So… What can we do about it?
Are people trying to get this point accross of the people of the US? If so, do they just refuse to listen to reason?
Can we wrtie to our congressman?
I feel so impotent to do anything. I feel my government is letting me down big time.
Indeed, Kinthalis. Perhaps a US doper could write to a congressman known to support their continued detention and ask:
Given that the detainess are, at the very least, a voluntary militia who have not yet been provided with a competent tribunal and ARE therefore Prisoners of War, should the US encourage other countries to follow its lead in violating articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention?
Great idea!
I’m sure my congresscritter needs toilet paper…
Sounds like you couldn’t think of a response, so you went for the cheap shot. It’s not hard to believe that some people think GD is getting overtly hostile.
Any reason this shouldn’t be reported to the Mods?
Sounds like you want to tip free speech into the garbage-bin then, along with justice and the Geneva Convention…
Is there really no-one prominent in the US speaking up about this? What are the democrats up to? Are there no pressure groups? As long as these people remain locked up without trial (and even without charge) then the US has no moral authority to talk about democracy and civilisation to anybody, anywhere.
Persons should not believe the lies told by pro-terrorists, but rather learn what is actually true and what is not. First, what is true: That substantially all of the detainees have not been charged. And the United States has not granted them the status of Prisoners of War. That’s pretty much it.
When will they be released? When the war is over, just as if they were prisioners of war (which they are not). If they were prisioners of war, those not standing trial for war crimes would be immediately be repatriated to their legal country of origin, Afghanistan, where the local authorities would kill them. That’s the “legal” solution that pro-terrorist so-called “human rights activists” won’t tell you about, and while it’s my personal preference, it’s simply a lie to claim that detaining them is somehow less humane than sending them back where we got them.
What are the lies? Guantanamo detainees do in fact have access to counsel. cite The International Committee of the Red Cross has delivered over 5,800 messages between detainees and their families. cite. Those who do face trial will do so by military tribunals, just as do those held as Prisoners of War. cite.
The above post is by me, not my peaceful girlfriend canby. I apologize to all and sundry for the error and very much wish at this moment I had my moderator superpowers for just a minute or two.
All this talk about the “WAR on TERROR”. As far as I know, there is no WAR on terror, so saying that they will be released when it is over is BS.
Congress is the only body that has the right to declare war. They never did. The pussy only gave the right of action in Iraq. Other than that, they have not done shit.
The war on terror is the same as the war on drugs. Political BS hoping to rile the people into complacency. It will never be over, because the problem that it seeks to correct is not solvable by war, nor any other real means. Human nature call it.
First of all, there is no “war” that ever be defined as having ended. How will we know when the “War on Terror” is over, especially since it has never been formally declared or defined in the first place?
Secondly, they have to be classified either as POWs or as criminal suspects and given the due process accorded to those definitions. “Unlawful combatants” is a meaningless, bullshit designation invented by the administration so that they have at least a rhetorical excuse to ignore the Geneva Convention.’’
Lastly, deploring the US government’s actions in Guantanamo does not make anyone “pro-terrorist.” I am pro-Geneva Convention…and none of the prisoners in Cuba has actually been proven to be a terrorist have they?
So when does the war end? What constitutes the end of the war?
Why not try them now? If they’re terrorists or war criminals, lock 'em up. If not, then you have no justification for holding them - since, according to you, they aren’t POWs.
You’re engaging in the same silly doubletalk the administration is. They’re not POWs, but apparently they aren’t entitled to trials. They’ll be released when the war ends (maybe) but what war? Is it the war in Afghanistan? What defines war’s end - the complete end of terrorism everywhere in the world?
Nothing in this cite proves the detainees have access to counsel. Do you have a cite that supports your assertion?
IMHO,
The prisoners at Gitmo are accused war criminals, who through their membership in Al Queda and the Taliban are responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent civilians.
Those most culpable must and should be executed for their crimes.
Those less culpable should (like Rudolph Hess) spend the remainder of their days imprisoned, cut off from civilized society.
Frankly it is imbecilic of this administration to continue the endless civil trials of the handful of Al Queda terrorists caught in the U.S.
They, like the war criminals at Gitmo, deserve nothing more than swift military justice.
sic semper tyrannus
dos centavos
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nixon *
**IMHO,
The prisoners at Gitmo are accused war criminals,**
Accused by who? On the basis of what evidence? Since do accusations equal guilt?
Cite that they have memberships in al Qaeda or the Taliban? Cite that they have any responsibility in 9/11?
Executions are barbaric but leaving that aside, how do we decide who is “most culpable?” What should be the process, and when? How will the public know that any fair process is taking place at all?
We’re talking about criminal trials not civil trials and how do you know if someone is a “terrorist” unless you try them first? What is the minimum level of process you would require before you decided it was ok to kill somebody? An accusation? They just don’t look right? Who decides? What would be the mechanism for weeding innocent people out of the process?
**
When were the prisoners at Guantanamo convicted of war crimes?
Et tyrannus est quis?
Fixed Coding.
There will come a time when this question becomes germane. No clinically sane person can argue that that time is now. As regards the Guantanamo detainees in particular, the minimum condition for the end of the war would be the destruction of their immediate employer, al Qaeda.
No, it is a legal distinction that all members of al Qaeda are by definition. An “unlawful combatant” is someone who is a combatant but who is not a lawful combatant under the Geneva Convention (leaving aside Quinn, for the moment). Among the duties of a lawful combatant is “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” The second these people signed on to an organization whose leader commanded the death of Americans and their allies, military and civilian, they became unlawful combatants.
Lying to get other people to delore those actions when they otherwise might not is pro-terrorist.
Here’s the military’s prosecuting attorney saying that rumors of a plea deal are false, in part because the defendants haven’t yet had counsel and that he won’t do a deal until they do.
Here’s a “human rights lawyer” upset that military lawyers, and not she, will get the job.
Was the US combat action in Afghanistan unlawful?
How can anyone be an unlawful combatant unless the combat (instigated in Afghanistan by the USA) was itself unlawful?
If the USA attacks your country, and you defend it in combat, how can that be unlawful? Of course a combatant can commit a war crime, and if he does, he should be tried for it (regardless of which side he is on). But that makes him a war criminal, NOT an unlawful combatant.
…with respect, your cites state that the prisoners “will” get counsel, but at present, they are NOT represented. Any lcites to say that they, after two years in captivity, that the prisoners have had access to counsel?
Wonderful. No need for trials then to determine if the accused are, in fact, members of Al Qaeda. Nixon has just done that for us. And it does not matter in what capacity or what they did, they are all equally culpable. Wonderful. As barbaric as Al Qaeda themselves.
If you’re so sure of their “employment” why aren’t you keen to see them tried?
Answer, because you’re not. You don’t have the first clue. Instead, you seem to believe what your Government tells you to believe. Which is an intellectually curious position, imho.
At best TWAT is a misleading, partisan abstract, at worst a disingenuous, anti-democratic, rabble-rousing slogan. In any other terms it makes no sense. It’s bullshit.
And I don’t know anyone in the real world who would demean their credibility by claiming otherwise.
I understand Americans have a ‘journey’ to make in addressing the concept and actuality of terrorism, but this is first principle’ common-sense stuff . . .
Sorry, but your position on this is absurd.
Only an ignorant idiot will argue that the time is not now. The detainees are accused of committing crimes and, in any civilised country, they are entitled to a speedy trial which would determine their guilt or innocence. They have been locked up for two years and are, in fact, being punished without due process of law which is as barbaric as a country can get.
That is all for a jury to decide. The executive is not the judiciary. We have separation of powers for a reason. You are accusing the detainees of committing a crime. That is your opinion but the place to determine that is a court of law.
Wonderful. Acusing people who disagree with you of being pro-terrorist. I find this despicable. If you could sink any lower you would be G. W. Bush. If anyone takes the cake for lying in all this affair it is the US government so you might want to call them the greatest terrorists of all.
Human rights are due to every human regardless of all other factors. Those detained and accused of crimes in the war on drugs, or any other “war” the US government chooses to invent , are entitled to a speedy trial to determine their actual guilt or inocence. The Executive Branch does not determine who is guilty except in dictatorships. Even Communist countries know to put up a farce of a trial to keep the appearances but the USA does not feel the need for any trial. The President of the USA has become the accuser, the jury and the executioner. It is a shame the USA is doing this. It is a step back in human rights and in the advance of civilization. Sinking to the level of Al Qaeda is not the way to fight Al Qaeda.
Which supports and confirms what was said that “Nothing in this cite proves the detainees have access to counsel”. You might want to provide cites which support your position and not the opposite side’s position.