# Bush to build Guantanamo Death Camp **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2003, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381 "2003-05-29T22:15:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/61 "2003-05-30T19:46:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*Not to hijack this thread, but IMO, if you want to lay claim to supporting “free speech,” then yeah, I think it should be okay to _talk_ about overthrowing the government. It should be against the law to actually **do** such a thing, but to censor/forbid the _discussion_ of the topic runs counter to the whole “free speech” thing. > > When you tell folks “You can talk about anything you want – except X, Y, and Z”, the second half of the statement contradicts the first half. \*\* “Talk about” is not the same as “advocate”. Yelling “fire” in a movie theater is not the same as talking about how someone people yell “fire” in a movie theater. Nor is it the same as proclaiming that you intend to yell “fire” in the movie theater tonight. See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/62 "2003-05-30T19:48:39Z")
“Yelling “fire” in a movie theater is not the same as talking about how someone people yell “fire” in a movie theater. Nor is it the same as proclaiming that you intend to yell “fire” in the movie theater tonight.” Poor wording. SHould’ve said: Talking about how someone people yell “fire” in a movie theater is not the same as yelling “fire” in a movie theater or proclaiming that you intend to yell “fire” in the movie theater tonight. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/63 "2003-05-30T20:08:44Z")
> [@](#): > > [CNN link](http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/08/ret.cuba.redcross/index.html) > Red Cross: Detainees ‘are POWs’ > > GENEVA, Switzerland – The International Committee of the Red Cross said it considered al Qaeda fighters held by U.S. forces to be prisoners of war, despite a U.S. declaration to the contrary. > > U.S. President George W. Bush agreed on Thursday to apply the Geneva Conventions to Taliban prisoners because Afghanistan was a signatory, even though the Taliban was not recognised by Washington. But he said the al Qaeda network could not be considered a state that is party to the treaty, which guarantees a wide range of rights to captives. Even though acknowledging the conventions applied to the Taliban, Washington said that group would not be granted full prisoner of war status. Earlier Christen told the BBC: “What we are saying is that any captured combatant in the Afghan conflict is protected by the Geneva Conventions and this is still the case unless it is decided by a competent court.” The USA, in ratifying the Geneva Convention, agreed that if there was any disagreement as to the status of any prisoners, it would agree to let an international court settle that issue. The problem is that the USA does not recognise any authority who can present that dispute. It does not recognize the Taliban or Al Qaeda as legitimate entities, it does not recognize the authority of the ICRC to bring such suit and it does not recognize the prisoners themselves or their families. So, the USA is definitely in breach of the spirit of the Geneva Convention and maybe the letter as well although this would have to be argued by lawyers specializing in treaty and international law. And BTW, the prisoners are _not_ allowed direct contact with their families, contrary to what has been said here. We do not know what the US government _will_ do in the end so we can only speculate with what information we have. The fact that these people have been held for so long with no due process is already very troubling. Some have been freed after more than a year in prison with no charges and no excuses. That is not the right thing to do. Colin Powell has expressed his preocupation with this state of affairs and has said their situation should be decided as soon as possible. He realises that prolonging this situation unnecessarily damages the image on the USA abroad and makes his job more difficult. I hope these prisoners will soon be either released or subject to a fair trial. For now we cannot know what will happen to them but we should remain vigilant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/64 "2003-05-30T20:39:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Regarding military justice in the United States: My only complaint about it is the legislated kangaroo court of the Article 15 procedure for Sailors and Marines who are embarked aboard ship. The rest of it is an actual justice system. \*\* Any sailor has the option of rejecting an Article 15 hearing. Of course, the alternative is potentially a full court-martial, but an Article 15 is not manadatory. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/65 "2003-05-30T20:47:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\* > Note this from the ICRC site about the Geneva Convention and Guantanamo “There has been much public debate over whether the internees in G…B… are prisoners of war or not. The ICRC thinks that the legal status of each internee needs to be clarified on an individual basis, and has repeatedly urged the US to do this. In any case, the US has the right to legally prosecute any internee at G…B… suspected of having commited war crimes or any other criminal offense punishable under US law prior to or during the hostilities”. > > Fair enough. I agree that the USA should really heed this advice, and get off our butts and have the tribunal hearing to determine POW status. Although the GC does not seem to stipulate how long we have to do this (but again, note- no one here is an expert on this kind of law, including me), we have had long enough, IMHO. Either do it, do it now, or come up with a real good reason why not- and convince the ICRC with it. However, this statement also says a few other things- that the “internees” are not very obviously POWs.{snip}Next, it also states clearly that we do have the right to prosecute the internees. > > \*\* Sailor- note that I quoted the ICRC in full (hardly an “endorsement” by the ICRC, but not too bad). And also note, I also said “we should get off our butts” and clarify their status, like the ICRC has requested. Here the ICRC has made a reasonable request, and we should heed them. The Bush admin is wriong for not doing so. It SEEMS like we are finally going to do this. Not soon enough…IMHO. However- no, AFAIK, and IANA (international)L, we did not agree (nor does the GC so stipulate) to have “an international court settle the issue”. The GC says a “tribunal”, nothing has been shown we can’t have the tribunal ourselves, in fact the ICRC quote above seems to clearly say we can “clarify” their status ourselves- provided we do it “on an individual basis”. Again, fair. Don’t go making up International law- again. OK? Sure, the prisoners don’t have **direct** contact- but where does it say they have to be allowed personal visits? The ICRC does not seem to think so, but it does insist they be allowed to forward personal messages to their families (thru the ICRC)- which we have allowed. Currently the “interness” are being given the full rights of POWs until we determine their status. The ICRC is being allowed full access. So far, the only thing we seem to be doing wrong is dragging our feet over clarifing the internees status. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/66 "2003-05-30T20:48:59Z")
Bricker- explain to the dudes here about the Jury questionaire, and what is allowed to be on it, etc. Please? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/67 "2003-05-30T21:40:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by DrDeth > Sailor- note that I quoted the ICRC in full (hardly an “endorsement” by the ICRC, but not too bad). And also note, I also said “we should get off our butts” and clarify their status, like the ICRC has requested. Here the ICRC has made a reasonable request, and we should heed them. The Bush admin is wriong for not doing so. It SEEMS like we are finally going to do this. Not soon enough…IMHO. Justice delayed is justice denied. A lot of harm has already been done. I agree it should be done and I think it will not be done ever. The government will release some and sentence others but it will not allow any adjudication on the matter of whether they are to be considered POWs or not as the ICRC demanded. The government has made it quite clear. > [@](#): > > However- no, AFAIK, and IANA (international)L, we did not agree (nor does the GC so stipulate) to have “an international court settle the issue”. The GC says a “tribunal”, nothing has been shown we can’t have the tribunal ourselves, in fact the ICRC quote above seems to clearly say we can “clarify” their status ourselves- provided we do it “on an individual basis”. Again, fair. Don’t go making up International law- again. OK? Your ignorance is so daring. You have already demonstrated your ignorance about international law in this thread and I would expect you to be a bit more prudent. You really need to learn a bit more about international law before you go about sentencing. The Geneva convention is a treaty among nations (which you did not even know a few posts up). The parties are nations and it is ridiculous to say a nation will be party and adjudicator of a matter in dispute. Look, there have been threads in the past discussing similar matters of international law and I suggest you read them. The idea that the USA would be a party to an international lawsuit and the adjudicator is just preposterous (unles, obviously, all parties consented). > [@](#): > > Sure, the prisoners don’t have direct contact- but where does it say they have to be allowed personal visits? The ICRC does not seem to think so, but it does insist they be allowed to forward personal messages to their families (thru the ICRC)- which we have allowed. Direct contact means they should be allowed phone calls or, at least to write. The prisoners in Gitmo are not allowed this and the only thing the ICRC can do is tell their families that they are indeed alive and prisoners. And it is not even certain the Red Cross has had access to every prisoner. The government of the USA has refused to publishe their names so their familes may know they are there. > [@](#): > > Currently the “interness” are being given the full rights of POWs until we determine their status. The ICRC is being allowed full access. So far, the only thing we seem to be doing wrong is dragging our feet over clarifing the internees status. At least we agree that one thing is wrong. I think there are more things. At any rate, I hope they are either released or tried ASAP. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/68 "2003-05-30T21:46:17Z")
Oh, and BTW, I would welcome even American courts adjudicating the matter of the status of the prisoners. But, unfortunately, it ain’t gonna happen. The US government has chosen Guantanamo precisely to keep the prisoners out of the jurisdiction of US courts. Which is a shame is you ask me. Courts exist to keep the executive in check and this is an executive acting without check. It will not submit the matter to the courts. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/69 "2003-05-30T21:46:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > Talking about how someone people yell “fire” in a movie theater is not the same as yelling “fire” in a movie theater or proclaiming that you intend to yell “fire” in the movie theater tonight. So saying “People talk about violently overthrowing the government” is okay, but “That’s it, I’ve had enough, it’s time to overthrow the government” is not? Sorry, but seems to me it’s still “you can only talk about the things we let you talk about”, a.k.a. not-free speech. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/70 "2003-05-30T22:27:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **Your ignorance is so daring. You have already demonstrated your ignorance about international law in this thread and I would expect you to be a bit more prudent. You really need to learn a bit more about international law before you go about sentencing. The Geneva convention is a treaty among nations (which you did not even know a few posts up). The parties are nations and it is ridiculous to say a nation will be party and adjudicator of a matter in dispute. Look, there have been threads in the past discussing similar matters of international law and I suggest you read them. The idea that the USA would be a party to an international lawsuit and the adjudicator is just preposterous (unles, obviously, all parties consented). Direct contact means they should be allowed phone calls or, at least to write. The prisoners in Gitmo are not allowed this and the only thing the ICRC can do is tell their families that they are indeed alive and prisoners. And it is not even certain the Red Cross has had access to every prisoner** Hmm, just what we need here in GD- name calling. Look, dude, I knew the GC was a treaty before you were born. Next- the ICRC has said that the US may “clarify” the “legal status of each internee”. Note they said “the US”, not “an international Tribunal”. Apparently, you know more about International law & the GC than the ICRC does. I provided their address in a prior post. Please so inform them of their ignorance. :rolleyes: Next- where does it say in the GC that the internees get “phone calls”? But they do get to write. The ICRC has allowed each internee to write a personal message, which the ICRC hand-delivers. This is right there on their web site, dude, you read it. Next, the ICRC has said it has full access to the prisoners, and they have “registered the internees”. Again, the Red Cross thinks it has “access to every prisoner”- please write them, and tell them they are wrong.:rolleyes: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/71 "2003-05-30T22:29:30Z")
I believe it is OK to talk about it in general terms but not in any particular terms that would constitute initiating a conspiracy to actually do something. In other words: as long as it is very strictly in the realm of words and thoughts it is OK but as soon as it has any color of becoming action it is not. Just like talkking about killing someone. As long as you only talk it is fine but as soon as your talk may have any practical consequences then you are in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/72 "2003-05-30T22:39:20Z")
Oh, and from the ICRC site: “By late April 2003 the ICRC had facilitated the exchange of nearly 4200 Red Cross Messages between the internees & their families”. Hmm, that is nearly 4200 of those messages that some here claim don’t exist. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/73 "2003-05-30T22:43:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > Next- the ICRC has said that the US may “clarify” the “legal status of each internee”. Note they said “the US”, not “an international Tribunal”. Apparently, you know more about International law & the GC than the ICRC does. The ICRC did not say “may”, it said “should”: The USA _should_ clarify. Which is one thing, The USA, as a party to the Geneva convention should do that. I did not say the USA could not do it. I said it should do it and obviously the US courts could and should intervene. But that is not the point I was trying to make. The point is that if there is a disagreement then it would be an international tribunal who would settle it. If the UK would present a complaint regarding a British national held by the USA, the matter would not be settled in US courts or in British courts but in The Hague. Part of the problem is that the USA does not recognise the legal capacity of the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc. . . . which is fine by me but as an immediate consequence the prisoners are then considered common criminals and should be indicted and given a fair and speedy trial. The USA wants to have it both ways. I can accept either way but you have to be consistent. > [@](#): > > Next- where does it say in the GC that the internees get “phone calls”? But they do get to write. The ICRC has allowed each internee to write a personal message, which the ICRC hand-delivers. This is right there on their web site, dude, you read it. I would if you gave us a link but so far you have failed to provide any links to support what you say. Phone calls and letters are communication with their families. Any one will do. My understanding is they are not permitted any of this and all the ICRC can do is tell the families the guy is alive and being held prisoner. I understand they cannot write home but I’ll be glad if you can prove me mistaken on this one. Please post a cite. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/74 "2003-05-30T22:50:44Z")
> [@](#): > > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2671287.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2671287.stm) > > They are not allowed direct contact with their relatives so, over the past 12 months, Red Cross workers have facilitated the exchange of 3,300 personal messages between the prisoners and their families. > > The United States refuses to release the names of any of those held so the censored letters are often the only way families can confirm their relatives are being held at the base. I am not sure exactly what this means but it seems they may be allowed limited communication. From other things I have read I get the impression the prisoners are not allowed to write at all and all they can do is give the Red Cross workers verbal messages for their families (which, don’t get me wrong, is much better than no communication at all.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/75 "2003-05-30T22:52:41Z")
You know, this is getting tedious. You read their web site yourself, and you quoted it. Thus, you can find it again. Again, the ICRC has delivered 4200 letters to the internees families. > **[International Committee of the Red Cross](https://www.icrc.org)** > > The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of war and other situations of violence. See the page about Guantanamo Bay. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/76 "2003-05-30T23:27:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > Any sailor has the option of rejecting an Article 15 hearing. Incorrect. Any Sailor or Marine who is embarked aboard ship does not have the right to decline Article 15 proceedings. My sourse for this, in addition to the actual law itself, is the explicit statement of this fact on the Enlistment or Reenlistment document. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/77 "2003-05-30T23:40:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*You know, this is getting tedious. You read their web site yourself, and you quoted it. Thus, you can find it again. Again, the ICRC has delivered 4200 letters to the internees families. > > [www.icrc.org](http://www.icrc.org) > See the page about Guantanamo Bay. \*\* Yeah, sure. I quote here the relevant excerpts and link to the actual page and you just post to the main page of the website, tell me to look for that page and then find (and guess) the relevant text which you refuse to quote. I am afraid that’s not the way we do things around here. You do your homework and I’ll do mine. In any case, if it is so, I would be quite happy to learn the prisoners are indeed allowed to write home but everything I have so far makes me believe they are not allowed this. ---
**Author:** ![Optihut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/edb3f5/32.png) [@Optihut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Optihut)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/78 "2003-05-31T02:00:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The United States was able to execute the saboteurs because they were not deemed to be prisoners of war but unlawful combatants. There is always a good, reasonable and just explanation why things have to be done a certain way. From bombing red cross installations to _legally_ executing people, it’s been done all around the world. What’s scary though is that some people are still cheering for those acts and not realizing and criticizing them for what they are. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/79 "2003-05-31T02:07:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*So saying “People talk about violently overthrowing the government” is okay, but “That’s it, I’ve had enough, it’s time to overthrow the government” is not? > > Sorry, but seems to me it’s still “you can only talk about the things we let you talk about”, a.k.a. not-free speech. \*\* Are we debating what the actual law is, or what we each think it should be? I’m referring to the former. If you are as well, then you are mistaken about free speech. There are many types of speech that are restricted. I cannot, for example, take out an add in the paper that says “RJUNG IS A CONVICTED FELON”. Assuming that you are not a convicted felon, you can sue me and you will win. If we are debating what we each think the law **should be** , then that is a different matter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381/80 "2003-05-31T02:53:32Z")
This simply cannot be true, and I refuse to believe it. This is America, and my country doesn’t do things like that. Period. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-build-guantanamo-death-camp/178381.md?page=5)