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.

 

US Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
What about the hundreds of innocent people in Gitmo who were handed over to Americans for the bounty?


What about them? Are they any different then the thousands that were detained in the 50 plus British/Australian interment camps located in Australia during WWII?

Did the British or Australians hold trials for the civilians they detained? NO they were held until the end of the war. How should this be any different?

Ah hypocrisy at it's finest it was OK when we did it but not when Americans do it





posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Err, the Americans locked up Japanese Americans by the tens of thousands during the same period. You conveniently forgot to mention that?

Not only was the internment of civilians immoral but the example cited by yourself is no where near appropritate to this discussion.

When will this war be over? We are hearing noise from the likes of Donald Rumsfeld saying this long war could last generations. So these people would be detained for the rest of their lives, not 3 years like your example. See the difference? Some how I dont think you will, or even that you care about human rights and the rule of law.

[edit on 5/7/06 by subz]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
And what does WW2 have to do with the topic at hand? Let's keep to it please, no deflection.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I'd like to ask shots a question if I may.

Do you believe those held in Guantanamo are entitled to human rights? If not, who do you think has the right to be the arbiter of human rights privilege?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intrepid
And what does WW2 have to do with the topic at hand? ...no deflection.


Umm.. I’m sorry but it was a war, was it not? As such past legal/political precedents which could be applicable and relative to this current war and time period should be open to discussion, I don't see how that can be considered "deflection".



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm.. I’m sorry but it was a war, was it not? As such past legal/political precedents which could be applicable and relative to this current war and time period should be open to discussion, I don't see how that can be considered "deflection".

It's deflection because shots used the example as a straw man argument. Comparing World War 2 to the so-called War on Terror is not a valid exercise. Much the same as comparing World War 2 to the War on Drugs would be.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
And what does WW2 have to do with the topic at hand? Let's keep to it please, no deflection.


The events of WW2 are relevant since they set a precident in our historical past, but I guess once again you are showing, hypocrisy at it's finest it was OK when you did it but not when others do it. My point was civilians then and now are one and the same. Hence I posed the question why should it be any different now?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The events of WW2 are relevant since they set a precident in our historical past, but I guess once again you are showing, hypocrisy at it's finest it was OK when you did it but not when others do it. My point was civilians then and now are one and the same. Hence I posed the question why should it be any different now?

Well now, if you really must get technical. Those held in Guantanamo are classified as enemy combatants, not interned civilians. So really it has no bearing to this thread as a precedent. Or will that not gel with your preconcieved victimisation?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I'd like to ask shots a question if I may.

Do you believe those held in Guantanamo are entitled to human rights? If not, who do you think has the right to be the arbiter of human rights privilege?


The only rights they are entitled to are the right to be treated humanely, after that their fate should be left up to a Military Court.

Thanks West point great minds think alike


I was composing my reply while you posted yours thank you




[edit on 7/5/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The only rights they are entitled to are the right to be treated humanely, after that their fate should be left up to a Military Court.

Thanks for the reply.

Futher to that response, do you not think the abscence of legal representation and a fair, speedy and legal trial are inhumane?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Futher to that response, do you not think the abscence of legal representation and a fair, speedy and legal trial are inhumane?


Why should they be entitled to legal representation when they can by precident be held for the duration of the conflict according the the Geneva Conventions?

You seem to be making the strawman arguement here since human rights has nothing to do with detention under the GC, so lets leave humane rights out of this OK?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Why should they be entitled to legal representation when they can by precident be held for the duration of the conflict according the the Geneva Conventions?

Well there is some misconception here. The War on Terror is not a legal war in the sense that it does not fit the legal definition of a war. The invasion of Afghanistan however does fit that legal definition and that war ended with the establishment of the Karzai administration. Therefore, using your precedent of detaining combatants for the duration of said conflict, they should of been released years ago.

Failing that, they are entitled to legal representation if they are to be made to undergo a military tribunal. You cannot have it both ways. If they are to be tried they should be allowed adequate legal representation.


Originally posted by shots
You seem to be making the strawman arguement here since human rights has nothing to do with detention under the GC, so lets leave humane rights out of this OK?

You said you think they should be treated "humanely". I asked whether or not you think its humane to deny these people legal representation and a quick, fair and legal trial.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
During the War, I mean the real one, women were second to men, minorities less than that. Times change. This is pure he said/she said stuff. There is NO precedent to this War, call it that, on Terror. No more so than there was on the War on Drugs.

I'll debate that with anyone, anytime. Just contact Nygdan and we can work that out.

NOW, the topic?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Well there is some misconception here.


Yes I agree on your part there is misconception.




The War on Terror is not a legal war in the sense that it does not fit the legal definition of a war. The invasion of Afghanistan however does fit that legal definition and that war ended with the establishment of the Karzai administration. Therefore, using your precedent of detaining combatants for the duration of said conflict, they should of been released years ago.


I beg to differ with you congress authorized Bush to use force in Iraq so the war is legal. In addition allow me to point out the war is not over in Afghanistan, it is still on going and many are still getting killed, or have you not been reading the news?

According to precedent and the Geneva Convention they can be held until ALL fighting ends. Just what part of that do you not understand?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
As far as I can tell Congress passed the proper legal legislation for the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq, not to mention that they also passed an AUMF after the September 11th attacks. Seem to me that there's legal backing to this "so-called War on Terror", as such, it should and does apply under the definition of a war and or conflict. Accordingly I stand by my previous statement that any past precedents or actions which are relevant to this ongoing conflict should be open to discussion. Seems to me that someone is letting his/her personal view shape guidelines instead of letting a member prove how a past event is relevant to the situation today. :shk:

[edit on 5-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
As far as I can tell Congress passed the proper legal legislation for the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq, not to mention that they also passed an AUMF after the September 11th attacks. Seem to me that there's legal backing to this "so-called War on Terror", as such, it should and does apply under the definition of a war and or conflict. Accordingly I stand by my previous statement that any past precedents or actions which are relevant to this ongoing conflict should be open to discussion. Seems to me that someone is letting his/her personal view shape guidelines instead of letting a member prove how a past event is relevant to the situation today. :shk:

[edit on 5-7-2006 by WestPoint23]


Ok, I've been reading about this for a couple of years, So it IS a legal WAR? Why are detainees not gaurunteed the right of the Geneva convention? This is my problem. Some are calling it 2 ways. That doesn't fly in the real world. At one time it's a war BUT bring up the rights of detainee's WHOA, is it a war? See what I'm saying?

Note, no mention of WW2.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I beg to differ with you congress authorized Bush to use force in Iraq so the war is legal. In addition allow me to point out the war is not over in Afghanistan, it is still on going and many are still getting killed, or have you not been reading the news?

The US v Iraq War is not ongoing. But what does that have to do with holding Afgans in Guantanamo Bay?

There is no US war against Afghanistan any more. The fighting that is on going in Afghanistan is not US v. Afghanistan it is US/Afghanistan v. rebels. Therefore your precedent does not apply any more.

May I add there was no formal declaration of War on behalf of the United States government. So when can it formally end? The same ambiguity surrounds the so-called War on Terror. There is no definate enemy. Terrorism is a methodology and how is an armed conflict going to wipe out a methodology? It cant, it is impossible.


Originally posted by shots
According to precedent and the Geneva Convention they can be held until ALL fighting ends. Just what part of that do you not understand?

I understand that they can be held during the duration of the conflict but the conflict has come to pass. The War on Terror is not a war that can have an ending for a couple of reasons. 1) It is a war on on methodology and 2) it has no clear targets or sides so as to consider it ended.

Which begs another question. Do you believe it is permissable to detain these people for the rest of their lives given that this War on Terror has no end within our generation as outlined by Donald Rumsfeld?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
During the War, I mean the real one, women were second to men, minorities less than that. Times change. This is pure he said/she said stuff. There is NO precedent to this War, call it that, on Terror. No more so than there was on the War on Drugs.

Quite so intrepid.

A war is a conflict between the soldiers of one nation against the soldiers of another nation.

Not only does that not apply to the War on Terror but it is freely admitted that those detained in Guantanamo are not afforded their rights under the Geneva Convention because they are illegal combatants. That is legal speak for they are not soldiers. So how, pray tell, is the War on Terror actually a war?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I understand that they can be held during the duration of the conflict but the conflict has come to pass. The War on Terror is not a war that can have an ending for a couple of reasons.


That is a metter of personal opinion. I happen to think that it could have an end if enough people stand up against it. And no the conflict has not come to pass it is still on going in both countries therefore it is legal to detain anyone that is being held until ALL fighting ends.

As for rummey lets leave him out of this, I do not want this to turn into politics that is a no no in case you have not read it.



[edit on 7/5/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by dawnstar
just wondering, were the afghani's also illegal combatants when they were fighting the Russians? were we helping them in this illegal venture?? were we ....oh no!!...aiding and abetting terrorists?

The Russians invaded Afghanistan. Different situation.


Right, so what were we doing?Liberating Afghanistan from...Afghanis?

Think a little before you type.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join