Poll

6 votes (30%)
2 votes (10%)
No votes (0%)
12 votes (60%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)

20 members have voted

P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 4:25:32 PM permalink
Quote: timberjim

Which is it? You state definitely that they are not given trials. Then you follow it up with the trials they get are not up to your standards.


Out of over 750, only 12 have been given something close to real trials. And even these trials weren't up to - not mine - but UCMJ standards.


Quote: timberjim

So now the US Military is an occupation force that the noble guerillas are justified in fighting.


It's hard to imagine why wouldn't they fight. Justified or not, but occupation is a reason to resist it by itself. Noble or not, guerrillas or terrorists, Shia or Sunni, but it's only to be expected they would fight back. It's not about being noble and justified, just the way things are.


Quote: timberjim

I obviously have strong feelings about this. On 9-11 I was watching the unfolding events on TV with group at work. ...
P90 - You and I will not agree on this. I am simply trying to understand your way of thinking.


My way of thinking is not to let emotions and personal bad memories cloud the judgment, especially the judgment of a system.

However much we would like to go back in time and change things, we are not fighting the hijackers on these planes now. Some members of the insurgency can trace their legacy to being in the same organization these days, but most of them are just people who got conquered and are resisting the occupation the way they can. This is only the normal human response to occupation, and no reason to treat entire nations as subhuman.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 4:31:57 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Inter arma enim silent leges
And because the Court cannot enforce its decisions on foreign soil, which Guantanamo happens to be.


Which is why Guantanamo and Bagram weren't closed right away.

However, at the very least, the Supreme Court's ruling establishes that the operation of [at least] Guantanamo does violate the Third Geneva Convention. Seeing how this ruling has been made by people with substantial legal knowledge and with proper thoroughness, I only see fit to defer to it in this question.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 11th, 2011 at 4:39:27 PM permalink
Quote: P90

However, at the very least, the Supreme Court's ruling establishes that the operation of [at least] Guantanamo does violate the Third Geneva Convention. Seeing how this ruling has been made by people with substantial legal knowledge and with proper thoroughness, I only see fit to defer to it in this question.



We're talking about the same court that rendered what can only be called an illiterate decision in Kelo. If a majority can twist the Constitution, then surely they can twist the Geneva Convention the same way.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 4:46:01 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

We're talking about the same court that rendered what can only be called an illiterate decision in Kelo. If a majority can twist the Constitution, then surely they can twist the Geneva Convention the same way.


Maybe, but between the opinion of any randomly taken person at most superficially familiar with the case and USSC that reviewed it in depth it's hard not to side with the latter, especially when the violations are quite visible. In the end, the Geneva Convention itself states than where there is doubt, it applies.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 11th, 2011 at 5:04:09 PM permalink
So you defer to authority and give the matter no thought?

That's your prerogative. But you really shouldn't argue about it then.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 5:30:38 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

So you defer to authority and give the matter no thought?


As I said, I gave the matter thought. I cited the paragraphs of the convention that do apply to these combatants and require that they be granted certain rights and treated humanely.

That the Supreme Court has independently come to the same conclusion only serves to additionally bolster it.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
timberjim
timberjim
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 398
March 11th, 2011 at 5:40:46 PM permalink
Quote: P90



My way of thinking is not to let emotions and personal bad memories cloud the judgment, especially the judgment of a system.

.



I have stated my case with some background so people reading my posts can understand me. Your sarcasm you have used in past posts and now your insinuation that my judgement is clouded is simply someone with an argument to weak to support so they resort to personal attacks.

You can make your case without resorting to this.
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 6:04:58 PM permalink
I believe I used a minimum of sarcasm, but if that's too much, let me put it plain.

The people being invaded and occupied have a perfectly valid reason to fight back, namely being invaded and occupied. Whether it is "just" or "unjust" depends on what team one is on, as each team considers its position just. Only a fraction of them is resorting to means of terrorism specifically. They should not be, as a people and as human beings, dehumanized and deprived of basic rights just because we have been at some point physically and emotionally hurt by some other people from their nation driven by different motives. They, or at least most of them, are not resisting the occupation out of malice, only because it is a normal human drive to do so. If we want to maintain our sense of moral superiority, we should at least have the decency of treating them with the same respect to their fundamental rights as we would the populace of any other occupied nation.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 11th, 2011 at 6:06:10 PM permalink
Quote: P90

I cited the paragraphs of the convention that do apply to these combatants and require that they be granted certain rights and treated humanely.



You did not cite anything that remotely applies to the Taliban and Al Qaida. They wear no uniforms or insignia, they hide among civilian populations, etc. They are enemy combatants, not enemy soldiers, not guerrillas and not covered under the Geneva Convention.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 6:32:00 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

You did not cite anything that remotely applies to the Taliban and Al Qaida. They wear no uniforms or insignia, they hide among civilian populations, etc.


Which would be (except for the last part, it isn't relevant) factors in considering whether they qualify under Article 4 provisions, for which uniforms and insignia is only one of the ways to qualify.

Article 4 is only part of the convention.

Under Article 3, all of the persons detained, whether they are considered prisoners of war or not, qualify as:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause

Many if not most Guantanamo and Bagram detainees have been arrested due to hints or data suggesting them having some sort of connection with the insurgency. These arrestees are clear-cut non-combatants, and are granted protections under Article 3.
Furthermore, Article 3 extends these protections to all persons taking no part in the hostilities, even if they have been taken out of
combat by means of wounds or detention, i.e. arrested. It prohibits, in particular the following:

* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(This being the reason active combatants are excepted from it, as they have to attacked in the course of battle)

* outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(Which is their treatment post-capture)

And, finally,
* the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


Which requires that they can only be convicted by a proper court

They don't need to be prisoners of war specifically in order to qualify for Article 3 protections. They need to in order to qualify for Article 4 and further, which establish considerably stricter limitations on treatment.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama

  • Jump to: