Will the millions Guantanamo inmates win be used for terrorism?

2008-11-23 17:19:13

#76

462nd NSP653: Devout Moderate, Empty Head.; +57|7101

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
There's no terrorists there, according to many here. They wouldn't know how to start being terrorists. They would just use their money to go back to being simple farmers living idyllic lives with puppies and bunnies and stuff.
We have no idea if they are terrorists or not.
Since practically none have been charged, and they are steadily being released anyway, the probability is they are either not terrorists or they are but there is no actual evidence.
However you look at it its Lose-Lose for the US.
Or the probability is that their detainment no longer serves any purpose.

And again...were any POWs in WW2 charged with something and then tried before they were detained for the duration of hostilities?

No?

Really?

Double-standards ftl.

Hmmm....why no reply to this?

To the 'over a year old' OP...in the unlikely event any money is awarded, chances of it going to terrorism are quite high...but then again almost any funds that leave the US domestic economy (and some that even stay) end up contributing to terrorism through trickle down economics. Directly supporting terrorism? Sure...but that will be a drop in the bucket of larger amounts indirectly supporting terrorism.

2008-11-23 19:08:56

#77

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Mekstizzle wrote:

Because of the wrongful detention that may get them angry and so turn to terrorism once they're free? Especially when they're mixed in with people who really are terrorists and should be in there.

I'm only saying that it's not exactly something that's hard to think of happening, and if someone is freed even though they actually were a terrorist at the time of capture, well that's then a problem of the people who are responsible for choosing who to free.
There's no terrorists there, according to many here. They wouldn't know how to start being terrorists. They would just use their money to go back to being simple farmers living idyllic lives with puppies and bunnies and stuff.

But I get what you're saying.
You're starting to sound like some of the loony right-wingers on here these days FEOS! Not many people on this forum would truly believe Guantanamo Bay to be full of innocent peasants and farmers, I for one certainly do not... what most people argue about here is that we don't know one way or another what they are because there is virtually zero transparency and no proper due process.

As regards the OP I think maybe... some people might have went in innocent and come out bitter and radicalised, others may have went in guilty and just slipped through the cracks of Gitmo's policy of not building and putting forward proper court cases against these people.

They are getting far more due process than they are due according to the Geneva Convention. But for some reason, it's still not enough. We have to now start treating people who are essentially POWs as civil criminals. Civil criminal statutes are not applicable in combat situations...otherwise, every soldier on both sides would be tried for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and the like. Yet that doesn't happen, and you people aren't crying about that.

Why are these knuckleheads any different?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-24 03:08:51

#78

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6708|Éire

FEOS wrote:
They are getting far more due process than they are due according to the Geneva Convention. But for some reason, it's still not enough. We have to now start treating people who are essentially POWs as civil criminals. Civil criminal statutes are not applicable in combat situations...otherwise, every soldier on both sides would be tried for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and the like. Yet that doesn't happen, and you people aren't crying about that.

Why are these knuckleheads any different?

Yes, I'm sure Gitmo was quite the holiday camp... hence why Obama AND McCain both said they were going to close it if they won the election.

You kept these detainees completely out of the public eye's scrutiny, you employed all manner of 'rendition' techniques to extract your info and confessions and as a result what you were left with was a kangaroo court where the cases would never have been accepted by any reasonable independent observer or human rights body. Now I'm not saying these people are all innocent... what I'm saying is you should have just proved that they were guilty, properly, the way people are normally proven guilty... with actual evidence. If there is actually a case against someone why would you need stress positions and waterboarding? Why not use these techniques in civil law if the info they glean is so trustworthy?

2008-11-24 03:52:42

#79

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6523|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
They are getting far more due process than they are due according to the Geneva Convention.

No they're not, they are supposed to be put before a competent tribunal to determine if they are unlawful combatants, thats yet to be done in most cases, after 7 years.

FEOS wrote:
And again...were any POWs in WW2 charged with something and then tried before they were detained for the duration of hostilities?

POWs in WW2 were released at the end of hostilities. Not detained indefinitely because the US had decided Russia was the new enemy and the war would continue until the USSR broke up.
Did the war against Germany continue until every Nazi had been captured in South America? No, Germany surrendered, POWs were released, the world carried on.
The Gitmo inmates are in a Kafkaesque situation, they were detained on the battlefield defined by the US and they are detained until the war, as determined by the US, ends.
The US has determined the 'war on terror' - or rather the 'war for domination of the oil rich ME' -could take 100 years.
Either there was a war against Taleban, now long since over with a new Afghan govt in place, or there was no war - just a criminal act by a Saudi extremist gang.

FEOS wrote:
They are getting far more due process than they are due according to the Geneva Convention. But for some reason, it's still not enough. We have to now start treating people who are essentially POWs as civil criminals. Civil criminal statutes are not applicable in combat situations...otherwise, every soldier on both sides would be tried for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and the like. Yet that doesn't happen, and you people aren't crying about that.

Either they are POWs, in which case they should have been released 6 years ago, or they are criminals and should be tried as such with all the rights democracies afford suspected criminals.
Not the half-arsed failed botch of attempting to try criminals using anti-democratic military kangaroo courts, secret evidence, evidence obtained from torture etc.

Still, it was Duhbya's mistake, soon - with bipartisan support - it will be closed by smarter men than him.

Hmmm....why no reply to this?

Some of us have to sleep, work etc.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-24 03:58:27)

Fuck Israel

2008-11-24 17:10:29

#80

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
They are getting far more due process than they are due according to the Geneva Convention.
No they're not, they are supposed to be put before a competent tribunal to determine if they are unlawful combatants, thats yet to be done in most cases, after 7 years.

I believe you are the one who pointed out that unlawful combatant is not a legitimate characterization under the Geneva Convention.

But you continue to overlook the fact that once a party does not comply with the strictures of the GC (whether a signatory or not), the other party is no longer required to comply (whether a signatory or not). So yes...they ARE getting far more due process than they are due--since they are due exactly none.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
And again...were any POWs in WW2 charged with something and then tried before they were detained for the duration of hostilities?
POWs in WW2 were released at the end of hostilities. Not detained indefinitely because the US had decided Russia was the new enemy and the war would continue until the USSR broke up.
Did the war against Germany continue until every Nazi had been captured in South America? No, Germany surrendered, POWs were released, the world carried on.
The Gitmo inmates are in a Kafkaesque situation, they were detained on the battlefield defined by the US and they are detained until the war, as determined by the US, ends.
The US has determined the 'war on terror' - or rather the 'war for domination of the oil rich ME' -could take 100 years.
Either there was a war against Taleban, now long since over with a new Afghan govt in place, or there was no war - just a criminal act by a Saudi extremist gang.

Your views on the situation are irrelevant.

The GC requires that prisoners be released once hostilities have ceased. Hostilities have not ceased, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
They are getting far more due process than they are due according to the Geneva Convention. But for some reason, it's still not enough. We have to now start treating people who are essentially POWs as civil criminals. Civil criminal statutes are not applicable in combat situations...otherwise, every soldier on both sides would be tried for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and the like. Yet that doesn't happen, and you people aren't crying about that.
Either they are POWs, in which case they should have been released 6 years ago, or they are criminals and should be tried as such with all the rights democracies afford suspected criminals.
Not the half-arsed failed botch of attempting to try criminals using anti-democratic military kangaroo courts, secret evidence, evidence obtained from torture etc.

Still, it was Duhbya's mistake, soon - with bipartisan support - it will be closed by smarter men than him.

See above. Release is required once hostilities have ceased. They have not yet ceased, so release is not required under the GC.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Hmmm....why no reply to this?
Some of us have to sleep, work, make shit up etc.

Fixed.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-24 22:44:17

#81

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6523|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
I believe you are the one who pointed out that unlawful combatant is not a legitimate characterization under the Geneva Convention.

The GC requires that if there is doubt their status must be determined by a competent tribunal - which the US has not yet done, seven years on.

FEOS wrote:
The GC requires that prisoners be released once hostilities have ceased. Hostilities have not ceased, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Both your Presidential candidates committed to closing Gitmo ASAP, it seems you are out of step, not me.

FEOS wrote:
See above. Release is required once hostilities have ceased. They have not yet ceased, so release is not required under the GC.

So they can be held indifenitely, until the US determines hostilities have ceased.
Since the US has spent the last 7 years making hostilities ever wider they are never going to cease.

But whatever, even Gitmo is busy releasing people.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7747276.stm

Osama Bin Laden's former driver is being moved from Guantanamo Bay to serve the remainder of his sentence in his native Yemen, the Pentagon says.

US officials told the BBC the transfer of Salim Hamdan would take place in the coming hours or days.

Hamdan was given a 66-month sentence in August for providing material support to terrorism, in what was the first US military trial since World War II.

His sentence ends on 28 December taking into account time already served.

Military prosecutors had called for a minimum sentence of 30 years.
At the time, the Pentagon said Hamdan could be retained as an "enemy combatant".
The US has always argued it can detain such people indefinitely, as long as its so-called war on terror continues.

The Bush administration recently tried to extend Hamdan's sentence, saying that the judge did not have the authority to credit Hamdan with time already served.

Hamdan, who is about 40, was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001.
He admitted working for Bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1997 to 2001 for $200 (£134) a month, but he said he worked for wages, not to wage war on the US.
The tribunal rejected the charges that Hamdan conspired with others to carry out al-Qaeda attacks, including those on 11 September 2001.

About 270 suspects remain in detention in Guantanamo Bay, which is on a US base in Cuba.
Among the dozens of other inmates due to be tried there in the coming months are men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks.
Human rights campaigners have condemned the tribunal system. Amnesty International says it is "fundamentally flawed" and should be abandoned.

So three months after being convicted of providing 'material support for terrorism' he's being released?
Wow he must be some serious terrorist badass. Or maybe just a driver after all.

FOS wrote:
Fixed.

I'm not the one living in a Neocon Lalaland.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-24 22:46:17)

Fuck Israel

2008-11-24 22:46:34

#82

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6570|what

Dilbert_X wrote:
So three months after being convicted of providing 'material support for terrorism' he's being released?

Woo he must be some serious badass.

Well, he did drive through some some bad neighbourhoods.

2008-11-25 04:10:49

#83

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I believe you are the one who pointed out that unlawful combatant is not a legitimate characterization under the Geneva Convention.
The GC requires that if there is doubt their status must be determined by a competent tribunal - which the US has not yet done, seven years on.

Only if both sides have abided by the strictures of the Convention. The detainees did not abide by them, therefore, according to the Convention, the US is not required to abide by any of the strictures of the Convention with regard to them.

BL: There are no GC requirements to be met regarding the Gitmo detainees.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The GC requires that prisoners be released once hostilities have ceased. Hostilities have not ceased, regardless of your opinion on the matter.
Both your Presidential candidates committed to closing Gitmo ASAP, it seems you are out of step, not me.

How is that? I have said repeatedly that I think Gitmo should be closed.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
See above. Release is required once hostilities have ceased. They have not yet ceased, so release is not required under the GC.
So they can be held indifenitely, until the US determines hostilities have ceased.

Yes. Now you get it.

Dilbert_X wrote:
FOS wrote:
Fixed.
I'm not the one living in a Neocon Lalaland.

Neither am I. I'm just the only one of the two of us who has actually bothered to read and comprehend the GC...not make up what I think sounds like the GC should say during my arguments.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-25 04:41:15

#84

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6523|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
BL: There are no GC requirements to be met regarding the Gitmo detainees.

Oh well done, you've found a tiny loophole in the Geneva convention, something intended to protect all parties in a war - civilian, military, whatever - from atrocities, human rights abuses, acts most democracies would regards as unacceptable and are ready to abuse it.

Here is what you're supposed to do:

If there are regulations, Geneva Convention, International Convention on Human Rights, Convention on Torture, you should follow them.
If there are situations not directly covered then follow your own democratic principles, courts, congress etc.
If this doesn't cover it then use your own moral compass, by which I mean value system, religious mores or whatever.

If you have no moral compass then don't be surprised if you're despised.

Fuck Israel

2008-11-25 04:44:27

#85

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6640|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
BL: There are no GC requirements to be met regarding the Gitmo detainees.
Oh well done, you've found a tiny loophole in the Geneva convention, something intended to protect all parties in a war - civilian, military, whatever - from atrocities, human rights abuses, acts most democracies would regards as unacceptable and are ready to abuse it.

Here is what you're supposed to do:

If there are regulations, Geneva Convention, International Convention on Human Rights, Convention on Torture, you should follow them.
If there are situations not directly covered then follow your own democratic principles, courts, congress etc.
If this doesn't cover it then use your own moral compass, by which I mean value system, religious mores or whatever.

If you have no moral compass then don't be surprised if you're despised.

Right so, they don't follow GC, so we don't need to because of that, but we should because its considered moral?

/facedesk

they're combatants who don't follow GC and canl be treated according to the rules, end of.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-11-25 04:45:26)

2008-11-25 04:55:00

#86

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
BL: There are no GC requirements to be met regarding the Gitmo detainees.
Oh well done, you've found a tiny loophole in the Geneva convention, something intended to protect all parties in a war - civilian, military, whatever - from atrocities, human rights abuses, acts most democracies would regards as unacceptable and are ready to abuse it.

Here is what you're supposed to do:

If there are regulations, Geneva Convention, International Convention on Human Rights, Convention on Torture, you should follow them.
If there are situations not directly covered then follow your own democratic principles, courts, congress etc.
If this doesn't cover it then use your own moral compass, by which I mean value system, religious mores or whatever.

If you have no moral compass then don't be surprised if you're despised.

What "tiny loophole"? It's in the fucking language of the damn document you claim to know so much about.

The fact is they are being treated far better than is required by international convention. The Conventions to which the US is a signatory are being followed. The US court system has decided, outside of those conventions, to try these people.

I really don't see what you're bitching about.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-25 05:03:16

#87

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6640|Escea

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
BL: There are no GC requirements to be met regarding the Gitmo detainees.
Oh well done, you've found a tiny loophole in the Geneva convention, something intended to protect all parties in a war - civilian, military, whatever - from atrocities, human rights abuses, acts most democracies would regards as unacceptable and are ready to abuse it.

Here is what you're supposed to do:

If there are regulations, Geneva Convention, International Convention on Human Rights, Convention on Torture, you should follow them.
If there are situations not directly covered then follow your own democratic principles, courts, congress etc.
If this doesn't cover it then use your own moral compass, by which I mean value system, religious mores or whatever.

If you have no moral compass then don't be surprised if you're despised.
What "tiny loophole"? It's in the fucking language of the damn document you claim to know so much about.

The fact is they are being treated far better than is required by international convention. The Conventions to which the US is a signatory are being followed. The US court system has decided, outside of those conventions, to try these people.

I really don't see what you're bitching about.

The way its made out, Gitmo is like Aushwitz where people turning to living skeletons, sleep in shoody wooden bunks en masse and live in filthy conditions. Gitmo is probably one of the best places they could go to be treated as a prisoner. They even get a Koran in their room.

2008-11-25 05:12:01

#88

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6523|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
The Conventions to which the US is a signatory are being followed.

Apart from the beatings, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, torturing people to death, abducting and incarcerating without due process, yes they are being followed.

Fuck Israel

2008-11-25 05:14:44

#89

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The Conventions to which the US is a signatory are being followed.
Apart from the beatings, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, torturing people to death, abducting and incarcerating without due process, yes they are being followed.

Yep...just like ramm.

Glad to see that's the best you've got.

I guess we're done here.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-25 06:04:08

#90

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6640|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The Conventions to which the US is a signatory are being followed.
Apart from the beatings, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, torturing people to death, abducting and incarcerating without due process, yes they are being followed.

Been watching too much 24. Who has been tortured to death?

2008-11-25 06:08:44

#91

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6708|Éire

M.O.A.B wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The Conventions to which the US is a signatory are being followed.
Apart from the beatings, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, torturing people to death, abducting and incarcerating without due process, yes they are being followed.
Been watching too much 24. Who has been tortured to death?

I notice that's the only one you can question!

2008-11-25 06:12:10

#92

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6708|Éire

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The Conventions to which the US is a signatory are being followed.
Apart from the beatings, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, torturing people to death, abducting and incarcerating without due process, yes they are being followed.

Yep...just like ramm.

Glad to see that's the best you've got.

I guess we're done here.

I guess we may as well be done here.. it boils down to the fact that you and people like MOAB acknowledge and accept that the US is a country that uses torture techniques and policies that the majority of the civilised world frown upon and you are happy enough with that. No amount of argument or examples of innocent people wrongly being subjected to such treatment from the other side of the debate will likely sway you in this regard.

2008-11-25 06:26:07

#93

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Apart from the beatings, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, torturing people to death, abducting and incarcerating without due process, yes they are being followed.

Yep...just like ramm.

Glad to see that's the best you've got.

I guess we're done here.
I guess we may as well be done here.. it boils down to the fact that you and people like MOAB acknowledge and accept that the US is a country that uses torture techniques and policies that the majority of the civilised world frown upon and you are happy enough with that. No amount of argument or examples of innocent people wrongly being subjected to such treatment from the other side of the debate will likely sway you in this regard.

I recommend you don't put words in my mouth or attribute positions to me that are not my own.

The US does not use torture techniques. Many countries have many policies that are frowned upon by the majority of the civlized world...the US is just everyone's favorite target.

That is not to say that mistakes have not been made. They certainly have. Many have been corrected and will be corrected in the future.

The argument I'm making here is that Gitmo complies with (and actually exceeds) all requirements under the Geneva Convention...which is counter to many others' arguments. I'm not making a moral judgment...just stating the facts as documented in the Geneva Conventions. It's really just that simple.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-25 06:30:15

#94

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6640|Escea

I think people need to wake up to the fact that its not a dream world outside the US where nothing like Gitmo happens. But cos its not reported on the media, like Gitmo, it doesn't happen or isn't a serious issue.

2008-11-25 06:55:41

#95

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6708|Éire

FEOS wrote:
The argument I'm making here is that Gitmo complies with (and actually exceeds) all requirements under the Geneva Convention...which is counter to many others' arguments. I'm not making a moral judgment...just stating the facts as documented in the Geneva Conventions. It's really just that simple.

GENEVA CONVENTION | ARTICLE 17

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

2008-11-25 07:20:28

#96

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The argument I'm making here is that Gitmo complies with (and actually exceeds) all requirements under the Geneva Convention...which is counter to many others' arguments. I'm not making a moral judgment...just stating the facts as documented in the Geneva Conventions. It's really just that simple.
GENEVA CONVENTION | ARTICLE 17

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Perhaps you should read more of the document (or earlier posts in this thread):

Article 2 specifies when the parties are bound by GCIII
That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered by GCIII;
That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Here's an interesting note:

Rasmussen wrote:
Nearly half of U.S. voters (49%) say the United States should not close the terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, but the identical number (49%) also say Barack Obama is Very likely to close it in the first year of his presidency. Only 32% of voters say the Guantanamo prison camp should be closed, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. One-out-of-five (19%) are undecided.

So...for all you "put it to a referendum" people...for all you "respect the wishes of the people" people: How would you react to that particular vote? Would you be all hunky-dory with it because the people said to keep it open? Or would you go against the will of the people because you are morally superior?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-25 07:32:12

#97

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6708|Éire

FEOS wrote:
Article 2 specifies when the parties are bound by GCIII
That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered by GCIII;
That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-25 07:32:46)

2008-11-25 07:36:08

#98

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Article 2 specifies when the parties are bound by GCIII
That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered by GCIII;
That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...[red]Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations[/red]. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Did you hit SUBMIT prematurely or something? Or are you simply agreeing with me?

The portion you attempted to highlight in red simply says that Parties who are bound to the Convention shall behave toward each other in accordance with said convention. It says nothing about those who are not bound by it or cease abiding by it.

Read the highlighted portion and the bolded portion. Bound by the Convention only to the extent that the other party abides by it as well.

Period.

End of discussion.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-25 07:44:56

#99

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6708|Éire

FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Did you hit SUBMIT prematurely or something? Or are you simply agreeing with me?

The portion you attempted to highlight in red simply says that Parties who are bound to the Convention shall behave toward each other in accordance with said convention. It says nothing about those who are not bound by it or cease abiding by it.

Read the highlighted portion and the bolded portion. Bound by the Convention only to the extent that the other party abides by it as well.

Period.

End of discussion.

So all you need to do is make sure your detainees are not registered as affiliates of any nation bound by the Geneva convention and you can do what you like with them, hence the classification term "enemy combatant" and hence the cover-all term "war on terror" i.e. no specific enemy, no specific country, no need to worry about the Geneva convention... and because you don't let them have proper trials no one can prove that they weren't in contravention of the Geneva convention themselves on an individual basis.

Nice little system you've got there.

2008-11-25 11:42:30

#100

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6828|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:

Did you hit SUBMIT prematurely or something? Or are you simply agreeing with me?

The portion you attempted to highlight in red simply says that Parties who are bound to the Convention shall behave toward each other in accordance with said convention. It says nothing about those who are not bound by it or cease abiding by it.

Read the highlighted portion and the bolded portion. Bound by the Convention only to the extent that the other party abides by it as well.

Period.

End of discussion.
So all you need to do is make sure your detainees are not registered as affiliates of any nation bound by the Geneva convention and you can do what you like with them, hence the classification term "enemy combatant" and hence the cover-all term "war on terror" i.e. no specific enemy, no specific country, no need to worry about the Geneva convention... and because you don't let them have proper trials no one can prove that they weren't in contravention of the Geneva convention themselves on an individual basis.

Nice little system you've got there.

Or you could just turn them back over to their home countries where they will likely be detained without trial, tortured, and executed.

Except we can't do that because it violates international treaties.

And for you to say "no need to worry about the Geneva convention" is ridiculous...and shows you clearly don't comprehend the language in the Geneva Convention--which is being followed. Perhaps the GC needs to be updated with a new Article on non-state actors. Until such time as it is updated, the current course is just as valid as any other.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Will the millions Guantanamo inmates win be used for terrorism?

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Rasmussen wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Board footer