Hmm...They are not there because they were arrested for crimes.
Not sure why that's such a difficult point to grasp.
Hmm...
That is a good point...
So far as I understand, they're there because they are either unlawful combatants or suspected of such...
but then they would be covered by the Geneva Accords.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).
but then they would be covered by the Geneva Accords.
I can't imagine.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Ummm, I don't think so unless I missed Al Qaeda signing that document also.but then they would be covered by the Geneva Accords.
(emphasis added)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.
I just want to be clear, do you favor thier value or ours? Should we change, or try to live by our ideals?
I don't expect different. But this is your dodge, not mine. :coffeepap
What you're not "clear" on is that Camp Delta has nothing to do with that.
Doesn't it? Are they our values or not?
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?
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)
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
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.
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?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?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.
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?