Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Guantanamo Bay detention camp

192 posts in this topic

 

Wouldnt the American membership of the geneva convention be relevant in the al quaida case, seeing as al-quaida was originally a cia funded militia that went renegade? Can the US declare armistace with itself? Hmm maybe this really is an internal matter.

My guess is that the Mujahadeen fell/fall under the Afghan signature, not the American. After all, they existed before the CIA supported them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This sort of thing has been going on for decades, its nothing new.

When the German's did it, it was universally condemned. When Russia did it, it was likewise condemned. Countries that torture people, deprive them of rights like due process are ALWAYS condemned. What makes it all the worse in the case of the USA, is that it holds itself up as a champion of freedom and fairness while at the same time maintaining Guantanamo. For that it is doubly condemned by most reasonable commentators.

 

 

I think I'll pass, thanks anyway. Seeing some one-sided film by a director who's main qualification is having brought hardcore sex into mainstream cinema is a waste of time, IMHO. I'll stick to Michael Moore movies if I really have to.

Dear god, that you could even consider comparing Michael Moore's hopelessly distorted mendacity to Road to Guantanamo is indictment in itself. Thetre is nothing like a closed mind . . .

 

 

That is not true. All countries order, or at least advise their nationals as to whether they should be in a place or not.

well, when I was in Pakistan the US embasy did order US citizens to leave on at least one occasion. Most did not leave. The UK embassy merely issued guidance for safety, which is what is usually done in dangerous situations. I am not sure whether the UK government has ever actually ordered its citizens to leave a certain region.

 

 

Hmmm... Which means that the percentage of Guantanamo inmates who are actually humanitarian workers must be quite high!

as opthers have pointed out the statistics do not exist.

 

 

Al-Qaida is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Period. I think they should be given POW status anyway (as I stated above) but the Convention would still have to be changed regarding release as they don't represent a country that can sign an armistice.

It does not matter whether Al Qaeda is a signatory to anything. The Geneva Convention is binding to the US whoever they are fighting and anyone they designate as a POW should expect to be protected by its provisions. If the US does not designate them as POWs then they should be tried under US law as criminals instead.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taliban could never be described as Afghan military - militia that seized power after ousting the Russians would be more accurate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taliban constituted the de facto govt. of Afghanistan. There was a point at which they might have been recognised as such by the US. I forget the details now, but US diplomats were in touch following representations from US oil companies - some pipeline was planned IIRC.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When the German's did it, it was universally condemned. When Russia did it, it was likewise condemned.

How can you possibly compare the treatment of WWII POWs (i.e. the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of regular army personnel), by both Germany and the Soviet Union, to what's happening in Guantanamo. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

Dear god, that you could even consider comparing Michael Moore's hopelessly distorted mendacity to Road to Guantanamo is indictment in itself. Thetre is nothing like a closed mind...

You're the one asking me to go see a one-sided movie, not me.

 

well, when I was in Pakistan the US embasy did order US citizens to leave on at least one occasion. Most did not leave. The UK embassy merely issued guidance for safety, which is what is usually done in dangerous situations. I am not sure whether the UK government has ever actually ordered its citizens to leave a certain region.

Same difference. The point is that foreigners had no reason to be in Afghanistan between 9/11 and the fall of the Taliban regime.

 

as opthers have pointed out the statistics do not exist.

Well then if statistics don't exist, how can you be so sure that all these guys are goody-two-shoes tourists?!

 

If the US does not designate them as POWs then they should be tried under US law as criminals instead.

Can you give me one concrete example demonstarting precedence? It shouldn't be too hard considering how morally superior every other country in the world is to the US...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Taliban could never be described as Afghan military - militia that seized power after ousting the Russians would be more accurate.

point of order: The mujahideen were a rag taggle bunch of mostly ethnic warlords and their accolytes. After the US and the USSR had finished their brutal client war over Afghanistan, ripping out its infrastructure and sending 80% of its populatiopn out of the country as refugees, the countrxy was abandoned to anarchy. Warlords of extreme brutality minted money through the heroin trade and waged interminable guerilla war against each other. The country was a failed state.

 

It iwas in this milieu of violent depopulated anarchy that the followers of Mullah Omar who called themselves 'students' (that is what Taliban means) marched on Kabul as a religious uprising to restore stability. They were supported initially by the USA, which uniquely recognised the Taleban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and by Pakistan which had local security issues in mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After the US and the USSR had finished their brutal client war over Afghanistan, ripping out its infrastructure and sending 80% of its populatiopn out of the country as refugees, the countrxy was abandoned to anarchy.

Are you f*cking kidding me? Who invaded and occupied Afghanistan for a decade?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you give me one concrete example demonstarting precedence? It shouldn't be too hard considering how morally superior every other country in the world is to the US...

There aren't any precendents, for the simple reason that until now, wars have been between states. The US decided for its own purposes that terrorism, which should be a criminal matter, was instead a military one - a "war". As this inconveniently granted combatants rights under the GCs, they then unilaterally decided the GCs didn't apply and invented a flimsy justification.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There aren't any precendents, for the simple reason that until now, wars have been between states.

Oh really? So you weren't able to come up with some example to pontificate on the evil doings of the Satan-worshipping American infidel? I'm puzzled...

 

The fact of the matter is that there are precedents - they're called summary trials and executions, and Guantanamo, with all its many shortcomings is an improvement over the way things used to be.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It does not matter whether Al Qaeda is a signatory to anything. The Geneva Convention is binding to the US whoever they are fighting and anyone they designate as a POW should expect to be protected by its provisions.

Wrong. Part 1, Article 4:

 

 

Article 4

 

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

 

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

This, of course, assumes waring nations. If you want it to apply to the situation at hand it must be ammended to apply to any combatants, not just those of signatory states.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can you possibly compare the treatment of WWII POWs (i.e. the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of regular army personnel), by both Germany and the Soviet Union, to what's happening in Guantanamo. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I do. But maybe *you* are underestimating how much the rest of the world condemns what the US is doing.

 

 

You're the one asking me to go see a one-sided movie, not me.

If you saw it you would know why your designation of it as 'one-sided' is so misplaced. The film is a dramatised documentary which sticks precisely with what is in the public record relating to the Tipton 3 including having voiceovers from the 3 themselves. It does not deal with either the rights and wrongs of the various conflicts or of terrorism - all it deals with is how they came to be caught up in it and what happened to them. The story itself is shocking but seeing it on the screen makes it more so.

 

 

Well then if statistics don't exist, how can you be so sure that all these guys are goody-two-shoes tourists?!

I never said I could. But a casual observation is that the majority of detainees from the UK were all released with no charges against them. They have all stood trial and have been exonerated. The nationals of Saudi, Yemen, Syria etc etc have not been lucky enough to face trials.

 

 

Can you give me one concrete example demonstarting precedence? It shouldn't be too hard considering how morally superior every other country in the world is to the US...

The Tipton 3. But you don't believe the actually exist right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After the US and the USSR had finished their brutal client war over Afghanistan, ripping out its infrastructure and sending 80% of its populatiopn out of the country as refugees, the countrxy was abandoned to anarchy.

Holy shit! Funniest thing Bell the Cat has said since Brits slow to repay loans!:

 

 

If Reagan or Brezhnev had pressed their buttons it would have been London, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw, Kiev and Prague that would have gone pop leaving the US unscathed and the Russians merely singed at the fringes.

With that, I'm outta here to watch the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you f*cking kidding me? Who invaded and occupied Afghanistan for a decade?

well, as I was living there at the time I can tell you the the Afghan people had fuckall to do with the conflict on their soil once it was underway. F16s were mobilised from Peshawar airport on a daily basis to bomb Afghanistan to kingdon come. I certainly have no illusiopns that it was anything but a client war no matter how our government's tried to present it back home.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has guantanamo bay made any difference in the "fight against terrorism"? while some are detained in cuba, america's present politics create more terrorists than ever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- When the twin-tower hit by the planes...it was it was an [ACT OF WAR]

- When three detinees of undetermined case killed themselves it was also an [ACT OF WAR]

 

What kind of idiots they think we are?

 

After the preprepared loads of lies, systematic torture, harrasement, and killing in prisons, pale or no punishment of charged militants, blind killing of civilans, and the mess they created everywhere I can understand any act of blind payback happened or might occur.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if statistics don't exist, how can you be so sure that all these guys are goody-two-shoes tourists?!

Nobody's saying that, JW.

Well I'm certainly not.

I've said a few times on the thread - charge them or release them.

If they are charged, tried and convicted then go ahead and lock them up - chuck away the key for all I care.

But if you've nothing to charge them with, then let them go.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point of order: A terrorist attack, even one alledgedly committed by 19 individuals of varying nationalities, cannot be termed an Act of War. Casus belli cannot apply. An Act of War must logically then be when one sovereign state, or several sovereign states acting together, attack another. Otherwise one could say that one man punching another in a bar would have to fall under the terminology of an Act of War. To my knowledge, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq committed an Act of War against the United States of America.

 

Maybe we are getting our Shock and Awes mixed up with our Mission Accomplished's here. :huh:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0