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.

 

NEWS: Camp X-Ray Holds Open Day.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   


Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights. Al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them.

So they're terrorist!!! Then why in Sam Hill did the USG recently release a boat load of terrorist? Many if them are civilains, not combatants


About 500 people are being held at the detention centre without charges as enemy combatants in the US war on terrorism, most of them captured in 2001 in Afghanistan.


And GC, VC...whatever. The HR workers are there to see how they're treated...not hand out mints on thier pillows.

[edit on 29/10/2005 by SportyMB]




posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
You all raise some interesting points here. The military captured these people and has been holding them as wartime combatants. However, the rules of war say they cannot be held past the end of whatever war was being fought.

Here is where it gets interesting. I don't recall a war ever being formally declared by this country. Yes, there was fighting in Afganistan, which was apparently over pretty rapidly, unless you count the continuing actions of scattered Taliban remnants and some local war lords. If we went to war and the war is now over they have to be released. If we never went to war it's kind of a stretch to hold them as combatants. Seems to me some sort of legal ruling should be made concerning their status--if not by the U.S., then by the U.N.

I suppose we could have been/are holding them until Afganistan is back on its feet enough to handle them, but again, who decides that question?

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Here's a thought...

Why don't the HR workers pack up their little circus and head to some were in the world that could use them. I think of one area off the top of my head that could use it.

Africa

Edit***

Thats a good idea! Lets let the U.N have the final say. The same orginazation that could'nt even keep a food for oil program on the straight and narrow.


[edit on 30-10-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
U.N. human rights people don't like to go to such areas--seems they get killed a lot when they do.

Well Whompa1, we don't have any real alternatives now, do we?

I'm not proposing to let the U.N. as a diplomatic body have any kind of say. However, the Geneva Conventions obviously need to be ammended to cover situations like what the U.S. & the Coallition is involved in now. The alternative is to return them to Afganistan and have Afgani courts try them (if needful) or release them if they are found to be innocent.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
How bout we leave it how it is. Its worked fine for the better part of 3 years now. They are starting to get their trials and so on.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Personally, I don't think that would be wise. If no international treaty like the Geneva Conventions covers these people then each country is left to decide how they should be treated. That is how it was before the Geneva Conventions and it didn't work out so well. Further, your last argument is a little subjective don't you think? We may think the current situation is indeed fine, but from all the bad press we've been getting it is pretty obvious a lot of others do not. Moreover, I'm not so sure we have any legal authority to try them ourselves.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Personally, I don't think that would be wise. If no international treaty like the Geneva Conventions covers these people then each country is left to decide how they should be treated. That is how it was before the Geneva Conventions and it didn't work out so well. Further, your last argument is a little subjective don't you think? We may think the current situation is indeed fine, but from all the bad press we've been getting it pretty obvious a lot of others do not.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Astronomer68]


Perhaps..But there is not a lot that these countries can do is there. As far as bad press goes. Theres always going to be bad press. Doesnt mean its the truth though. Honestly when have you ever heard anything remotely like good press come from these wars (outside of the recent elections)



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Your last argument is good. In essence you are saying we have to hold them because there was no real government in Afganistan to deal with them. That's a valid point, but who decides when they should be returned to Afganistan for disposition? There simply is no body of law that I'm aware of dealing with the current situation.

If the duly elected government of Afganistan asked for the return of all prisoners we are holding (that are from there), or that have committed crimes on their soil, what would we do? I don't see that we would really have much of an argument to say no.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Your last argument is good. In essence you are saying we have to hold them because there was no real government in Afganistan to deal with them. That's a valid point, but who decides when they should be returned to Afganistan for disposition? There simply is no body of law that I'm aware of dealing with the current situation.


Granted that is currently the case. But hopefully in the not too distant future these countrys will have the ability to deal with the situation. But until then I would think it would be best if they are left were they are. But you are right its a crapshoot at best with both countries goverments still yet be proven.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Concur sir.

Still, the larger issue of the future handling of such types of prisoners really ought to be addressed and the Geneva Conventions ammended accordingly (If that is the right treaty).

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I would think that if the afghan goverment asked such a thing there would be intense scrutiny on our part. I really doubt that we would openly comply with their request. I would almost guess that their goverment would have to prove themselves to a very high degree that if these prisoners are turned over their not gonna go thru some sort of tribal rule type thing and then be released.

I am still not sure how you can fit these prisoners into a form were it would fit into the GC as they are not part of a regonized army more or less.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
So, Whompa1, you are fine with innocent people being held as long as we have a few terrorists as well?

Do you not see the large impact that has on helping to create even more terrorists?

Without a jury based trail those people are innocent, while the United States holds them without such a thing it is boosting those who join these "terrorist" organisations. It is helping to feed their ideology. If they wish to show the United States in a bad light they do not even have to try anymore.

Surely, if the United States is this force for good like Bush seems to want it to be than it has to be. As for the idea these people are not soldiers that is a joke to be honest. So they do not have a uniform? How many of those poorer Middle Eastern and African Nation's can afford such a thing?

If they were caught fighting the United States, then they can be classed as a soldier. If they were arrested by the Northern Allience...well...that speeks for itself. If you deal with drug lords, you are going to get screwed.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
So, Whompa1, you are fine with innocent people being held as long as we have a few terrorists as well?

Do you not see the large impact that has on helping to create even more terrorists?

Without a jury based trail those people are innocent, while the United States holds them without such a thing it is boosting those who join these "terrorist" organisations. It is helping to feed their ideology. If they wish to show the United States in a bad light they do not even have to try anymore.

Surely, if the United States is this force for good like Bush seems to want it to be than it has to be. As for the idea these people are not soldiers that is a joke to be honest. So they do not have a uniform? How many of those poorer Middle Eastern and African Nation's can afford such a thing?

If they were caught fighting the United States, then they can be classed as a soldier. If they were arrested by the Northern Allience...well...that speeks for itself. If you deal with drug lords, you are going to get screwed.



Like I said before..If they are deemed innocent send them home. But until then they stay put. Little refresher for you odium the middle east hated the US long before these wars lets not forget that. Do you honestly believe that a jury based trial is going to stop the cells from recuiting terrorists? No its not. Why? Because these cells pray on young people and brain wash them. The media does more then enough for showing the US in bad light.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join