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.
Originally posted by Djohnsto77
Sorry, but Carter has no authority on this issue for me. He's a washed-up liberal has-been hack, and carries no more weight with me than an anonymous guy off the street.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I guess it would be different if he was saying something about Gitmo that agreed with your perceptions, then you could smile and ride off on your rainbow colored unicorn.
Originally posted by subz
Former U.S President Jimmy Carter has called on President Bush to close down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
He is more skilled to comment than you, djohnsto77, or I and I think you should show him the same amount of respect you'd show the current President.
Originally posted by subz
Phugedaboudet, then they are prisoners of war and the Geneva convention is quite clear about the treatment of those prisoners. The United States is a signatory of the Geneva convention and after the end of hostilities (I'd say a newly installed Afghani President to be an end to hostilities) then they should be released.
If they are not prisoners of war they should be charged.
The rule of law is not something you drag out and lecture other countries about when it suits your narrow national interests. These people, terrorist/murderer/rapist/drug dealer WHAT EVER have the right to know the charges against them, given a trial in which to attempt to clear their name or admit guilt and be sentenced accordingly!
There is no excuse you can dream up to excuse the treatment of these individuals. The United States actions are illegal which ever way you cut it. What makes the United States exempt from prosecution from the law and civility? They were attacked so all bets are off? Come on, it doesnt work that way.
Charge them or release them. Simpl
e.
Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
The Geneva Convention (which I am pretty sure was *not* signed by Afghanistan) only applies to Uniformed Soldiers. If you wanna get huffy about only "trotting" out things that are convenient, I suggest going over the whole thing, not just the anti-Bush bits the media loves.
Article 3
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
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:
Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Exactly, they should never have been taken prisoner. It is/was a combat situation
Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Note the Convention says nothing about making sure that your prisoner get all the lawyers and whatever "holy" books they claim to follow. The Geneva Convention does *not* prohibit the "abuse" of inanimate objects belonging to prisoners. Tearing a uniform, burning a flag, flushing a book-small potatoes compared to burning people alive in a flying bomb of Jet-A or sawing off the heads of a *non-military* contractor,
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
But, in the etherial ivy-tower world, such distinctions are meaningless. Everything is black and white. Black, if it comes from a nation or political party you disagree with, and White if it comes from "your side".
Originally posted by periwinkle blue
Is it my imagination, or is Jimmy Carter virtually incapable of uttering any statements favorable to the United States? I cannot recall a foreign policy issue on which he has chosen to add commentary , with which he agreed.