Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Now children are held prisoners in Guantanamo Bay

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    Thats because the US govt. is (illegally) ignoring the Geneva Conventions!

    No. It's because you don't bother to understand the Conventions.

    And no, their status is not in question, so there is no requirement for a tribunal.

    Aladdin,

    Are you familiar with the requirements of consideration as a legal combatant? In defense of your nation or not?

    No?

    Figured as much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    No. It's because you don't bother to understand the Conventions.

    And no, their status is not in question, so there is no requirement for a tribunal.

    Aladdin,

    Are you familiar with the requirements of consideration as a legal combatant? In defense of your nation or not?

    No?

    Figured as much.

    So if a hostile country invaded America, you would not resist via arms unless you fulfilled all the requirements of a "legal combatant"- i.e. uniforms etc. And if you did, you'd have no complaints if you were shipped thousands of miles away, tortured, given no legal representation, no contact with the outside world, and held indefinately?

    No?

    Figured as much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    No. It's because you don't bother to understand the Conventions.

    The govt. didn't declare war officially on Afghanistan/Iraq so they can claim that the Conventions dont apply. The Prisoners are classed as illegal combatants because they were irregular fighters rather than part of an army? What don't I understand?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Conventions applied in Vietnam, an undeclared war (may remember that the US actually tried some of its own soldiers for violations of those conventions).

    To be a legal combatant requires a recognizable uniform or marking. Wars in SE Asia commonly see soldiers who have a specific color scarf tied around their neck in order to comply with that requirement. The combatants being held in Guantanamo Bay did not comply with the requirements for legal combatants, and are entitled to NO rights under the Geneva Conventions. Just like spys.

    You will not see members of the Iraqi military who fought in uniform going to Guantanamo Bay.

    Carlito,

    Yeah, I think I could find something that would clearly identify me as a soldier...like my uniform.

    And our armed citizens might just manage something as well...like an American flag on their clothing. Isn't that difficult.

    I'm sure you have so much experience in armed conflict, don't you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    The Conventions applied in Vietnam, an undeclared war (may remember that the US actually tried some of its own soldiers for violations of those conventions).

    To be a legal combatant requires a recognizable uniform or marking. Wars in SE Asia commonly see soldiers who have a specific color scarf tied around their neck in order to comply with that requirement. The combatants being held in Guantanamo Bay did not comply with the requirements for legal combatants, and are entitled to NO rights under the Geneva Conventions. Just like spys.

    You will not see members of the Iraqi military who fought in uniform going to Guantanamo Bay.

    Carlito,

    Yeah, I think I could find something that would clearly identify me as a soldier...like my uniform.

    And our armed citizens might just manage something as well...like an American flag on their clothing. Isn't that difficult.

    I'm sure you have so much experience in armed conflict, don't you?

    So let me get this straight, you think that if you tie an american flag to your arm while fighting, that makes it immoral to treat you like an animal, hold you without trial, etc, whereas if you don't tie an american flag to your arm, then its fine to do whatever the hell you want to them.

    Not only that, but you have no idea, as I don't, as to whetehr any of these prisoners had any kind of uniform, or identifying mark on them, because they have not had any kind of hearing, trial, and aren't allowed contact with the outside world. As far as we know, every single one of these prisoners could be completely innocent, and all could have been wearing uniforms, unfortuneatly due to the fact that they are in total isolation we don't even have their side of the story, let alone any kind of verdict on the rtuth of the matter.

    And as the Geneva Convention says, "if the status of combatants is undetermined or debated, the convention shall apply until a competant tribunal has been held"

    And no, suprisingly I don't have a lot of experience in armed conflict (although shouting out your veteran status really fills me with sympathy), but if I didn't assume otherwise I would think the same thing about you, someone who thinks that an american flag on their clothing would really make a difference to ethicality in modern warfare.

    Basically your argument rests on a legal technicality, which in my eyes (especially for someone who is claiming to be a soldier) is pretty pathetic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I just point out what the Conventions state.

    There is no question of the status of the detainees. They wore no markings or uniforms. They were armed combatants. Therefore, they are illegal combatants. No need for a tribunal, because there is no question about their status. Of course, most countries have simply executed people like this on the battlefield or after interrogation. Maybe you would have preferred that the US follow that precedent?

    Oh, by the way, I do have an idea of what those people wore. So does anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the conflict in Afghanistan. Of course, I have more that just an idea.

    I suppose you claim that "murder" is just a legal technicality?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since those combatants were fighting in their own country they are only "illegal" if the laws of Afghanistan say so. The US can say what it wants but it has no legal powers or saying about what is legal or illegal in other nations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Really, Aladdin? Then I guess you would have released LT Calley.

    After all, under the laws of South Vietnam, he didn't commit any crime.

    OR maybe Goering and company shouldn't have been tried for the Concentration Camps? After all, the Allies had no right to decide if they were legal or not...

    You should at least think before you post. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blimey! I didn't realise you acknowledged international law.

    I would think that murder and genocide were illegal in Vietnam, Germany and all other countries on earth. I somehow doubt however that there is a law in Afghanistan (or anywhere elsewhere) banning citizens from defending themselves and their country against an invading army.

    Sorry, Guantanamo Bay still stinks of illegal whatever way you look at it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Must be why you don't have a law degree. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Sorry, Guantanamo Bay still stinks of illegal whatever way you look at it.

    It may stink of illegal, but that doesn't mean that it is illegal
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    I just point out what the Conventions state.

    There is no question of the status of the detainees. They wore no markings or uniforms. They were armed combatants. Therefore, they are illegal combatants. No need for a tribunal, because there is no question about their status.

    The status of the detainees is disputed, I thought that would be fairly obvious from the very nature of this thread.

    We have been told that they wore no markings or unifroms, and that they were armed combatants, this is questioned, hence the need for trials etc.

    So we do need a tribunal.
    Of course, most countries have simply executed people like this on the battlefield or after interrogation. Maybe you would have preferred that the US follow that precedent?

    Obviously not, why waste the webspace typing this?
    Oh, by the way, I do have an idea of what those people wore. So does anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the conflict in Afghanistan. Of course, I have more that just an idea.

    You were not there when they were captured, and have no word except that of the US government that they wore no markings. You might have an idea, but you do not know it beyond a reasonable doubt-hence the need for a tribunal under the Convention.


    I suppose you claim that "murder" is just a legal technicality?

    If the majority of the population had committed murder, but the police only arrested those who they wanted to hold for other unrelated crimes, then I would consider murder a "technicality".

    The majority of the Taliban's army did not wear uniforms, the majority were not arrested and taken to Cuba (although a fair few were executed grusomely by the Northern alliance under the eyes of the CIA and American troops), only the ones the US wanted to take to Cuba- making it a technicality whereby they could do what they like under the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    The status of the detainees is disputed, I thought that would be fairly obvious from the very nature of this thread.

    No, actually, it isn't. The judgement is in the hands of those who took them into custody. Period.

    If they were incorrect and had executed the detainees, they could be tried for warcrimes. If they were not sure of the status of the personnel, they could request a tribunal (the tribunal would be held by the US Military in accordance with UCMJ).

    That's what the convention calls for.

    It isn't a matter of public debate. You have no say in it. None what so ever.

    Welcome to the real world.

    Btw, you have no idea if I saw any of them captured or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Btw, you have no idea if I saw any of them captured or not.

    Do tell us!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    No, actually, it isn't. The judgement is in the hands of those who took them into custody. Period.

    If they were incorrect and had executed the detainees, they could be tried for warcrimes. If they were not sure of the status of the personnel, they could request a tribunal (the tribunal would be held by the US Military in accordance with UCMJ).

    That's what the convention calls for.

    It isn't a matter of public debate. You have no say in it. None what so ever.

    Welcome to the real world.

    Btw, you have no idea if I saw any of them captured or not.
    But you accept that this is simply a technicality which allows the US to act immorally and claim vindication?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    But you accept that this is simply a technicality which allows the US to act immorally and claim vindication?

    So, do you still beat your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend?

    Immoral? Who made you in charge of deciding what is moral or not?

    It's the convention, not a technicality. The convention was written the way it was for a reason, believe it or not. And it is accepted as written by each signatory. Not in some other manner.

    Have you ever been outside of Europe?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    So, do you still beat your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend?

    Out of Order Greenhat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    So, do you still beat your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend?

    Immoral? Who made you in charge of deciding what is moral or not?

    It's the convention, not a technicality. The convention was written the way it was for a reason, believe it or not. And it is accepted as written by each signatory. Not in some other manner.

    Have you ever been outside of Europe?

    But the fact that nearly all Taliban soldiers had no uniforms but only a few were arrested and taken away means that this is being used as a technicality by the US, no?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You just making up facts as you go along, Carlito?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    You just making up facts as you go along, Carlito?

    errr....no.

    You dispute that the majority of Taliban soldiers had no uniforms? If so why not say it like a man, rather than trying to respond with smart arse questions.

    Not that that matters- as long as there were any taliban soldiers without uniforms who when captured were not taken to Guantanamo bay or executed, then by definition its a technicality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito

    Not that that matters- as long as there were any taliban soldiers without uniforms who when captured were not taken to Guantanamo bay or executed, then by definition its a technicality.

    No. Because

    1. There weren't many US troops involved in fighting with Taliban soldiers. As a matter of fact, there were darn few. So we don't get to make those decisions. Most of those got made by Northern Alliance troops.

    2. Under the Conventions, we can do whatever the hell we want with them. They have no rights if they were illegal combatants (not in a recognizable uniform).

    You need to get a dictionary out and look up "definition".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    No. Because

    1. There weren't many US troops involved in fighting with Taliban soldiers. As a matter of fact, there were darn few. So we don't get to make those decisions. Most of those got made by Northern Alliance troops.

    2. Under the Conventions, we can do whatever the hell we want with them. They have no rights if they were illegal combatants (not in a recognizable uniform).

    You need to get a dictionary out and look up "definition".

    Yes, I agree, legally you can do anything you want with them(puttingaside the debate about tribunals etc) because of this legal technicality that you are using- and I've explained to you why I think its a technicality; because you don't treat all of the soldiers you captured in the same way, you use this clause to allow you to do what you want.

    technicality

    n : a detail that is considered insignificant [syn: trifle, triviality]

    Its considered insignificant because most of the Taliban soldiers captured by the US who had no unifrom or marking were released, hence it was not that detail that the US is holding them under, its another issue entirely (alleged terrorism)- but the clause in the Geneva convention classifying illegal combatants allows them to do this. Even though the reality of it is that almost the entire Taliban army wore no uniform at all,and had no markings- would you argue that this gives the US to execute every single one of them that wasn't wearing a uniform or markings?

    Legally it could, because of this technicality. Which shows how absurd it is.

    Whatever the legal status, in my opinion this is immoral.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    Its considered insignificant because most of the Taliban soldiers captured by the US who had no unifrom or marking were released

    What US Troops would have captured Taliban soldiers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    What US Troops would have captured Taliban soldiers?

    Special forces, paratroops, CIA operatives, those sent to liase with Northern Alliance commanders, peacekeepers sent in after the main hostilities.

    And CIA/US intellegence questioned/investiagated a hell of a lot of non-uniformed Taliban soldiers, and many Northern Alliance troops/commanders were effectively under command from US military, so whether or not they were specifically captured by US soldiers or not is irrelevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    whether or not they were specifically captured by US soldiers or not is irrelevant.

    Actually, if you would bother to pay attention, you would find that is in fact specifically what is relevant.

    No paratroopers (except for Special Forces) there during the conflict with the Taliban. Not that many SF or CIA guys.

    Pretty hard to take many prisoners in those situations. And they must have specifically taken them prisoner, or the Northern Alliance specifically identified them as illegal combatants and requested the US deal with them (a lot of Al Queda that way).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Actually, if you would bother to pay attention, you would find that is in fact specifically what is relevant.

    No paratroopers (except for Special Forces) there during the conflict with the Taliban. Not that many SF or CIA guys.

    Pretty hard to take many prisoners in those situations. And they must have specifically taken them prisoner, or the Northern Alliance specifically identified them as illegal combatants and requested the US deal with them (a lot of Al Queda that way).

    Your line of argument had some credibility until you said "or the Northern Alliance specifically identified them as illegal combatants and requested the US deal with them (a lot of Al Queda that way)" which undermines the rest:

    If the Northern Alliance specifically identified "illegal combatants" then they would have identified all those soldiers that did not wear uniforms or markings, which are "illegal combatants" and therefore you claim would be taken to Guantanamo Bay. Which brings us back to the original point- do you claim that all captured Taliban soldiers without uniforms or markings were taken to Guantanamo Bay, or executed? Or was it simply that Northern Alliance commanding officers and CIA spotters failed to spot that vast numbers of captured soldiers had no uniforms or markings?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    Your line of argument had some credibility until you said "or the Northern Alliance specifically identified them as illegal combatants and requested the US deal with them (a lot of Al Queda that way)" which undermines the rest:

    If the Northern Alliance specifically identified "illegal combatants" then they would have identified all those soldiers that did not wear uniforms or markings, which are "illegal combatants" and therefore you claim would be taken to Guantanamo Bay. Which brings us back to the original point- do you claim that all captured Taliban soldiers without uniforms or markings were taken to Guantanamo Bay, or executed? Or was it simply that Northern Alliance commanding officers and CIA spotters failed to spot that vast numbers of captured soldiers had no uniforms or markings?

    Are you actually that unable to use logic?

    Why would they have identified all as such? That is up to them. They are under no obligation to apply a consistent measure to their prisoners, and you have no evidence that Taliban soldiers did not wear markings of some sort.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Are you actually that unable to use logic?

    Why would they have identified all as such? That is up to them. They are under no obligation to apply a consistent measure to their prisoners, and you have no evidence that Taliban soldiers did not wear markings of some sort.

    No, i didn't say that they had an "obligation" (by which I assume you mean legal obligation), I said that this meant that the US was holding these people on a technicality.

    And no, I have no evidence, I have very little evidence of anything that I see on the TV or read about in newspapers, but I think if you're going to argue that the US only took captured soldiers who had no unifroms/markings then you are being deliberately obtuse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    I have no evidence

    In other words, you are completely uninformed on the subject but think somehow you can debate the subject.

    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    In other words, you are completely uninformed on the subject but think somehow you can debate the subject.

    :rolleyes:

    Well, congratulations, that is officially the worst piece of debating I've ever witnessed on an internet board.

    Not only did you take the quote completely out of context, while ignoring the rest of my points/post, but you also made the most inexplicable leap of logic from me "having no evidence" to being "completely uninformed" :banghead:
Sign In or Register to comment.