It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guantanamo, a confusing situation.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I've been reading about this institution for a while and there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Are these people being housed here POW's, with all the protection of the Geneva Convention(GC), no right to a speedy trial and can be held indefinately? Or are they merely prisoners that have a right to a speedy trial, cannot be held indefinately and aren't given the rights given by the GC?

Why am I asking? Because it seems that this is an unclear issue that allows the government to do what it wants. Rules be damned, because they are taking from both sets of rules BUT they are really in conflict.

Another thing, why is this institution on Cuba? They house these people on an island that they deny the American public access to. That says a lot as well imo.

Please, tell me I'm reading more into this than the truth BUT back it up if you don't mind, I'm not sold on rhetoric.




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I would have to say that sadly, you're NOT reading more into it than there is. It is as slimy as it appears to be. It's not exactly 'rules-be-damned', more like loophole city.


Why are they in Cuba? Because the US didn’t want to give them Constitutional rights.
Detention of Prisoners
However, once it was rolling the Supreme Court rejected this argument, so they do have the right to trial.

They are not POWs. We are not in a formally declared (by congress) war. They are ‘illegal enemy combatants’ therefore are not owed the rights of POWs.

Illegal Enemy Combatants

So, they CAN be held indefinitely without charge, but they do have the right to a trial (I'm not speculating on the speediness). By the way, they also have the right to humane treatment.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I actually put up a few stories in ATSNN about it. Many of these people may be held forever without charges ever being filed.

I will try to find the links, but Air America II is up and running flying people all over the globe as well.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
They are not government entities, nor do they represent a government. They are terrorists and combatants removed from battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. The USA (nor any other country BTW), does not need a formal declaration of war to conduct military operations in foriegn countries. The US Congress and Senate gave GW full authority to send troops to fight terrorists. The UN resolutions gave the world body authority to use force to impliment agreements signed by Iraq, the USA, and the UN. That the USA was able to form a coalition to enforce the resolutions, is just what the Left cried for....but now they cry against. No convention covers protections for terrorists, only recognised government entities.

Gitmo houses very bad people. Gitmo is accessible by almost anyone, it is an open US Naval base, on soveriegn US soil. The detainees are not mistreated. The detainees are provided by US taxpayers, ethnic foods, clean water, clean bedding, clean clothing, newly blessed copies of the Kuran, clean prayer rugs, clean housing, and room to excercise. White prison suits are cooperative detainees, orange prison suits are beligerant/hostile detainees.

They do not have the same rights as US citizens...because they are NOT US citizens. It doesn't matter if they are actually in the USA or not. They are kept at Gitmo, because special housing was built there to hold them, under the watchful eye of well trained US Army amd Marine personel....and we do not want these animals in the USA.

They are not beaten, tortured, whipped, bled, or denied basic human needs. Every "fact gathering" group that has been there, have all come to the same conclusion that Gitmo is being operated humanely.

The negative reports are all from those groups that have NOT visited the facility.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Army]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The Red Cross visited Guantanamo and issued a report claiming that the activities going on there were "tantamount to torture."

Intrepid- in answer to your question, they are neither. This is the crux of the controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay. They are "illegal enemy combatants," subject to indefinate detention by executive order. The only rights they have been accorded by the Supreme Court so far is the right to due process and the right to appeal their detention. As of June 15th, 2005, only four detainees have been charged with crimes, and their JAG lawyers have criticized the hearings and status-review tribunals afforded to them as a result of court order as being a "sham."

A good starting point for information would be here:

en.wikipedia.org...

You can also get some further information, such as copies of all the relevant supreme court decisions, from the website for a casebook, at www.foreignrelationslaw.com . I used the book itself for a class, and it's very good. If you want the primary sources about the law regarding these subjects, this book is a great source.

-koji K.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 1-8-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The United States has granted far more rights to these people than it needs to do by international law. They are illegal combatants captured on the battlefield and are not under any Geneva Convention or any other protective treaty.

They should be kept incarcerated until the War on Terror or the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism or whatever it's called is over.

Even if they were under the Geneva Conventions, they'd still be held until the war was over as covered POWs.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Even if they were under the Geneva Conventions, they'd still be held until the war was over as covered POWs.


This is incorrect. The Geneva Convention does not recognize declarations of war against abstract nouns, only between nations.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
The Geneva Conventions recognizes wars between sovereign nations. If this was a war between sovereign nations, we'd still hold covered POWs until the war was over, that's the point.

This is a war between us and a loosely knit group of terrorists, and they aren't even covered by that so legally we can line them up and shoot them in the back of the head upon capture on a foreign battlefield. They're lucky to be in Gitmo IMHO.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Geneva Conventions recognizes wars between sovereign nations. If this was a war between sovereign nations, we'd still hold covered POWs until the war was over, that's the point.

This is a war between us and a loosely knit group of terrorists, and they aren't even covered by that so legally we can line them up and shoot them in the back of the head upon capture on a foreign battlefield. They're lucky to be in Gitmo IMHO.


I understand your first point, but as for the second, do you really believe you can legally line people up and shoot them in the back of the head? I'm assuming you're talking metaphorically. The United States is required, even for illegal combatants to grant people captured on the battlefield a combatant-status hearing to determine whether they are in fact illegal combatants and then to grant them some aspects of due process. This is by US law, not even referring to international law.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Wow you actually got my point!


The only thing keeping us from doing that is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no international agreement.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Just a note that this is not a 'war'. Only Congress can declare war and they did not. They gave the president permission to use force. So any laws that apply to a formally declared war do not apply to the struggle against Xtreme -ism.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   


Originally posted by djohnsto77
[...]
They should be kept incarcerated until the War on Terror or the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism or whatever it's called is over.

Even if they were under the Geneva Conventions, they'd still be held until the war was over as covered POWs.


Are you dumb, deaf and blind by any chance?

When is this war on "terror" going to end, when is this "Struggle Against Violent Extremism" ever going to end... Do you honestly think killing people is going to nuetralise the problem... This is a 2 year olds logic... Your government has fed you a fallacy and you cant see it...

Think about it... Every time you kill a person, there will be 3 more people to fill that spot... Every "terrorist" you kill has a family, every "terrorist" you kill has friends... You dont think they are going to furious at the fact their significant-other has been killed... Little kids are growing up with nothing but revenge in their hearts... So unless your empire plans on killing every Muslim who doesn't like having troops marching in their streets and searching the houses - then a war is not an answer...

I've said this a trillion times before... WhAt CaUsEs ThE F-InG TeRrOrIsM YoU F-InG IdIoTS!!! Do you think these people just decide they hate America, or do you think something has spurred-on this feeling...

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
The REAL villain here is a cultural attitude -- that these aren't humans; they're somehow inferior. And what's sad is how many sanction this.

If (for instance) Saddam had managed to beat off Bush and then took captured Marines to a base in (say) Afghanistan or Sumatra and the guards there treated the Marines/soldiers/sailors/flyguys with "methods" like making them wear women's undies, urinating on Bibles, threatening them with dogs, making them pose nude for photos while guards teased and laughed -- the US would be in a blind rage about it.

If it is inhumane/degrading/unlawful to do it to one of OUR guys, it is inhumane/degrading/unlawful to do it to an enemy combatant... or whatever we're calling them these days.

We lose face when we shriek about human rights elsewhere and then treat the prisoners in our care with the same kinds of methods (including beating them to death) that we're decrying.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I know you want to twist whatever the U.S. or even Western Civilization has ever done during its entire history into a reason (excuse?) for Islamic terrorism, but it simply doesn't fly.

Nothing could ever justify what these people do against innocent civilians.

And this war will end someday, and then whomever is held at that time by any nation as a POW can be released. It's up to those who started the war -- the violent extemists -- to end it.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   


Originally posted by djohnsto77
[...]
And this war will end someday, and then whomever is held at that time by any nation as a POW can be released. It's up to those who started the war -- the violent extemists -- to end it.


Who are you trying to convince here?
You sound like you are trying to comfort yourself... Tell me when this war will end... When will all the "extremists" be dead or locked up? - How can you be so second dimensional when we live in atleast a third-dimensional world...

There is more to life than black vs. white and good vs. bad, something Americans seem to have so much trouble understanding - maybe its because you're all so brain-washed, and used to being @ss-F-ed by your government you just dont care any more...

These "extremists" are people just like you, who have grown up in a distorted version of reality... They are merely products of their environment, just like everyone and everything on this planet is...

Heres a tip you can sleep on tonight... Think of a constructive solution to the problem, because removing a few hundred thousand peoples life-force isn't going to solve squat...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
My government is trying to protect me. One of the greatest threats is people with views like you who'd tie the government's hands with silly politically correct barriers to good policy.

[edit on 8/2/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   


Originally posted by djohnsto77
My government is trying to protect me. One of the greatest threats is people with views like you who'd tie the government's hands with silly politically correct barriers to good policy.


It sounds to me like your parents should have the FoxNews channel blocked.

Your government is slowly stripping you of everything your fore-fathers beleived in, and you dont care... Do you think Lincon and Washington would be proud of America today? Or course they wouldn't... Do you think you will ever get back the freedoms you've lost? - Of course not, they are long gone... If your government wanted to protect its populous, perhaps they should start concentrating on the problems you have at home...

Like the huge amount of inequality there is between the rich and poor, the huge amount of racism, the huge amount of people dying everyday in ghettos, the huge amount of corruption in the white house, the huge deficiencies in the public education system, the lack of universal health care, the 14000 weapon related crimes that take place anually, the inherent sexism in your mass media, the over population of your gaols (jails), the fact that your government spends 400-Billion dollars EVERY YEAR on weapons and violence...

There was a time when the military was called the Defense Force... Or have you forgotten that aswell... "Pre-Emptive" attacks on nations that apprently "harbour" terrorism is not going to solve anything... The solution comes from within your own countries boaders not Islams...

EDIT:
Oh and just for the record, I am not speaking from a politically correctness point of veiw, I am speaking from a moral point of veiw... What gives America the right to decide who lives and dies?

[edit on 2-8-2005 by ghostsoldier]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Nothing in the War on Terror has even begun to approach the unprecedented powers Lincoln and the Federal government had during the civil war. The writ of habeas corpus nationwide was suspended during that war in fact.

America has always been based on a capitalist system which sadly had been degrading over the years, in contrast to what you seem to espouse. The most productive members of society should be wealthy and deserve the spoils of their work -- notions of income redistribution are (or at least were) completely foreign to the American ethic.

edit:

anyway this is getting off topic, intrepid wanted to talk about Guantanamo here.

[edit on 8/2/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Interesting that someone would accuse the American government of deciding who lives or dies, as Git-Mo is being used because a group decided that Americans should die.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Judge Dred, America has the death penalty - does that stop people killing eachother?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join