GIGO,
Actually, those points do not by themselves make Europe anti-American. The polls showing that anti-American sentiment is growing do, but that press statement doesn’t.
Yes, but this is not reasonable, flawed intelligence in many occasions was used to get the crowd at gitmo. I would say that I will be glad to have the enemies of America locked, but how do we make sure we do? The current administration just keeps on advancing or giving prices to the people involved in the mistakes, it is high time to confirm what we caught in the net.
If we don’t confirm it independently, then some wet behind the ears in guantanamo is getting tainted information along with the good one, and by this time, outdated information. We already have the certifiable conclusion that gross mistakes were made on the way to the war in Iraq, and IIRC some of that “intelligence” came from the “kind and gentle” interrogations in Gitmo.
False Dilemma, both are unthinkable if innocents are involved, and as I have read in some articles, a good chunk of the people there are.
The point was that that press statement fits what “those jokers” are saying now.
.
As was pointed out previously, 100% of the people there are, as none of them have been found guilty of an offence.
Well, yes, there is that; but I can not deny the strong possibility that many are guilty, the scandal is that we are unnecessary delaying finding out who is what, IMO the flawed intelligence of before and after their capture would mean that the information obtained is flawed. Independently checking will then provide more reliable information. I am going to go on a limb and say that I think the powers that be do not want anybody else to check because then the real intelligence scandals will be revealed.
Dick Cheney you worthless mound of excrement
See, this is the problem I have with you ETF, this is such bullshit! It’s obvious that he’s not a mound. Instead, I think we should call him a pile, heap, or amorphous-blob-o’. I’m glad we had this talk. :mad:
I wonder if anybody might like to see Gonzales’ memo and Powell’s reaction to it.
Playing bait and switch with the discussion will not carry forward your point.
We are discussing Guantanamo, where nearly every person incarcerated was picked up in Afghanistan long before any “insurgency” developed there (hence the frequent references to “three years’ imprisonment” in so many narratives). It is here that the U.S. is using twisted logic to claim that the prisoners are neither suspected criminals (who would enjoy rights of procedure under U.S. law) nor Prisoners of War (who would enjoy rights of procedure under international law).
So, historically you are wrong in attempting to rebut my point:
B An enormous number of militias during the War for Independence never established or secured uniforms. (Even the army fielded by the Continental Congress had trouble securing uniforms for all its men.)
The U.S. currently operates under the fiction that since we did not happen to recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, then its defenders cannot claim to be a legitimate army. In other words, the U.S. government has declared that the British would have been (anachronistically) within their rights to treat any militia member captured during the War for Independence as havng no rights at all (at least from April 1775 through February 1778 when France finally recognized the U.S. government).
And politically you are wrong, since, by any definition, the Taliban troops were, indeed, resistance fighters.
You are also playing games with points C and D since the topic under discussion is Afghanistan and Guantanamo, not Iraq.
In any event, you fail to address my larger point, that we are breeding the terrorists who will attack our children. Moving to Iraq, (since you wish to change the subject without admitting you have done so), our own estimates are that over 70% of the persons detained in Abu Ghraib were guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It may make sense to make broad sweeps to round up suspects early in the post-war period (since we had stupidly disbanded the Iraqi Army when several senior commanders offered to let us use non-Baathist divisions for police purposes), but holding those swept-up people incomunicado while making little or no effort to release those who were clearly innocent has already led to more support for the insurrection.
I suppose that in your scenario of savage warfare, it does not make any difference whether we detain innocent or guilty persons. That method certainly worked well for Chile, Argentina, and several Iron Curtain countries. You could ask their leaders–had their tactics not failed them.
Well, you go Uruguay and I’ll go mine.
[/Groucho]
Nelson Mandela may argue with you over this point.
Amnesty International may hold the extreme point but they hold the point that may win out.
If we’re talking Iraq, it’s pretty plain that we’ve violated the GC.
WARNING! GRAPHIC PICTURES!
** A & C**You think she’s using that leash as a show of respect?
Oh, and the “persons mentioned above” are pretty clearly civilians and those who’ve thrown down their arms, even if they’re not signatories to the treaty.
Now… there does seem to be some question… but I think that the current quagmire in Iraq is not international, as we’re not being opposed by any nation’s forces. Also, at least until we handed over soverignty, the territory we conquered could only be referred to as ‘ours’.
On interrogating civlians:
A more direct and general note about hostages
On occupied territories:
Now, this document is in lawyerese, so I may’ve made some mistakes. My apologies if I did.
Bingo, amen and well said.
We as a nation showed extreme short sightedness and knee jerk responses to 9/11. IMO, we will be paying for this in one way or another for several generations–UNLESS we grab a clue or two and learn. “my way or the highway” earns no supporters and offends old friends.
and Cheney is the scariest thing I’ve come across in a long while. I truly cannot understand his worldview–it’s like he lives in a whole nother world.
Regardless of whether our holding of the detainees in Gitmo is in fact right or wrong, and regardless of whether it violates international law or not, do you really expect the Vice President to say it does? What did you expect him to say? “Yeah, we know it violates international law. What are you going to do about it?”
fush:
First off, “remain at risk” is a figure of speech. It is intended to indicate that there in fact exists a very real possibility that other detainees have, or will be, tortured.
Secondly, there are some questions as to whether or not “the guilty” have actually been punished. You may have heard something about this – that some of us suspect the abuses are significantly more widespread than we’ve been led to believe, and that many of those who are actually responsible have not been charged. In case you haven’t, let me provide some background information:
In one case, four soldiers “murdered” an Afghan detainee; of the four, one received an “administrative reprimand.” In another case, two prisoners were beaten and left chained to the ceiling of their cell for days on end, until they died (a recent NYT article detailed the abuse).
Here is a recent list of Prisoner Deaths in US custody. Note that only a few are associated with Abu Ghraib in Iraq.
Continuing:
As far as I know, as long as you are on US soil, you are afforded the same protections under US law as any citizen, and can be prosecuted under that law as well.
This ever-so-tiresome canard. As soon as someone criticizes the US, some idjit pops up to accuse that person of being “anti-American.” But even if AI was “anti-American,” how do you explain the fact that most of their findings are based on the government’s own documents?
Cite?
Well, technically, a “gulag” need not be located in Siberia, or enforce slave labor, etc. But I grant you that the language is inflammatory.
Tom~: As a straightforward matter of textual analysis, fushj00mang’s analysis of the Geneva Convention and its definition of who is a POW, and thereby entitled to the protections of the G.C., is essentially correct. You are also correct that under that analysis, many of the men who fought for American independence in the Revolutionary War would not have been entitled to POW status under the terms of the G.C. Such is life under an antiquated legal document.
The G.C. was inspired by the straightforward, army-on-army wars of the 19th through mid-20th centuries, not the guerrilla warfare and terrorism that has dominated world conflict since then. Its terms are ill-suited for such conflicts, even if its spirit is not.
None of which excuses this administration’s conscious decision to abandon what ought to be matters of simple human decency and sound public and international policy.
And what of the bits I quoted?
IANAL, but it sure seems that they were stating that civilians have to be protected.
Have any of those released gone into the international lecture circuit? I wonder how much they make for a 30 minute speech at the Kandahar Lion’s club luncheon?
Well, Sam Stone does, at least when they’re talking about the Sandinistas:
And Dr Deth does, at least when they’re talking about Palestinian groups:
And JohnBckWLD does, at least in the context of Saddam Hussein’s regime:
And Tigers2B1 does, again when they’re talking about Saddam Hussein:
And DSeid does, at least when they’re talking about Israel:
So there are quite a lot of people around here who certainly can’t be classified as “leftist” or “anti-American” who appear quite prepared to take Amnesty International seriously.
If we’re willing to “trust AI for accuracy” when they’re saying bad things about Saddam Hussein or the Sandinistas, where do we get off suddenly treating them as a complete joke just because they’re saying some bad things about us?
Because what they have to say only matters if they’re agreeing with whatever point WE (using the Royal WE here) are trying to make.
Shit, Kimstu, I thought you paid better attention than that.
-Joe
Of course. I was addressing soldiers/combatants, not true civilians.
Ah, good good. But as I see it, a large problem is that we have no fucking clue who’s a soldier, and who’s a civilian.
I’ve seen estimates that upwards of 80% of those at Abu Graib were innocent. Many of them were tortured. That means innocent civlians were picked up, not afforded a trial, and abused in manners specifically prohibited. Wouldn’t that ammount to a breach of the GC?