United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

They are not there because they were arrested for crimes.

Not sure why that's such a difficult point to grasp.

Harshaw said:

They are not there because they were arrested for crimes.

Not sure why that's such a difficult point to grasp.

Click to expand...

Hmm...


That is a good point...

So far as I understand, they're there because they are either unlawful combatants or suspected of such...

The Mark said:

Hmm...


That is a good point...

So far as I understand, they're there because they are either unlawful combatants or suspected of such...

Click to expand...

They are suspected of such, and, therefore, have to prove their innocence.

Guilty until proven innocent, correct?

No, they are there because they're combatants, period.

The rules of criminal justice do not apply.

The irony in all of this is if they were just declared official prisoners of war, they would gain nothing they don't already have and there would be no question whatsoever that no tribunals or trials would be forthcoming for the entire duration of their imprisonment (unless they violated a rule of the camp).

Harshaw said:

No, they are there because they're combatants, period.

The rules of criminal justice do not apply.

The irony in all of this is if they were just declared official prisoners of war, they would gain nothing they don't already have and there would be no question whatsoever that no tribunals or trials would be forthcoming for the entire duration of their imprisonment (unless they violated a rule of the camp).

Click to expand...

but then they would be covered by the Geneva Accords.

Dittohead not! said:

but then they would be covered by the Geneva Accords.

Click to expand...

Which would gain them what, that they don't have?

Harshaw said:

Which would gain them what, that they don't have?

Click to expand...

I can't imagine.

Dittohead not! said:

I can't imagine.

Click to expand...

Those were prisoners of war (i.e., they had the status).

And that didn't happen in Cuba.

And it was a crime for which US soldiers (including the one in the picture) were punished, having not one thing to do with the prisoners' legal status.

This issue is contentious enough without confusing it by using examples which do not apply.

So, do you have an actual answer, or don't you?

Harshaw said:

Already did, champ. Already did.

:coffeepap :coffeepap :coffeepap :coffeepap

You can go back and see for yourself, but considering I already told you to do so twice, and you still have no idea what I actually said (or simply keep lying about it), I'm thinking you're never going to.

Click to expand...

I repeat:

I guess you have to say this. If it helps, good for you. But, you are nto addressing what was said or explaining anything. :coffeepap

Harshaw said:

That's actually the legal standard of almost every country except for the United States. Much like with the Metric System and soccer, we're the outlier.

Not that it has anything to do with the Geneva Conventions or prisoners captured on the battlefield, much as some of you are so uninformed as to keep thinking.

Not, again, that anyone has a prayer of getting through to you on that.

Click to expand...

It is still inaccurate to say they are all captured on the battlefield and are combatants. We know for a fact that at least a few were not. How many? We don't really know. But we certainly know the cab driver we killed was not a combatant.

Perhaps it is you who is not being gotten through to? How knows?

Dittohead not! said:

Only until there is a "speedy" trial by a jury of the suspect's peers.

It's that not depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process idea that was written into the Constitution, the one that we seem willing to overlook today.

Click to expand...

Exactly. We either value this or we don't.

Boo Radley said:

I repeat:

I guess you have to say this. If it helps, good for you. But, you are nto addressing what was said or explaining anything. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

Don't know why you think I'd respond to this "repeat" any differently than I did before.

If you've got nothing new, why bother? I've got better things to do than repeat myself again. If you don't, that's your own deal.

Harshaw said:

That's actually the legal standard of almost every country except for the United States. Much like with the Metric System and soccer, we're the outlier.

Click to expand...

I just want to be clear, do you favor thier value or ours? Should we change, or try to live by our ideals?

Harshaw said:

Don't know why you think I'd respond to this "repeat" any differently than I did before.

If you've got nothing new, why bother? I've got better things to do than repeat myself again. If you don't, that's your own deal.

Click to expand...

I don't expect different. But this is your dodge, not mine. :coffeepap

Dittohead not! said:

but then they would be covered by the Geneva Accords.

Click to expand...

Ummm, I don't think so unless I missed Al Qaeda signing that document also.
I've already looked, but you can read it for yourself:

ARTICLE 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall 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, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

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.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

The Avalon Project : Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp

Boo Radley said:

I just want to be clear, do you favor thier value or ours? Should we change, or try to live by our ideals?

Click to expand...

What you're not "clear" on is that Camp Delta has nothing to do with that.

Boo Radley said:

I don't expect different. But this is your dodge, not mine. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

OK, now you're just being an 8 year-old.

Harshaw said:

What you're not "clear" on is that Camp Delta has nothing to do with that.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it? Are they our values or not?

Boo Radley said:

Doesn't it? Are they our values or not?

Click to expand...

Son, if you can't grasp the difference between prisoners taken in war and domestic prisoners arrested for criminal offenses, and why pretending they're the same is stupid and suicidal, that really and truly is not my problem. Just because you fail to see the difference does not mean there isn't one, and for grave and serious reasons.

Throughout the thread I've explained the differences, among other things, so I've said all I have to say about it.

But rest assured, the stubborn ignorance on the matter is entirely yours. If you wish to remain in that state, that choice, too, is entirely yours.

So, make your snarky comment, add your coffeepap, and tell yourself you've scored some huge Internet victory, but I'm done with you in this thread.

Harshaw said:

Those were prisoners of war (i.e., they had the status).

And that didn't happen in Cuba.

And it was a crime for which US soldiers (including the one in the picture) were punished, having not one thing to do with the prisoners' legal status.

This issue is contentious enough without confusing it by using examples which do not apply.

So, do you have an actual answer, or don't you?

Click to expand...

I think you're wrong on both counts, but nevertheless, there are plenty of examples of the same thing that did happen at GITMO. Here's one

MoSurveyor said:

Ummm, I don't think so unless I missed Al Qaeda signing that document also.
I've already looked, but you can read it for yourself:

(emphasis added)

Click to expand...

We did.

Are we, or are we not better than Al Qaeda?

Dittohead not! said:

I think you're wrong on both counts, but nevertheless, there are plenty of examples of the same thing that did happen at GITMO. Here's one

Click to expand...

As it happens, I may be wrong about the prisoner of war status of all the prisoners at Abu Ghraib; some of them were, but apparently not all.

Still, as I said, the abuses were crimes in their own right; they had nothing to do with their legal status, and the perpetrators were tried, convicted, and punished.

In any case, your link doesn't show or even allege anything which even approaches the crimes at Abu Ghraib, and if they happened, they're being officially investigated as misconduct. This isn't showing anything like us claiming to have a free hand to do whatever we want because they have no legal status. In fact, the incidents show the contrary.

Harshaw said:

Son, if you can't grasp the difference between prisoners taken in war and domestic prisoners arrested for criminal offenses, and why pretending they're the same is stupid and suicidal, that really and truly is not my problem. Just because you fail to see the difference does not mean there isn't one, and for grave and serious reasons.

Throughout the thread I've explained the differences, among other things, so I've said all I have to say about it.

But rest assured, the stubborn ignorance on the matter is entirely yours. If you wish to remain in that state, that choice, too, is entirely yours.

So, make your snarky comment, add your coffeepap, and tell yourself you've scored some huge Internet victory, but I'm done with you in this thread.

Click to expand...

A cab driver is not a soldier. He just isn't. And we are nto at war with any country. We're not. Nor is there anything sucidial about following rule of law and living by our ideals. al Qaeda, nor anyone like them, even if they all combined, have any chance of beating us. So there is no scare tactic that sugegsts we abandon our values. Our survival is not at stake.

We invaded a country, and people fired at us. Shocking. But we were never at war with Iraq or Afghanstan. neithe rattacked us. Neither declared war. And both countries have already been defeated and occupied. We've talking about individuals. Around the world, who belong to groups. Pitting a nation against a small group and calling it war, while highly up lifting to the group's ego we're fighting, is silly. nad then to pretend it is sucicidal to follow rule of law is even worse than silly.

But, our issue of dispute is not the difference between POWs and criminals. Our despute is about whether we can declare anyone, any people, outside the law, giving us freedonm to do whatever we want. I say we are responsible to and for the agreements we sign. To abandon them, our actual survival has to be at stake. Such is not the case in this conflict. ANd when you declare war against a people who belong to no nation, and as such have no uniform, you can't claim they are breaking the rules of war by not having a uniform, another silly point made by those who support not following rule of law.

I realize it helps you to ignore where our dispute really is, to focus on something we'r enot really discussing. I'm familiar with the tactic. But, ask any question you like, and I'll try and answer. Or do as you're done and pretend you don't need to answer ****.

Boo Radley said:

Reported? Do you believe everything reported? The fact is, no verifiable example has ever been given. And what examples were given proved false. So, why would anyone believe the claim?

Click to expand...

DaveFagan said:

The mighty "Wurlitzer" that cranked out the Saddam has WMDs, Saddam is huge threat, Saddam has yellowcake from Niger, and other choreographed lies is the same mighty "Wurlitzer" that reported waterboarding to have saved American lives. If you need to know about the "mighty Wurlitzer" read the thread "The CIA and the Media" in the Polls forum. I guarantee it to be illucidating.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Let's suppose the sources that convinced you of this were reliable and absolutely no useful information was ever obtained from waterboarding these POWs, then why were so many subjected to it, so many times and for so many years?

Were the military and intelligence people who performed these waterboardings too stupid to realize this technic failed to serve it's purpose or were they cruel sadistic sociopaths who simply enjoyed to make others suffer or possibly some reason I have overlooked?

Empirica said:

Let's suppose the sources that convinced you of this were reliable and absolutely no useful information was ever obtained from waterboarding these POWs, then why were so many subjected to it, so many times and for so many years?

Were the military and intelligence people who performed these waterboardings too stupid to realize this technic failed to serve it's purpose or were they cruel sadistic sociopaths who simply enjoyed to make others suffer or possibly some reason I have overlooked?

Click to expand...

It's very good for confessions. They will confess to anything.

But human nature is such that we do convince ourselves based on ideaology what we want to be true. I would never say we never got anything, as I don't know that to be true. A mean a stopped clock is right twice a day. but we know, have absolutely verfiiable evidence that we got misinformation and acted on it. See al Libi. We do not kow the same concerning valid information. As it is unreliable, and as likely to be false as true, and that there are more effective methods for gaining real information, reliable information, there is really no need to use torture, waterboarding or any other.

I also argue it harms the person who performs the torture, one way or another. This is about our values, and effectivenss. It fails our values first and for most. But it also offers so much room for limiting our efectiveness that it even fails there. because we had leaders who both misunderstood what was before them, and bought into a less effective method, but also we willing to dismiss our core values doesn't mean them doing it is proof enoyugh that it was effective. We need actual evidence, and the long standing litature (remember torture is not new) repeatedly reports that torture is unreliable, and thus ineffective, unless what you really want is a confession, by someone, regardless of actual guilt. You'll get a confession.