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: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You made the claim, you back it up.



Show me where I have made any claims that contained any numbers? You can't do it oh wise one! The only claim I have made is that they were detained as enemy combatents nothing more.


See if you can follow...

Me: You know, where the US State Department annual report criticises China for its continued use of detention without trial?

You: Those situations are not the same. Too the best of my knowledge they were not captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people. Sad that you cannot see the difference.

Me: I want you to tell me how many of the detainees at Camp X-ray were "captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people." If you can.

You: I would assume most of them, to be honest I am not sure...

Me (now): So, tell me again you made no claims about numbers.




And while you're at it, tell me how many Germans, Italians or Japanese "collaborators" were imprisoned in the UK, the US or Australia after being picked up in their home country during WW2.


As for how many were held during WWII it numbers in the thousands. Don't believe me look it up.


I know all about the Italians and Japanese held at Cowra, NSW. But, you see, they were prisoners of war, who surrendered on the battlefield, during a declared war.


I am also sure that some were picked up after being turned in as collaborators by others and then detained as were many during wwI and wwII.


So again, I ask you, how many "collaborators" were imprisoned in Australia in the years 1939-1945, or even 1914-1918, after being "picked up after being turned in" in their home country?


Source


What does this do?


I see your level of debate has still to rise even once, like the proverbial souffle...




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

I know all about the Italians and Japanese held at Cowra, NSW. But, you see, they were prisoners of war, who surrendered on the battlefield, during a declared war.


So are those that have been detained at GITMO. and I realize it was not a declared war, but it is a war that congress and the senate of the us authorized which makes it legal.





So again, I ask you, how many "collaborators" were imprisoned in Australia in the years 1939-1945, or even 1914-1918, after being "picked up after being turned in" in their home country?


Source


What does this do?



If you do not know it is not my fault you asked for numbers look them up yourself I am not your librarian.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Well it seems that the Bush administration has relented and now will afford all those detained in Guantanamo and other US camps with their rights under the Geneva Conventions.


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by
President Bush.

The policy, described in a memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to reverse the administration's earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus subject to the Geneva protections.

US Will Give Detainees Geneva Rights

Shots, pay close attention to where it says this "appears to reverse the administration's earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus subject to the Geneva protections." That flies in the face of what you said they were already being given. Care to admit you were wrong?


df1

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I realize it was not a declared war, but it is a war that congress and the senate of the us authorized which makes it legal.

Every congress person should be held liable by the voters and voted out of office for dereliction of the dutys they agreed to perform when elected. Abdicating their responsibility to the executive branch is not a power granted by the constitution. Doing so is not only illegal, it is unconstitutional. At least one congressman agrees with these sentiments.


Republican Congressman Ron Paul
Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Care to admit you were wrong?


I do not know what makes me wrong since the story clearly states what I have said constantly. The story also really raises nothing new other then they need to make up new rules for trials/courts martial rather then tribunals which is what the thread has been all about from the start. The question of wither or not they can be held was never in question, we all know that so all I see is you just wanting me to admit to something I never said which will never happen. :shk:

You might want to go back and re-read the thread from page three where you jumped in and point out where I have said anything other then they were entitled to be treated in accordance with the GC?





But the administration has insisted that it has always treated the detainees humanely.
News Yahoo




You Might find this story is a better explanation.
The Bush administration called today for Congress to fix, rather than scrap, the system of military tribunals that was struck down by the Supreme Court last month, while the Pentagon pledged to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions as the court required.


But a key Republican senator warned that the administration was risking a “long, hot summer’’ if it pushed Congress to retain the tribunal system for the suspects now held at the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, instead of working to adapt traditional military courts to meet the demands of the war on terror.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.






[edit on 7/11/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
You might want to go back and re-read the thread from page three where you jumped in and point out where I have said anything other then they were entitled to be treated in accordance with the GC?

I'll bold where you specifically made a false statement i.e. that they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.


Originally posted by shots
No I do not think they fall under the Geneva convention, yet I do believe they should be treated according to the convention.



Originally posted by shots
I do not see how any of them can fall under the Geneva conventions, because they do not follow the rules or meet the requirements.



Originally posted by shots
As for their treatment they are being afforded treatment under the Geneva convention In fact I would dare say they are getting better treatment then most other countries would afford them yes they even have air conditioning imagine that


Twice you falsely said they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. That has been proven false by the very fact that they are now being given that long over due right.

You also bizzarely claim that "they are being afforded treatment under the Geneva convention". Where the hell did you pull that from? They were given no such treatment. If they were already getting this treatment what could the Bush administration be possibly giving these prisoners now?


Originally posted by shots
What rights other then the right to be treated to humanely are guaranteed by the Geneva Convention?

Quite a lot more than that. I suggest you read all of them before claiming who is entitled to protection under them and what and where that protection applies.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Twice you falsely said they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. That has been proven false by the very fact that they are now being given that long over due right.


I did no such thing you are reading something in there that is not.



You also bizzarely claim that "they are being afforded treatment under the Geneva convention". Where the hell did you pull that from? They were given no such treatment.


From Your link that is where
If you also check my previous posts I have always said they should be afforded their GC rights. Just because I gave an opinion stating that I thought they do not fall under the GC did not make it fact and that I think is part of your hang up.

Actually he is giving them nothing new now and this is not a realy change in policy I assume you did not read the entire story from above that I added did you?



The Pentagon memo, issued last Friday and released today, orders that all detainees be treated in compliance with what is known as Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a passage that requires humane treatment and a minimum standard of judicial protections for prisoners.

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said today that the Pentagon memo was “not really a reversal of policy’’ because detainees were already being treated humanely. A top Pentagon lawyer also insisted, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, that the memo “doesn’t indicate a shift in policy.”

NY Times



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Just for clarity and the part you are hung up on the following two statements are opinions and were not said as fact.


Originally posted by shots
No I do not think they fall under the Geneva convention, yet I do believe they should be treated according to the convention.


And you took that to read they do not fall under the GC that is a good one



Originally posted by shots
I do not see how,any of them can fall under the Geneva conventions, because they do not follow the rules or meet the requirements.



Same applies here you took 'I do not see how' as it meant to mean they 'do not,' you really sleigh me.




[edit on 7/11/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
In true, typical shots fashion you once again try to obfuscate and wiggle out of something you said.

Shots I said YOU were wrong when you said they are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva conventions.

Shots I showed two examples of where YOU specifically said you didnt think they are entitled to the protection of the Geneva conventions.

You would swear the sky is green if it suited your insane view of the World. Im through with debating you. You are incapable of admitting you were wrong.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
delete dup post sorry

[edit on 7/11/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
In true, typical shots fashion you once again try to obfuscate and wiggle out of something you said.

Shots I said YOU were wrong when you said they are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva conventions.



But I did not say they are not entitled to the protection of the GC was I said I DO NOT THINK there is a big differance



Shots I showed two examples of where YOU specifically said you didnt think they are entitled to the protection of the Geneva conventions.


Thats right now you got it I said I DO NOT THINK which is completely different then saying they DO NOT as you imply



You would swear the sky is green if it suited your insane view of the World. Im through with debating you. You are incapable of admitting you were wrong.


No I will admit when I am wrong; it is not my fault you have problems reading what I wrote. Perhaps there is a difference down under and you take things out of context not on purpose but by mistake because of the queens English versus Americanized English.





[edit on 7/11/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Well I see where the Bush Administration has taken steps to protect their 6 just in case, but at the same time they state loudly and repeatedly that they were already doing the right thing anyway. Can't say I blame them for trying to put the best spin possible on their actions. If I assume, for argumentative purposes, that the detainees at GITMO were being treated humanely, then the difference in this new policy (no, I forgot, it isn't new).... Let's try that again....then the difference in this recently changed policy (whoops, did it again, I forgot, it isn't really a change from the past policy). Anyway, the only difference to the detainees would be in the area of judicial protections, like the right to hear the evidence against themselves, etc. Oh yes, I forgot, it means they can't be tried for conspiracy either. This whole mess is still a BLIVET.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
But I did not say they are not entitled to the protection of the GC was I said I DO NOT THINK there is a big differance

OK then, my mistake. You thought wrong then, OK? Still doesnt change the fact you were wrong.


Originally posted by shots
No I will admit when I am wrong; it is not my fault you have problems reading what I wrote.

So you dont believe you were wrong when you said you thought something which turned out to be wrong? It's ok Shots we wont think any less of you if you admit you were wrong



Originally posted by shots
Perhaps there is a difference down under and you take things out of context not on purpose but by mistake because of the queens English versus Americanized English.

You mean English vs Americanised English? Yes there is a difference, but it doesnt matter a jot in this instance. Your thoughts on this matter were wrong, wrong and wrong.


df1

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Get a grip folks. This is about humane treatment in accord with the GC for the folks detained at gitmo, not some petty personality conflict.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by shots
But I did not say they are not entitled to the protection of the GC was I said I DO NOT THINK there is a big differance

OK then, my mistake. You thought wrong then, OK? Still doesnt change the fact you were wrong.



Twist twist what others say to meet what you want them to say and will not work
I have to give you Brits a thumbs up for sticking to your guns though tis a good trait to have ya know


Get a good synonym checker insert Think, then Use the context believe (v) and you will get. The following to use in exchange for think.
Imagine, reflect, consider, sense, Deem, suppose, or judge all of which to not equate to what you are implying I said.

Like I said it has to be a language difference that you use down under, no harm done I understand that you did not get my full meaning in the context I intended it to be taken.

[edit on 7/11/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

I know all about the Italians and Japanese held at Cowra, NSW. But, you see, they were prisoners of war, who surrendered on the battlefield, during a declared war.


So are those that have been detained at GITMO. and I realize it was not a declared war, but it is a war that congress and the senate of the us authorized which makes it legal.


So now you're claiming that all of the Camp X-ray detainees were captured actively taking part in hostilities, on the battlefield, carrying weapons and shooting at US forces. Did I get that right, or will you quickly backpedal away from your hasty, ill-considered and sweeping statement?




So again, I ask you, how many "collaborators" were imprisoned in Australia in the years 1939-1945, or even 1914-1918, after being "picked up after being turned in" in their home country?


Source


What does this do?



If you do not know it is not my fault you asked for numbers look them up yourself I am not your librarian.


Oh no. No, no, no. You made the claim about "collaborators". I put it in context for you, you have to provide the numbers to back your claim.

Now, to go off-topic.

It might make your meaning a little clear if you were to add a few of those interesting little symbols.

"If you do not know, it is not my fault. You asked for numbers, look them up yourself. I am not your librarian."

As for this:


Source


How is google.com... a source? All I see is a white screen inviting me to type things and offering me advertising programmes. Where is the information? Where are the quotes, the attribution, the information on "collaborators" detained in Europe and imprisoned in the UK, US and Australia?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh no. No, no, no. You made the claim about "collaborators". I put it in context for you, you have to provide the numbers to back your claim.


Yes I did and I answered that it numbers in the thousands if you want exact numbers look them up yourself.

I'm getting a little tired of your snide remarks, Howlrunner.

Is there an Echo in here? Yes there is Jsbecky (sp)? told you the very same thing



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh no. No, no, no. You made the claim about "collaborators". I put it in context for you, you have to provide the numbers to back your claim.


Yes I did and I answered that it numbers in the thousands if you want exact numbers look them up yourself.

I'm getting a little tired of your snide remarks, Howlrunner.

Is there an Echo in here? Yes there is Jsbecky (sp)? told you the very same thing


Quote the snide remark.

And again, proof of the "thousands" of "collaborators" who were detained in Europe during World Wars One and Two and shipped to the UK, US and Australia and subsequently imprisoned, please.

Who were these "collaborators"? Which nations did they come from? Which side were they "collaborating" with?

And, most importantly, where were they imprisoned in the UK, US and Australia and for how long?

If you want snide, I'll give you snide. But you're not worth it.

There were no collaborators detained by Allied powers and transported overseas for detention in Allied facilities thousands of kilometres from Europe four years after the invasion. You refuse to provide proof because you can't.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And again, proof of the "thousands" of "collaborators" who were detained in Europe during World Wars One and Two and shipped to the UK, US and Australia and subsequently imprisoned, please.

Who were these "collaborators"? Which nations did they come from? Which side were they "collaborating" with?



Let me guess you are one of those Brits from down under right? you are as bad as others. Go back to page 8 and re-read my posts again. I never stated thousands of collaborators what I said were some of them were collaorators that probably were picked up with the rest of the detaines. I also never gave any actual numbers what I said was those detained during WWII numbered in the thousands. Now you have me saying I said there were thousands of "collaborators" and I never stated that.


Now you want exact numbers and names of concentration and internment camps here they are


Happy reading should take you two weeks to read and total them all up


[edit on 7/11/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Ooh, this is becoming fun...


Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And again, proof of the "thousands" of "collaborators" who were detained in Europe during World Wars One and Two and shipped to the UK, US and Australia and subsequently imprisoned, please.

Who were these "collaborators"? Which nations did they come from? Which side were they "collaborating" with?



Let me guess you are one of those Brits from down under right?


Half right. It shouldn't be too hard to find another member to tell you which half.


you are as bad as others.


How so? Because I'm a Brit? Because I'm downunder? Because, somehow, pairing those facts removes my right to comment?


Go back to page 8 and re-read my posts again.


Yes. Let's do that.


I never stated thousands of collaborators


Oh, really?


what I said were some of them were collaorators that probably were picked up with the rest of the detaines. I also never gave any actual numbers what I said was those detained during WWII numbered in the thousands. Now you have me saying I said there were thousands of "collaborators" and I never stated that.


Let's take a little look-see, shall we?


: Originally posted by shots

: Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
As for your other assertion. I want you to tell me how many of the detainees at Camp X-ray were "captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people."


I would assume most of them, to be honest I am not sure, but I am also sure that some were picked up after being turned in as collaborators by others and then detained as were many during wwI and wwII.



: Originally posted by shots

: Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And while you're at it, tell me how many Germans, Italians or Japanese "collaborators" were imprisoned in the UK, the US or Australia after being picked up in their home country during WW2.


As for how many were held during WWII it numbers in the thousands. Don't believe me look it up.


You then gave me Google as a "source". Which set off another round of prodding from me before you finally got off your butt and gave us this:


Now you want exact numbers and names of concentration and internment camps here they are


Happy reading should take you two weeks to read and total them all up


Shall I quote from it for you? Okay, here goes...


Argentina

During the Dirty War which accompanied the 1976-1983 military dictatorship, there were about 100 places throughout the country that served as concentration camps in the Nazi sense,


Just for the myopic, I shall quote myself:


: Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And while you're at it, tell me how many Germans, Italians or Japanese "collaborators" were imprisoned in the UK, the US or Australia after being picked up in their home country during WW2.



I know all about the Italians and Japanese held at Cowra, NSW. But, you see, they were prisoners of war, who surrendered on the battlefield, during a declared war.



So again, I ask you, how many "collaborators" were imprisoned in Australia in the years 1939-1945, or even 1914-1918, after being "picked up after being turned in" in their home country?


Now, where does Argentina's Dirty War come into any of that?

There's an echo alright, shots, its the echo of us repeating our questions for the hard of hearing and deliberately obtuse. Or are you just stupid?

bold mine



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Now, where does Argentina's Dirty War come into any of that?


OMG you do have a problem using the internet. :shk: There was a whole list of countrries A to Z there that covered virtually all wars had you looked


[edit on 7/12/2006 by shots]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join