BF2S Forums Guantanamo Illegal.

kr@cker wrote:

when the enemy combatant fails to follow the standards of the Geneva convention, then they are no longer subject to it's protection, lack of uniform, lack of sponsor nation, purposeful targetting of women/children/civilians, use of children/civilians to gather intel (have you, gunslinger or anyone that's been to the sandbox, ever seen a child counting convoys?), use of civilians as human shields (Haditha), booby-trapping bodies of coalition, just to name a few.........

this ruling only shows that the war on activist judges is not over, it is another attempt by them to legislate new law, which is the job of congress, it's about time some of these judges started getting grilled by some impeachment panels, eminent domain is more than enough reason for me, I've already written my appropriate senators and congressman and am pleased to say they started putting the heat on the judges a couple of years ago, to which I responded with campaign contributions and re-election votes


for some of you non-us citizens out there, the readers digest version of what goes on in DC is:

supreme court (judicial branch)- judges constitutionality of existing law
presidential (executive branch)- executes law, has some ability to introduce new laws to be reviewed by.....
congress (legislative branch)- while just about anyone can get the ball rolling to introduce a bill into congress throught their appropriate reps., it cannot become law until reviewed by the House of Representatives (each state's number of representative is based on population) and then the Senate (each state gets 2, no matter the population), this bi-cameral system of congress prevents densely populated states from overrunning more rural ones in the House, and prevents a few farmers in the more agricultural states from overrunning the more industrialized ones in the Senate

this is not a defeat for Bush, as the media likes to spin it, it is a defeat for the free world in that it hamstrings our ability to cull terrorists and protect ourselves and our allies

Havazn wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:

Havazn wrote:

The Supreme court is the body that upholds your civil rights and laws. Im sure you wouldn't be hating them so much when YOUR rights become infringed.

You mean like our phones that are being tapped without them saying anything?
Or our bank records being scoured without them doing anything?
Or Internet spying without them fighting for us?

BAH!  They choose WHAT to hear WHEN they want to hear it, there is no impartiality in the Supreme Court.  If they don't want to hear a case they refuse it and nothing can be done about it...doesn't sound like I should be loving them that much.

So the Bush administration is taking away both your and the inmates rights, the supreme court is fighting to get the inmates rights back and you have no animosity towards the administration itself? Its your government, if you don't like what its doing, DO something. If enough people supported your side, the Supreme court cannot ignore it.

These inmates aren't given the luxary of a fair and proper trial that YOU would get. They do not have the power to have their voices heard because they are locked in a box in another country. Hence the supreme courts intervention.

lowing wrote:

Havazn wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:

You mean like our phones that are being tapped without them saying anything?
Or our bank records being scoured without them doing anything?
Or Internet spying without them fighting for us?

BAH!  They choose WHAT to hear WHEN they want to hear it, there is no impartiality in the Supreme Court.  If they don't want to hear a case they refuse it and nothing can be done about it...doesn't sound like I should be loving them that much.

So the Bush administration is taking away both your and the inmates rights, the supreme court is fighting to get the inmates rights back and you have no animosity towards the administration itself? Its your government, if you don't like what its doing, DO something. If enough people supported your side, the Supreme court cannot ignore it.

These inmates aren't given the luxary of a fair and proper trial that YOU would get. They do not have the power to have their voices heard because they are locked in a box in another country. Hence the supreme courts intervention.

Please tell me what rights have been taken away from you.

I love what my govt. is doing to protect our country from more attacks, and it must be working since there haven't been any other attacks since our govt. stepped up to the plate. Further evidence that it is working can be argued due to the fact that numerous attacks, in fact, have been thwarted. Now, all that is left to do is charge the New York Times with treason for their reporting of how we are tracking the money flow in the terror networks. The New York Times is the greatest ally the terrorist have, along with most of you on this forum it seems.

Last edited by <[onex]>Headstone (2006-06-30 03:56:05)

kr@cker wrote:

I was hoping not to enter the frypan over the Abu Ghraib bullshit, but since some of the Michael Moore types bring it up.

They were in a holding cell= being processed for having started a riot in the yard
They were naked= they had just been strip searched
They were shaven=standard OP in many prisons of this nature to combat louse infestation
They were hooded=they outnumbered the guards
They were stacked=this prevents them rushing the guards that they outnumbered
They were on leashes=because they were hooded

The only thing that might be remotely deemed inappropriate was Englund posing in the pictures, the pictures themselves were standard documentation of the penal (teehee) process.
Assuming they did all of this in the name of torture, WTF THAT'S EMBARASSING AT MOST, that's not fucking torture, as I told someone in a karma score, if you wanna see torture you give me a box of paper clips, lemon juice, a cigarrette lighter, and a Celine Dione album and I'll show you torture. Lindy Englund may have needed to be reprimanded for being in the pics, but her punishment was over the top for the crime. She was a political victim sacrificed to save face in the name of public relations, the dumb fucks in charge are too asinine to realize that no amount of appeasement will back the critics off, they should just stick to playing hardball and let history be the judge. Send those terrorist fucks to Leavenworth, they'll be begging for that girl to come shave them.

And no, the terrorist are not subject to the privileges of the Geneva Convention, even if a coalition force caps them from a nation that has ratified it, there are many reasons, the most prominent being that they do not fight in uniform and hide themselves in the civilian population.

If a hot poker saves one life, LIGHT EM UP!!

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-30 07:11:02)

kr@cker wrote:

"Today 09:51:37 -1 Guantanamo Illegal. tosser  "  YAY!!! i was afraid i was going to break 60, been hovering at 58 for 3 weeks or so

we've always had the power to try them, in military tribunals, since they are enemy combatants

the activists on the Judicial bench are trying to create a new law stating that all enemy combatants and POW's are privy to the procedures of the civilian court system, again this is the power of our congress, not the courts

you're falling for hype, if there were any serious breaches of law there would at least be a concerted attempt to investigate by a group like your infallible UN, but even they know there is nothing wrong with it, just a few squeaky wheels whining for attention and trying to get their name in the news off of harping about a subject they know the general public doesn't know enough about to realize they are wrong

Darth_Fleder wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

I think the real problem here is, who is a terrorist and who isn't? What is the defining line that says this person is  or isn't a terrorist?  Just because a person is suspected, doesn't mean that they are.  Thus the right to a trial.  Some of the people at Gitmo have not had a trial and have been in captivity for over 4 years.  I agree terrorists are not and should not be given Geneva Convention protection.  But what if they truly aren't terrorists?  I believe that is why Gitmo is under such scrutiny, along with the amount of "suicides"...

I am sorry but there is a difference here. These people are not suspected criminals, they are enemy combatants. There is a significant difference. That is the flaw in so many's reasoning. If they were suspected criminals suspected of committing acts against our society, they would be entitled to a trial in a court of law. These people were captured on or near the battlefield engaged in acts of war, however. Since many of them are not nationals of the countries that they were captured in they are classified as 'enemy combatants'.

Have no fear Gator, Congress will probably soon be introducing legislation to allow them to continue. Further evidence to reassure those that the checks and balances are still working.

As for the suicide rate, it is consistent with those of the U.S. prison population as a whole which stands at .5%. The total for Club Gitmo is is 1/10 of one percent higher at .6%.

GATOR591957 wrote:

These people are  suspected.  I will agree some, if not most are guilty and should be dealt with accordingly.  By the way, what is that exactly?  The punishment.  Guilty of committing acts of war.  By your logic then they are entitled to the rights afforded under the Geneva Convention.  Correct?  Where exactly is this written what these prisoners are guilty of, or suspected of?  The government is telling us.  So in other words you are trusting this governments with their past history.
My main point is I am worried this thing has no, zero checks and balances.  No one, or body to give oversight on this.

Geneva Convention IV, art. 5 wrote:

…Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

www.genevaconventions.org wrote:

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.
For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.
In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

wikipedia.org wrote:

An Enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1]
In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court clearly uses the terms with their traditional meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE QUIRIN 317 U.S. 1 (1942) wrote:

…By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals…

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, art. 4, sect. 2 wrote:

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.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-06-30 17:48:59)

Darth_Fleder wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

These people are  suspected.  I will agree some, if not most are guilty and should be dealt with accordingly.  By the way, what is that exactly?  The punishment.  Guilty of committing acts of war.  By your logic then they are entitled to the rights afforded under the Geneva Convention.  Correct?  Where exactly is this written what these prisoners are guilty of, or suspected of?  The government is telling us.  So in other words you are trusting this governments with their past history.
My main point is I am worried this thing has no, zero checks and balances.  No one, or body to give oversight on this.

Geneva Convention IV, art. 5 wrote:

…Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

www.genevaconventions.org wrote:

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.
For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.
In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

wikipedia.org wrote:

An Enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1]
In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court clearly uses the terms with their traditional meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE QUIRIN 317 U.S. 1 (1942) wrote:

…By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals…

As far as I can tell from my research:

a.    They are not covered under the Geneva conventions by their actions.
b.    The U.S. is being gracious enough to afford them most of their forfeited ‘rights’.

Now, what these terrorists are doing is not guerilla warfare as defined by the Geneva Conventions. They operate using the civilian population as cover and put them at risk.  This to me is completely unacceptable.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, art. 4, sect. 2 wrote:

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.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Now, I can see by your post that your heart is in the right place but perhaps your sympathies are not. It is THEY who are breaking the rules.