If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Now children are held prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Three children aged between 13 and 15 years old have joined the 650 inmates illegally held in Guantanamo Bay. Like the other prisoners the children will be held indefinitely and will not be granted access to lawyers. The US claims to view them as "enemy combatants" and will not grant them recognition of Geneva Convention human rights.
This gets better by the day! Nobody inside has actually been charged with any crime, there are no current plans for abductees to stand trial, they have no POW status, no access to lawyer, no human rights as per the Geneva Convention, and now children are being jailed.
Remind me again about rogue states and brutal regimes please.
This gets better by the day! Nobody inside has actually been charged with any crime, there are no current plans for abductees to stand trial, they have no POW status, no access to lawyer, no human rights as per the Geneva Convention, and now children are being jailed.
Remind me again about rogue states and brutal regimes please.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Where did you get this information, i would like to read more about it?
Still....
"They have no POW status, no access to lawyer, no human rights as per the Geneva Convention"
No one should be allowed to hold prisoners like that!
I thought the US were fighting the evil in this world? :rolleyes:
a) many if not most of those held were fighting an invading army, not carrying out terrorist attacks
b) even those who are part of a terrorist organisation have a right to trial and other human rights. That's what differences brutal regimes from civilised governments. Which one does the US' fall into?
c) So either charge them, or release them. If they are terrorists then it should be and open and shut case shouldn't it? Or were these people shipped out as a knee jerk reaction brought up by 9/11?
d) dream on pnj about most of those that were held "working now for the CIA now in places like Pakistan and Yemen". Been reading NY Post again?
Bottom line is: illegally held prisoners, disgusting contempt for human rights and international law, no right of trial or access to lawyers, children being jailed... has Saddam Hussein taken over the US presidency?
Still no excuse.
The US authorities were shamed into admitting three inmates are teenagers, following an expose by an Australian TV station.
But they refused to disclose the age of the youngest detainee.
Spokesman Lt Col Barry Johnson said the number of teenagers was "very few" and they were being held in a "communal setting" away from adult captives.
But he added that they had been "captured as active combatants against US forces" and were considered as enemy combatants.
Alistair Hodgett, of Amnesty International, said: "That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights."
James Ross, of the New York Human Rights Watch, said: "Detaining youths reflects our broader concerns that the US never properly determined the legal status of those held in the conflict."
The reason I put it back on the Arab community/world so much is because they are the ones that can stop teens etc. from killing themselves. War is horrible too but at least countries do what they can to ensure their soldiers return. Suicide bombings ensure they don't.
I hope a Muslim-run, democratic Iraq could be the end of this era of corruption and fanatasim. Arab teens deserve better. And so do we.
It would be great if the UN worked...but it's just too corrupt and/or political...including the current president.
Another example of unbiased reporting.
Jon, I'm so tired of people knocking Uganda on the site. I'm glad you only hinted at the name.
ok. apologies to the entire nation of uganda there.
I'm sorry, holding combatants of any age doesn't need an excuse.
Needs rephrasing, there is nothing illegal about their detention. Immoral yes, illegal no.
Take the emotive word out of that sentence and replace it with "soldier" and it gives a different perspective. That the "soldier" was under 16 is irrelevant.
Some of us believe that detention without trial is a violation of human rights.
And there is indeed a legal issue about their detention. They are not scheduled to stand trial; they have no access to a lawyer; they haven't even charged with anything. If that is not illegal you tell me what is.
Why differentiate? If they are able to, and were, holding a gun then they are combatants.
Personally thought I would try to use my common sense, someone of teenage years is more likely to present a continued risk.
Why is there a right to trial? Under what law does that exist?
1) But holding them inhumanely and subjecting them to torture/interrogation never has an excuse
2) Illegal yes - they are held in breach of the GenevaConventions.
False imprisonment? I would have thought every single civilised country in the world, including the US, has laws regarding locking up people and throwing away the key without charging them with anything and without taking them to court.
That's what usually happens in dictatorships and brutal regimes, not democratic countries.
You have proof that these children are being tortured?
Illegal, no. It does not breach Geneva Convention. Much to my disgust.
How is it false? Were these people actively engaged in military operations against US forces?
...so do I, oh well they do say its the lowest form of wit!
Indeed they were. But that doesn't give automatic right of imprisonment. The US is not at war with Afghanistan or even the Taleban. And even if there was still a war, the Americans are the ones who keep saying these people are no PoWs. So they have absolutely no right to imprison them, unless they have committed a crime and the US plans to charge them with it. But since the US hasn't charged them with anything the detention is illegal. From every possible angle you want to look at it, really.
a) It does give the right of imprisonment.
b) If bombing a country and using ground forces isn't warfare, then perhaps you can explain what is...
If they haven't declared war then they can claim that they don't need to conform to the Geneva Conventions - i.e hold the 'enemy combatants' in Guantanomo. The U.S govt. claims it isn't a war.
This is from a while ago, but it lists all of the breaches of the Geneva Convention that the USA has committed by its actions regarding Guantanamo Bay.
Good Night.
[URL=http://]www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html[/URL]
To be quite frank I have no care for any of those being held, these arent POW'S, they are terrorists.
They are people who believe it is right to execute women for showing thier face, to chop peoples hands off for stealing, and to whip you if you miss morning prayers, oh, and stoning to death if you cheat on your partner.
apart from they are a great bunch who deserve human rights and deserve to be treated like they live in a democracy:D
Seriously, I dont actually know what to do with them, I dont want them walking the streets freely as I know the awful things tehy have done, liek someone said, its irrelevant that they are kids, they are soldiers who were at war. Old enough to do that and you are old enough to be captured.
I think we should release them all on a little island and let the bleeding heart liberals who care for them inhabot the island with them...under taliban rule of course, after all thats what they were defending.
In other words, they have exactly their rights per the Geneva Convention.
Actually, no.
Illegal Combatants (what the US is holding those detainees as) have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Their status is the same as a spy or saboteur. They can be held without trial, they can be summarilly executed. They have ZERO rights under the Conventions that apply.
Thats because the US govt. is (illegally) ignoring the Geneva Conventions!
Well, what do they expect? Had the US not invaded another country they would not have the locals shooting at them. To deport these people thousands of miles and hold them for months or years without any rights it's about as legal as killing babies and selling their preserved heads as souvenirs.
Like I said, this type of behaviour is what separate lawful, civilised countries from brutal regimes. It's interesting to see in which category G. W. Bush's government falls into, isn't it?