Guantánamo prison 'could close quickly' if Britain takes inmates, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 10:28 AM by dawa

I think the point is this:

The USA as a country goes on about fair trials, human rights, etc. Often criticising other countries for not living up to the standards the USA sets, often going on about how amazing we in the west are that we treat people fairly.

But then it makes and fills Guantanamo with people who didn't even get a trial - so nobody even knows if theyre guilty... just picked up off the street after a little "intelligence" (probably made up so the guy telling it could get a couple of dollars) and banged in there and treated like crap.

So people like to point out "Well... you said you were all about freedom and rights and such, why arent you acting the way you said you did and expect everyone else to?"

USA says " Why dont you take them then?! "

Reason we shouldnt take them is, we wouldnt have kept them there for years without a trial in the first place, especially not in those conditions. So it doesnt fit with our legal system, and we wouldnt know what to do with them. Would they even BE our prisoners legally? Or would we have to let them go without ANY TRIAL AT ALL... these are the things we have to consider.

Easy way to solve it, give them a trial... im sure the USA has plenty of judges..

Anyway, as a country were not just sitting here and letting it go past us. Theyve said theyll look into each case and then decide if theyll bring them here. Some other countries have allready taken some, such as Albania and Portugal.

[edit on 8/1/09 by dawa]

[edit on 8/1/09 by dawa]

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 10:50 AM by DantesLost

reply to post by nyk537

If other countries would stay out of our business (they way they ask us to stay out of theirs) then we wouldn't be in this position. The prisoners would be left alone like they have been for years.

You are aware that the US got into this position because it got involved in other people's business right?

Show me proof that they are innocent.

Ever heard of the concept,innocent until proven guilty??
And how can anyone show proof when they haven't even been allowed to stand trial??

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 10:54 AM by DantesLost

Click here for more information.

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 11:08 AM by whatukno

reply to post by DantesLost

Knowing FF for a while I have to say that this poster usually knows exactly what they are talking about. Fact of the matter is that these people were taken off of the battlefield. Whether or not they are guilty of a crime is a matter for the courts if they are ever allowed to go to trial but the fact remains they were taken from an active war. Therefore Flyers Fan is correct about this part. They were taken during a military action.

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 11:26 AM by DantesLost

reply to post by whatukno

Moazzam Begg was arrested in Pakistan.
Martin Mubanga was arrested in Zambia.
Richard Belmar was arrested in Pakistan.

Thats 3 I can think of off the top of my head.

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 11:34 AM by whatukno

Now one thing I did not say is if they were rightfully taken. I just said they were taken. Battlefields often breach boarders. The CIA took some detainees from places where the official fighting was taken place.

Im not saying it's right, I am just stating a fact.

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 11:45 AM by lunarminer

Yes, it looks like Gitmo will be closed.

Can someone please tell me why?

I know that there are some who say that the prison there is illegal. How so? The US has a right to build detention centers on its military bases. Every military base has a temporary detention facility to house US citizens (soldiers) who have committed serious infractions. So, why would our enemies be treated any differently? More to the point, why SHOULD our enemies be treated BETTER than our own soldiers?

On another point, Great Britain may take some of the detainees. France may take some as well. So, why is a prison cell in England or France better than a cell in Gitmo? The buildings at Gitmo are air conditioned, state of the art, and they are brand new. The prisons in England and France are not likely to be as well equiped. So, why is that prefered?

Last of all, the detainees are accused of committing criminal acts against the US. Most of them were taken off the battlefield fighting against the US. The war that they were fighting is still going on. So, why can't the US deal with them? The Geneva Convention says that we can. The US Constitution says that we can. Federal Law says that we can. Military Law says that we can. So, why are we so willing to pass our responsibility to the Brits?

I really would like to know.

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 11:59 AM by Elemensa

So let me get this straight. We, the rest of the world are in the wrong for critising americas actions in capturing hundreds of people ( many of which are innocent) and torutiring them for days on end but unless we take them AS PRISONERS then we are hyporites. Why arent these people being given there own choice???

And to be honest i am proud to "whine" about the closure of guantamano bay because its one of the most evil establishments ever created. But theres no way in hell that we should be given your rubbish. It's almost as if america wants to make themselfs look good by closing down this facility whilst at the same time only shipping them off to other nations.

Well i for one do not want to share Americas evil.

P.S Im not in any way anti-American ( i quite like America and the majority of its people) i just feel so passionate about this subject that i seem to go a bit strongly.

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 11:59 AM by Harlequin

reply to post by lunarminer

its the status of the internees at gitmo which is the bone of contention around the world

if they were captured on or near a battlefield as enemy combatants then they are treated as POW`s under the 3rd Geneva convention

but they are not

if they are captured on a or near a battle field and are not treated as enemy combatants then the 4th Geneva convention applies

but they are not

and thats the problem here the USA has swept up people it doesn` t like - in foreign countries and have interned them - denying ALL rights and giving them a made up label to pretend the law of the world doesn`t apply.

same as Bush said that immunity to said war crimes for all US forces for breaking the geneva conventions

and then the people of the USA complain when US forces die horribly.

when one country which has held moral standards so high tears up the rule book , then you expect the rest of the planet to sit idly by and watch?

no , and we`ll see nukes being used in our life time to `solve` disputes

and millions of lives will be lost , men , women and children - black, yellow and white - and american , israeli ,muslim and christian. before this is over.

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 01:05 PM by sotp

Originally posted by nyk537

I'm done with this thread. Intelligent discussion is out the window.

Where you and a fan of a certain Philidelphia-based hockey team are concerned I don't think it was ever inside the window...

Seriously, how stupid does America think the rest of the world is?

You create a prison that holds people for years without trial, and then just expect every other country to not mention it? We're not whining. Anyone with a sense of moral decency would have a problems with that situation.

Why should the U.K (or anywhere else for that matter) take the prisoners? The U.S picks them up 'on the battlefield', classes them as 'illegal enemy combatants' but then seems reluctant to actually produce evidence that would lead to prosecution. What percentage of GITMO inmates have had a fair trial and been convicted? I'd like to see those numbers.

Perhaps if the U.K etc. does actually take them they would all get a fair trial, but then that would require America handing over any evidence they might have on these prisoners (i.e not much). Do you think the rest of the world are just going to take your word for it that they're guilty and put them straight into our prisons?

Get a grip!

[edit on 8/1/09 by sotp]

reply posted on 8-1-2009 @ 05:16 PM by reconpilot

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Kryties
Yeah, we are demanding it's closure because of it's inhumane conditions

Riiiiiiiiight. Inhumane.

They eat three religiously correct meals a day. They have better medical care then they have ever had in their lives. They are provided all their religious needs including their holy books which they themselves flush down toilets.

Here - you can get yourself a copy of the recipies that are used for the terrorists in GITMO ... yes, feeding them Baked Tandouri Chicken Breast, Mustard-Dill Baked Fish, Lyonnaise Rice, and Fish Amandine is sooooooo inhumane!

Newsflash - The Red Cross visited GITMO and said it definately is NOT inhumane.

Inhumane is what the terrorists were doing to innocent people before they got locked up in GITMO.

Originally posted by Kryties
it is your RESPONSIBILITY to clean it up,

If you people would MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS and leave the terrorists in GITMO then there wouldn't be anything to 'clean up'.

So shut up and leave the terrorists in GITMO otherwise stop being hypocrites and take them to your own back yard.

Originally posted by DantesLost
we have been asked to take some prisoners,so why should we butt out? The request from America has to be answered does it not?

Because the only reason you are being asked to take them is because you whined about GITMO being there in the first place. If you hadn't whined, then you wouldn't be asked.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

Well if the conditions are SOOOO good ,why dont you just just git yerself arrested on a trumped up terrorist charge Bubba ?

Actually , dont sweat it. Wait a while and your Gov will do that for you .

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 11:21 AM by DantesLost

reply to post by Harlequin

Ever noticed when the US government does something that breaches international laws,they state that it is US law that counts and they will then change it to fit their own agenda if needs be?

reply posted on 10-1-2009 @ 11:52 PM by lunarminer

reply to post by Harlequin

Well, you are almost correct. Close but no cigar.

The Geneva Conventions clearly state that persons conducting hostile acts must wear a regular uniform, with clearly designated rank. If a person is conducting hostile acts and is wearing civilian clothes, or the uniform of another nation, then that person is a spy. The Geneva Conventions offer no protection for that person.

You will probably counter with something about insurgencies. The Conventions are very clear on this as well. An insurgent must also wear some for identification, with rank. Otherwise, the insurgent has no protections.

The Conventions also clearly state that a combatant may not be tried in a civilian court for actions conducted in battle. Any trials must be in front of a military trial and must conform to the laws that would govern a soldier in that nations military. This is because a professional military court would recognize that acts of war are the normal job of a soldier. It is feared that a civilian court would be unduely harsh to the prisoner.

So, what we have in Gitmo, is a bunch of spies, terrorist, and unlawfull combatants, being held in a military detention center. This is exactly what the Geneva Conventions demand.

As for the question of why we don't let the prisoners decide where they want to go. Well aside from the obvious fact that they are prisoners and therefore denied free movement. Many of the detainees remaining in Guantanamo, do not want to be sent to their home countries because many of them are wanted for crimes commited there. So, the US is going above and beyond for them in seeking a neutral country to take them.

If it were up to me, I would send them to their countries of origin, and let them face the music there.

The Cpm

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 06:24 AM by reiki

Originally posted by lunarminer
So, what we have in Gitmo, is a bunch of spies, terrorist, and unlawfull combatants, being held in a military detention center. This is exactly what the Geneva Conventions demand.

Is that so? Tell me then, 'what' & 'who' decides if they are 'lawful' combatants? Let me guess, the enemy! How one-sided is that! and, these folks are allegedly the above things you listed. Until it is proved.

Your country likes 'due process'. And aren't 'all' men equal'? Hehe. George Orwell, some are more equal than others.

Originally posted by lunarminer
As for the question of why we don't let the prisoners decide where they want to go. Well aside from the obvious fact that they are prisoners and therefore denied free movement. Many of the detainees remaining in Guantanamo, do not want to be sent to their home countries because many of them are wanted for crimes commited there. So, the US is going above and beyond for them in seeking a neutral country to take them.

If the US was going above and beyond, since they incarcerated these supposedly, spies, terrorists, etc, why don't they take them all? In actual fact, why the heck are these so called spies, terrorists being released? If they really are who th eUS say they are, this doesn't make sense. Oh, sorry, they aren't actually spies or terrorists after all.

I'll tell you one thing. If some of these folks were arrested wrongly, and have been incarcerated, and tortured for years anyhow, they sure as hell will come out hating US & the west.

Gung-ho, yeee-haa, spur-toting US created the situation, now, after breeding more radicals, it's become the worlds problem. When will they ever learn.

take care
Wayne

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 11:22 AM by lunarminer

reply to post by reiki

Most of the detainees that have been released, were released due to political pressures from allied countries. We sent the Australian ones to Australia, the British ones to England, etc. The extradition to these countries was due to lobbying efforts in those countries. It really had nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

If you all want to worry about abuses, consider how dangerous it is to make decisions like this based on political allignment.

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 11:46 AM by reiki

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by reiki

If you all want to worry about abuses, consider how dangerous it is to make decisions like this based on political allignment.

yes, this is a good point,

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 11:49 AM by lunarminer

reply to post by reiki

You said, "Tell me then, 'what' & 'who' decides if they are 'lawful' combatants? Let me guess, the enemy! How one-sided is that! and, these folks are allegedly the above things you listed. Until it is proved."

According to the Geneva Conventions, it is the capturing authority that determines if a captured person is a POW, a spy, or an unlawfull combatant. The circumstances of capture are then reported to the International Red Cross, or some other international humanitarian organization.

I did not write the Geneva Conventions but those who signed them are bound by their regulations. A country may not pick and choose which tenants to follow and which to ignore, as you and so many others seem to demand.

As I pointed out the GC clearly states that a person captured on a battlefield may not (read that must not) try these individuals in a civil court. So all the arguments invoking the US Constitution are moot. These protections do not apply in a military courts martial.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 01:15 PM by reiki

Hi Bro,
That shows how idiotic that part of the Geneva convention would be. We have a country, where there is mountains of evidence, that they killed there own citizens in order to have a reason to go to war, and they are trustworthy enough to decide whether a combatant is lawful or not? Jeez.

If one country goes to war with another, and this said country carries out military actions on said foreign soil, and people flock to fight on the opponents side, then common sense should dictate that it is simply war, ergo, lawful combatants. that phrase stinks anyhow.

'unlawful combatant' does not appear in the 3rd Geneva convention, you would have to tell me where it does. Article 4 describes categories whereby people may be gave prisoner of war status.

check out Article 4

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
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, fulfil the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

* that of carrying arms openly;

* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

to me, if i went to Iraq, and joined a group there, as this clearly describes such groups, i fall under Article 4. Ergo, i am a prisoner of war.

As I pointed out the GC clearly states that a person captured on a battlefield may not (read that must not) try these individuals in a civil court. So all the arguments invoking the US Constitution are moot. These protections do not apply in a military courts martial.

Under the 3rd Geneva convention, since there is no classification (i've read to date) of 'unlawful combatant', who is giving that status, and what does it mean? If i am not a POW, i must be acting unlawfully, then a terrorist. If i am a terrorist, this is a criminal matter, ergo, i fall under US law, of which the constitution is the foundation. This new limbo style classification gives a fighter no rights under any worldwide law. very clever that. i am neither a POW, nor a terrorist. I am un some limbo. this is ridiculous. AND make the ICHR a joke.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by reiki]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 01:45 PM by blupblup

Just as a little update.. Rumsfeld and others are to be sued over suicides and conditions at Guantanamo.

This is excellent news.
Hope he and bush spend a long time in a cell somewhere.

legaltimes.typepad.com...

It's all over the news at the moment.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 01:59 PM by MarkLuitzen

if they go too UK then they will surely end up in the Netherlands because of its to open borders ect... The Netherlands has enough problems with Muslim fundi's and people from North-Africa especially Marroco ..
Past year there were riots burning buildings , burning cars, attacked and assaulted people like homosexuals being thrown into ponts and lakes. we had siege on police stations , attacked ambulances and its personel , herassed firemen, we have imams calling for the destruction of the Netherlands from within our own borders , we have politicians in hidding , we have elderly people being herrassed and city and linebus drivers being manhandled and attacked. this is only past year it is going on from well befor 2001 and its getting worse , and having Guantanamo terrorist coming here will make it worse .. Europe is having problems all around . in London , riots and violence in Paris , Germany and Itally , it has to stop let the USA get those terrorist to there other prisons, Guantanamo is one of many the excistence of it being public knowlidge is only because a securtity break and the press get the info on it that way .. there are several bases / prisons like this so distribute those terrrorist there insteat of endangering the western public society with those people who don't want us to life the lives we life. and if they are going ahead with releasing .. please give them a gps tracing implant because the terrorist in Guantanomo are ther because of things they did and did wrong against us so they have lost the right of privacy and they first have to earn our trust back bafore we can ever give the some more space and privacy.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^