“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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Bricker- explain to the dudes here about the Jury questionaire, and what is allowed to be on it, etc. Please?
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.
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. The government of the USA has refused to publishe their names so their familes may know they are there.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.)
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.
See the page about Guantanamo Bay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This simply cannot be true, and I refuse to believe it. This is America, and my country doesn’t do things like that. Period.