic Hamlet Program” in Vietnam.
HG
[quote]Many Held at Guantanamo Not Likely Terrorists
Dozens of detainees pose no real threat, but U.S. policies make it nearly impossible to get names off lists. There
We’ve mentioned Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. What about Woodrow Wilson’s support of the Palmer Raids?
The Palmer Raids were a number of quasi-legal attacks on Socialists and Communists in the United States from 1918 to 1921.Most modern scholars now agree the Palmer Raids were unnecessarily broad in their application and a serious infringement of civil rights, even with the very real threat of communists and anarchists in the U.S.The raids are named after Alexander Mitchell Palmer, United States Attorney General under Woodrow Wilson. Palmer stated his belief that Communism was “eating its way into the homes of the American workman,” and that American Communists were responsible for most of the country’s social problems.
The crackdown on dissent had actually begun during World War I, but had accelerated significantly after the end of the war. Congress in 1919 refused to seat Socialist representative from Wisconsin, Victor L. Berger, because of his pacifist views concerning the war. With strong support from Congress and the public, in 1919 Palmer clamped down on political dissent. On June 2, 1919 a number of bombs were detonated in eight American cities, including one in Washington that damaged the home of Palmer. Following this, Palmer and his assistant John Edgar Hoover orchestrated a series of well publicized raids against apparent radicals and leftists under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. Victor Berger was sentenced to 20 years in prison on the charge of sedition (the Supreme Court of the United States later threw out that conviction).
Without warrants, Palmer’s men smashed union offices and the headquarters of Communist and Socialist organizations, concentrating on foreigners. They arrested over 10,000 people. In December 1919, Palmer’s agents gathered 248 of the arrestees, including Emma Goldman, and placed them on a ship bound for the Soviet Union. In January, 1920, another 6,000 were arrested, mostly members of the anarcho-syndicalist union Industrial Workers of the World. Palmer announced that a Communist revolution was to take place on May 1 (May Day). Following initial panic, the non-appearance of the revolution led to criticism of Palmer over his disregard for civil rights and accusations that the entire Red Scare was designed to secure him the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.
Compare both the situations and the responses by Bush and Wilson. Obviously Bush has been far more moderate in his approach despite the greater seriousness of the threat.
By the way, just for those who are interested in historical trivia, the bomb that exploded at Palmer’s house almost killed FDR’s son. At the time, FDR lived across the street from Palmer.
I should clarify what I mean by “almost killed”: FDR’s home was damaged and his son was at home that night a bomb exploded across the street at Palmer’s house. However, FDR’s son was not injured in the attack.
I also should clarify that Wilson was not actively supportive of Palmer’s actions, since he was ill at the time and not fully aware of what was going on.