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.

 

More than 60 children reportedly held at Guantanamo Bay

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Shots still hasen't provided that all important link showing that no one has gone to Guartanomo since 2004. I wonder if he is making the facts up.



What are you talking about? I furnished two links and both work for me no problem at all.



Last Updated: Saturday, 4 March 2006, 13:37 GMT

Profile: Guantanamo Bay

While there have been no new arrivals since September 2004, the department of defence says it has no plans to close the camp in the foreseeable future.

The status of the remaining detainees is reviewed every year through a system of military administrative review boards, which recommend whether an inmate should be released or detained further.

BBC news



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Google search results exactly as it shows



BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Profile: Guantanamo BayWhile there have been no new arrivals since September 2004, the department of defence says it has no plans to close the camp in the foreseeable future. ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4720962.stm - 40k - Cached - Similar pages


It is not my problem YOU cannot acess it.

[edit on 5/29/2006 by shots]




posted on May, 29 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vaak

Shots.
If a child in Afghanistan shoots at an American soldier, he is not considered a soldier. Only uniformed soldiers fall under this convention. NOT people resisting the attack on their country. They are now terrorists. Remember?

Vaak


I realize that and assumed most knew they were classified as enemy combatants, since they wear no uniforms. The reason I made ref to the Geneva convention related to humane treatment while detained that is the only part of the Geneva that pertains to the subject.


The problem I see here is that the new lets be PC correct crowd is trying to imply that children should never be held inPOW camps. The truth of the matter as proven by this link; this is nothing new. children have been detained through the ages and in this case it appears they were both boys girls together who never fought at all.



[edit on 5/29/2006 by shots]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
We routinely charge American children as adults at a young age, so why should it be any different because these children are from anothe country. I just read earlier this week that an 8 year old boy is being charged with manslaughter because he released the brake on a bus and it hit a 6 year old girl. A few years ago gangs in New York and Chicago used children as young as 5 years old as drug mules and hit men, because if they were caught they would be treated as juviniles. As a result the laws were changed to allow them to be tried as adults. I remember seeing 12 and 13 year old boys carrying AK-47's and training as combat troops in the Sudan. The outcry over juviniles being at Gitmo is exactly what the terrorists and insurgents want when they use these children.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Its the whole "held without trial" part that is the epicenter of criticism surrounding Guantanamo Bay. If you support holding people for years on end with no trial you are out of place in our Western democracies.

If these people have evidence against them that shows they were in active combat then provide it to a court and give them a sentence. If there is no evidence inwhich to try some one then let them go.

The whole fact that this "held without trial" abomination has been used against children just compounds the World's abhorrence over Guantanamo Bay.

As long as Guantanamo Bay and other camps like it continue to operate the whole image of the United States as a freedom loving country will be seen as laughable.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Global Lawyers and Physicians

Within humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols specifically refer to children and, within the human rights realm, institutions such as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) with its Optional Protocols were specifically created to protect them. “A child means any human being below the age of 18 unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Article 1 of the CRC).


Children and the Laws of War

Children are generally covered as combatants under GCIII (Art. 16 ‘Equality of Treatment’) and as civilians under GCIV (Art.14,17,23,24,25,27,38,49,50(devoted exclusively to children),84,119 and 132). Under Art 76 of GCIV, Treatment of Detainees it states:

“In the treatment of protected persons who are accused or have been convicted of offenses, proper regard must be paid to the special treatment due to minors.”

This provision also applies to internees who are in the national territory of the detaining power (art 126). Again the principles of special protection are reaffirmed in Article 77 of API:

”Children shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected against any form of indecent assault. The Parties to the conflict shall provide them with the care and aid they require, whether because of their age or for any other reason”

...and furthermore clarifies:

“If in exceptional cases, children who have not attained the age of 15 years nevertheless take a direct part in the hostilities and fall into the power of an adverse party, they continue to benefit from the special protection accorded by this Article, whether or not they are prisoners of war.”

Thus, certainly in the case of the children, POW status has no bearing on their rights under international humanitarian law.

So that we are CLEAR about this "Law Stuff" regading Juvenile Prisoners.

But ofcourse we all know that there are NO LAWS in Guantanamo followed.

Or for that matter - there have been several International Laws broken in this alleged "War on Terror".

It sure throws a nice light upon United States and the current administration.

Furthermore,


HRW - U.S.: Despite Releases, Children Still Held at Guantanamo

International standards recognize that children under the age of 18 are a particularly vulnerable group, and are entitled to special care and protection because they are still developing physically, mentally and emotionally. These standards include certain key principles, including the use of detention only as a measure of last resort, the separation of children from adults, the right of children to maintain contact with their families, and the right to a prompt determination of their case. In addition, treaties binding on the United States recognize the special situation of children who have been recruited or used in armed conflict, and their rights to prompt demobilization, and rehabilitation and reintegration assistance.

In cases where children are believed to have committed war crimes, they can be formally charged and should be provided with counsel and tried in accordance with international standards of juvenile justice.

Apparently 3 of the Children being held in Gitmos have been released - and the official report is, that an UNDISCLOSED Number of Children still remain behind bars.

So - how do some people know this exact number at all?

There could be 6 - or there could be 16 or 60.

We do not know.

But one thing is Certain - they should be TRIALED in accordance with the INTERNATIONAL standards for Juvenile justice.

Or do all of their rights just cease to exsist the moment they get captured by US forces?

How Democratic.

Yep - a real ROLE model for all other World countries.

And let's check out how many prisoners have been actually convicted for something "Terror-istic":


US reveals full Guantanamo list

The US says it has held 759 males, from teenagers to men older than 70, from more than 40 countries, according to the list released late on Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Associated Press.

The list includes the 10 detainees who have been charged with crimes, but it does not include the most notorious US prisoners, such as alleged September 11 plotters Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh - whose whereabouts are secret.

The US military says about 480 detainees are now at Guantanamo Bay. Those released or transferred numbered 275.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, believes that US officials are trying to deflect international criticism by gradually moving out detainees.

"They are trying to slowly let the air out of the tires as a way to make the problem go away," Romero said.

So if I understand this Right - 10 out of 480 detainees held in Guantanamo is actually CHARGED of crimes?

And I don't think that includes the Children.

It is just as mister Romero said...

Yep - Democracy in Full Effect, YO!



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
You know, this hasn't really hit me until now.

WTF???

It is PUBLIC that Gitmo is a placed where people are tortured! WTF??? You people have no problem with kids being taken there?

What is WRONG with you people?!?! Seriously? What is wrong inside your brains? I don't give a what if these kids are going Terminator, you don't torture them! Hell, we don't even torture serial killers! They get a TRIAL, get sentenced, then get life or the needle.

What are y'all smoking? It's ok to torture kids? Oh...I understand. Y'all have been watching too much 24, Threat Matrix, etc., so y'all are learning to accept kids being tortured is good...as long as it's them...




posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Thank you for setting me straight and i changed my mind immediatedly after i saw your post!

Geneva Conventions are used by this administration as toilet paper, and we all know it.

So, provisions in the Geneva Conventions and all, this government sends them off to Guantanamo to be abused????

Holy --------! Who the hell is going to stop this governments criminal horsie???



Spin it anyway you all want, but this is an abomination, an insult to the world community, and only the evil could even make up excuses for such actions.




posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Thank you for setting me straight and i changed my mind immediatedly after i saw your post!

My pleasure really!




Geneva Conventions are used by this administration as toilet paper, and we all know it.

Yes ofcourse - but, who is going to stop them?

As long as there are people protecting this administration, they have the power.

And lets not forget, the US goverment is in service of the PEOPLE of AMERICA - not their privatly owned corporations - but that is another story...



So, provisions in the Geneva Conventions and all, this government sends them off to Guantanamo to be abused????

There is a Problem with GC - and that is that USA is not a signatory member of the "Notorious" Article 5 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War - which means it does not apply to the prisoners of war captured by the US.

That is the trick.

And neither does US agree with Protocol I: Addition to the Geneva Conventions:

It has not been adopted by several nations, including the United States, Afghanistan and Iraq, and is thus not universally applicable. The U.S. objection is on the basis that it would extend Geneva Conventions protection to some unlawful combatants.



Holy --------! Who the hell is going to stop this governments criminal horsie???

Only the PEOPLE can stop the GOVERMENT...



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Well if history is any guide these neocon fascists have a really nasty comeuppance on the the way. But, unfortunately, it wont come before they've spread death, destruction and misery across the globe. Yet after they've tried their hardest to enslave us all and force us down the road they have envisioned they'll end up swinging from a tree with all their fellow war criminals.

Just ask Julius Caesar, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler and Mussolini.

They will lose in the end, I am more sure of nothing else in this life.

[edit on 29/5/06 by subz]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Well if history is any guide these neocon fascists have a really nasty comeuppance on the the way. But, unfortunately, it wont come before they've spread death, destruction and misery across the globe. Yet after they've tried their hardest to enslave us all and force us down the road they have envisioned they'll end up swinging from a tree with all their fellow war criminals.


That is the day that I am waiting for. But as you said, there seem to be worse things to come before that. I don't know if I would want to speed up the process either.

Right now I'm thinking about those kids. I don't believe they would be lost causes, and I am not surprised that the U.S. bows out of parts of any convention that doesn't suit their purposes, for the better or the worst. If my little sister would be kidnapped in the middle of the night for being a fighter, saving her country based on the information she had, you can best believe I would be terrorizing the heck out of anyone that stood in my way to get her back. I also would expect my enemy to stick to some sort of moral code in a war, but that works both ways as well. Still the U.S. should be the "bigger man" and the light of hope. That was such a wonderful idea.

When we start torturing children, we have lost part of the foundation for what we were supposedly trying to protect.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Thank you for setting me straight and i changed my mind immediatedly after i saw your post!



setting you straight????? You have to be kidding right??? What he posted is not law it is nothing more then more HR advocates [b lawyers/doctors spreading what they advocate nothing more. In other words it is nothing more then their opinion and not a law.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Shots,

His opinion makes sense- he was also careful to point out that we, the USA are not a part of this section of the Geneva Convention. Its a free for all.

Shots, i know deep down inside you might think this is all wrong, to encarcerate children in an abusive camp is inhumane. I guess i'm on the fence. Souljah makes good sense, but children overseas will take up arms as well.
I guess i would like to see those children in some kind of institution designed specifically for the little sharp shooters.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
setting you straight????? You have to be kidding right??? What he posted is not law it is nothing more then more HR advocates [b lawyers/doctors spreading what they advocate nothing more. In other words it is nothing more then their opinion and not a law.


You're right, we shouldn't take the side of those that advocate Human Rights.


This is not a good defense.


As has been said, the Geneva Convention is nothing more than toilet paper to the U.S. government. We pick and choose what rules we want to follow, we pretend to care what the UN decides should be done about a particular situation... until it doesn't go our way. Then we have a tantrum and start torturing children. It's very sad, and at the very least, I think that almost any human should be able to show some compassion for a child no matter what, if their hearts aren't filled with such anger and hatred towards others.

*Edit - The hatred part was not intended for you Shots, that was a generalization, just to set the record straight ahead of time.

[edit on 5/29/06 by niteboy82]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
His opinion makes sense- he was also careful to point out that we, the USA are not a part of this section of the Geneva Convention. Its a free for all.


Even if the US was part of the posted sections of the Geneva Conventions…

The vast majority of the content posted containing conventions applicable children does not pertain to enemy child combatants (the subject of the thread not civilians) and those combatants not provided protection…aka unlawful combatants engaging in an unlawful belligerency.

Art. IV of the Geneva Convention clearly states that members of irregular militias (such as in the case of al Qaeda and indigenous Afghanistan fighters) only qualify for “prisoner-of-war” status IF their military organization can satisfy four clearly definable criteria:


(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
(c) that of carrying arms openly
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Source


Legal rights as a POW status rest upon the above.

Further supported by the definition of age and special protection… as I posted earlier and will not repeat, the age of majority also comes into play…18 is simply not a “clear” age of majority.

Look at the entirety of the article regarding all children (important: under age fifteen) engaged in belligerencies, not just culled pieces:


2. The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years the Parties to the conflict shall endeavor to give priority to those who are oldest.

3. If, in exceptional cases, despite the provisions of paragraph 2, children who have not attained the age of fifteen years take a direct part in hostilities and fall into the power of an adverse Party, they shall continue to benefit from the special protection accorded by this Article, whether or not they are prisoners of war.
www.icrc.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Source


What are those “special protections for children fourteen years old and younger?

Continued.

4. If arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict, children shall be held in quarters separate from the quarters of adults, except where families are accommodated as family units as provided in Article 75, paragraph 5.

5 . The death penalty for an offence related to the armed conflict shall not be executed on persons who had not attained the age of eighteen years at the time the offence was committed.


Is this not exactly what has been described by the reports? Is there any proof children fourteen years and younger are held in quarters with non-family adults?



mg



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Shots,

His opinion makes sense- he was also careful to point out that we, the USA are not a part of this section of the Geneva Convention.


It only makes sense to some sheeple; he is not fooling me at all. It should be noted that what he just posted near the end of the article it states that children under the age of 15 should not be recruited for combat/hostile actions.


Article 38 of the 1989 CRC requires states parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law with respect to children in armed conflict and urges them to take ‘all feasible measures’ that those under 15 not take part in hostilities.


Global Lawyers and Physicians


As you can see Al qaeda and or the Taliban were wrong to start with, so lets not blame it all on the US.

That is just what the OP wants you to fall for is his side and only his of the issue and that is down right wrong. There are two sides to every story and he is only telling you one side. Kindly note he made no mention that those under 15 should be used and my guess is more then likely on purpose because it makes his buddies look bad


One also has to remember good ole rule 17 or 18 of their training manual that states they must claim they have been tortured, they must not give their real name the list goes on and on, you get the drift. Knowing that is what they practice is the telling of lies, I would not believe any of them nor would I believe anyone that supports them if their tongues came notarized.



[edit on 5/29/2006 by shots]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Shots,

I'm going to ask you and the others with similar views point blank.

DO YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CHILDREN BEING TORTURED!



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Shots,

I'm going to ask you and the others with similar views point blank.

DO YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CHILDREN BEING TORTURED!


Who really knows if they have been tortured? Their instruction manual clearing tells them to lie and say they are tortured.

With that said I tend to be against any type of torture that would inflict physical pain and at the same time, I would condone other forms that do not inflict physican pain.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Torturing children is what made this country great.

If you don't support torturing children, you're obviously a filthy anti-American granola-eating pinko.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

[edit on 5/29/06 by xmotex]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Who really knows if they have been tortured? Their instruction manual clearing tells them to lie and say they are tortured.


The thought that we have to consider it, I think is wrong in the first place. So because their instruction manual says someone caught must lie and say that they were tortured, we can overlook the idea that they truly could have been tortured? I'm not trying to spin your words, just clarify. I am putting no opinion with that question.

We know based on previous reports that the inmates at Gitmo have more than likely endured some form of torture. This said, with the inhumane reports that have come out, is it not also highly probable that if we show complete disregard to an adults human rights, that we are not going to treat a child with human rights?

No trial, doubt they have counselors (a soldier screaming in the ears of a kid with a bag over his head does not count) *I am just creating a scenario of light torture with that example*, and we know the conditions are not good there. What exactly am I missing to think that this should be ok?



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Lets just say that this government has conducted themselves in extremely innapropriate ways when it comes to ABUSE.

It is NOT in the least bit farfetched that those children are also getting the abuse- there's enough to go around.

So., I assume, and rightfully so, that those kids are being tortured and abused.
Emphasis on ars- because you righties think that is what we are. You (all those in favor) are nothing but blind SHEEPLE, not I.

Shots, just once, i would love to see you and Seekerof take on a human approach to a subject.

Do you turn off at midnight?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join