Originally posted by VargDoes it matter if they were coerced or not? If they were members of the regular army fighting an invasion force what crime have they committed?
How come the white american guy was given first class treatment and an immediate trial? Sure he was punished but he was at least charged with a crime and allowed a defence.
He was as guilty as the Taleban fighters (more so if some of them were coerced into fighting - he volunteered).
It seems that a non-american muslim may have a twisted morality but an good old american kid who converted is just confused or misled!
Serious question. After the fall of Germany in '45, how were all the prisoners of war (regular army, no association with the Nazi party) handled? Or any modern day war for that matter?
Obviously the current situation is a little more delicate, but it doesn't take much for 'better safe than sorry!' to turn into 'shoot first, ask questions later'.
One last thing. I read an article a month or two ago about a guy who was recently released from Guantannamo Bay. The poor bugger was apparently just a plain old civilian who got scooped up with everyone else. He had been stuck in a cage since the Afghanistan war. Last I heard he hadn't even received an apology, let alone compensation. I doubt he is the only one.
Originally posted by dylWell, I was under the impression that the ones held in Guantanamo bay were not just regular soldiers, otherwise there would be a hell of a lot more of them. I would have thought hundreds of thousands were captured but only Al Quaeda supects taken to Cuba.
Does it matter if they were coerced or not? If they were members of the regular army fighting an invasion force what crime have they committed?
Serious question. After the fall of Germany in '45, how were all the prisoners of war (regular army, no association with the Nazi party) handled? Or any modern day war for that matter?
Obviously the current situa ...[text shortened]... I heard he hadn't even received an apology, let alone compensation. I doubt he is the only one.
In 1945, german soldiers were used as forced labour to help clear away rubble and rebuild infrastructure, etc. These were just regular soldiers.
I don't think soldiers can be held accountable for doing their job - ordinary soldiers were not prosecuted at Nuremberg, or in the Hague. Don't know how senior you have to be to be responsible, though.
I don't like that soldiers in an enemy army were referred to as war criminals in this thread for trying to fight off an invasion. Regardless of whether the American invasion of Afghanistan was justified (this is not the point), those members of the country's official government military should not be called criminals for defending their employers, which is the function of a military. If, 'heaven' forbid, the US were defeated in war, I'm sure members of the military who did their jobs would not want to be tried as criminals for defending their home.
as an active duty us marine, this thread stuck a big nerve with me. some of you fight for terrorist rights. some of you fight for detaining and separating the "alledged" terrorists thereby shutting down their chain of command. if you want to turn this into an international debate...fine. but lets get one thing straight. those people who died on american soil didnt deserve the fate the received. you argue that gitmo prisoners deserve the same respect that regular prisoners do. fine, but you wouldnt be saying that when you find out that it was those same people that are planning attacks on other cities. not just america but anyone who supports them. if there is harsh treatment among the prisoners...they were part of a military before they were captured and they should be used to it by now by god. i bet they are getting treated far better than they would backhome after their superiors learned that they had failed in an attempt to take out further "infedels"!
Originally posted by usmc7257Well, the point is that (I think) most of us agree that terrorists who would plan these attacks should be treated with mimimum sympathy. However, those in Cuba are SUSPECTS. If they are guilty, charge them and punish them.
as an active duty us marine, this thread stuck a big nerve with me. some of you fight for terrorist rights. some of you fight for detaining and separating the "alledged" terrorists thereby shutting down their chain of command. if you want to turn this into an international debate...fine. but lets get one thing straight. those people who died on american s ...[text shortened]... ter their superiors learned that they had failed in an attempt to take out further "infedels"!
How would you feel if China or North Korea kidnapped american soldiers and held them for two years without charge, saying that they were suspected spies?
suspectes they may very well be. you dont think that "better safe than sorry" applies? i am sure there are innocents in gitmo, but if they are suspects then why take the chance of releasing them potentially causing a greater harm? you have your opinion and i respect it, but with every war there is always something somebody will say "they could have done this better" maybe they could have but how else to deal with potential threats?
i think that it doesn't matter if your country is at war or at peace.it is irrelevent what crimes these people have commited. in order to maintain international credibility, these people must be treated fairly, and for my money that means according to the geneva convention. that means giving them a fair trial. even rapists and murderers are afforded a fair trial. just because this man wears a turban doesn't mean that he can't have a trial.why hasn't the international court in the Hague been used? where is the UN putting some pressure on the US?
I think there is some confusion. You either believe that there is a war on or you don't.
The people at GITMO are being held as per the Geneva Conventions which state that all people taken prisoner "IN COMBAT" or in "PROXIMITY TO COMBAT" are to be held until the end of that particular war. That gets them out of prison camp in anywhere from 50 to another 100 years, unless I am being too pessimistic.
What blacklung wants is NOT THE GENEVA CONVENTION but rather that these people be held in some sort of criminal sense. < as per his reference to the World Court> I don't see that happening, because as RC pointed out, they are not criminals, but captured soldiers.
For what it's worth.
Originally posted by usmc7257You do raise an interesting point.
suspectes they may very well be. you dont think that "better safe than sorry" applies? i am sure there are innocents in gitmo, but if they are suspects then why take the chance of releasing them potentially causing a greater harm? you have your opinion and i respect it, but with every war there is always something somebody will say "they could have done this better" maybe they could have but how else to deal with potential threats?
However the attitude you are suggesting is hypocritical to the very constitution you serve under.
In most western judicial systems you are innocent until proven guilty,and have the right to at least rudimentary legal advice (as the US government insists they are not soldiers) As the people held in "gitmo" are not soldiers America is breaking international law (forceful removal of foreign aliens,kidnapping etc etc) and in doing this are behaving more and more like the people they purport to try and stop. l am all for stopping terrorism but not in the manner the Bush administration has adopted.
Originally posted by nook7Your facts are wrong. The US says they are soldiers of an "unnamed state". There is no question of "guilt" as there is no crime. They are just soldiers, captured in combat. You say... and I emphasize "You"... say that they "are not soldiers". Everyone else says they are.
You do raise an interesting point.
However the attitude you are suggesting is hypocritical to the very constitution you serve under.
In most western judicial systems you are innocent until proven guilty,and have the right to at least rudim ...[text shortened]... orism but not in the manner the Bush administration has adopted.
Is there a war between the US and the totalltarian Muslim movement to install a Muslim government upon earth? Does such a movement exist? < see Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and all of the wahabe movement since 1940. Please let me know if you think there is a war. If you don't believe there is, then we differ. I know there is a war.
Fact. GITMO prisoners were captured in combat.
Fact. They are prisoners of war.
Fact. They will be expatriated when the war is over.
Fact. The US has no right to try them in american courts. The geneva convention prohibits it, except for cases of espionage.
Fact. Some people don't like this war, and hate the US even more than the war.
Fact. So what?
Fact. If someone states that you are their enemy, and attack you, you have a duty to respond.
Fact. By responding, you will bring all sorts of wierd haters out of the closet.
Fact. So what?
Fact. The "Unnamed Government" is al Quaida and all the hundereds of terror groups established by the Saudi Government as a deliberate policy when they set up over 1200 "Madras's" and funded the "Establishment Of Gods Government On Earth", starting in 1961 and continuing to this day.
>Edit
It really is as simple as "I support Totalitarian governments" and "I am opposed to totalitarian governments". If this is not true, then explain why it is not just this simple. Was afghanistan a totalitarian system of government or not? Yes or no. If yes, then why are you supporting that? Or are you just "against" the US? It has to be one of those two answers. Which is it? Don't waffle on this. Answer please.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe tendency to detain people indefinitely without trial would crop up pretty high in most people's definition of a 'totalitarian' government. So are you against totalitarianism or not?
Your facts are wrong. The US says they are soldiers of an "unnamed state". There is no question of "guilt" as there is no crime. They are just soldiers, captured in combat. You say... and I emphasize "You"... say that they "are not soldiers". Everyone else says they are.
Is there a war between the US and the totalltarian Muslim movement to i ...[text shortened]... he US? It has to be one of those two answers. Which is it? Don't waffle on this. Answer please.
This issue is far more complex than either being for Afganistan or for the US and should not be reduced to the terms of a playground scrap.
Rich.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHello StarValleyWy I've missed ya .......
Hey Girene!
Thanks for filling in a bit of common sense while I was gone. Semper Fidelis, Semper Dilligent too! Keep up the good work. Maybe chanceremachanic will weigh in here too. Always use a dose of the real world in this forum. Mike
Albert Einstein:
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
In E. T. Bell Mathematics, Queen and Servant of the Sciences. 1952.
😀
Originally posted by StarValleyWySurely you're joking. Chancremechanic, while seemingly a nice guy, is hardly the voice of reality. He tosses around peurile rubbish like Dubya at a press conference.
Hey Girene!
Thanks for filling in a bit of common sense while I was gone. Semper Fidelis, Semper Dilligent too! Keep up the good work. Maybe chanceremachanic will weigh in here too. Always use a dose of the real world in this forum. Mike