Jump to content

Idea for the guys at Git'mo....


allthumbs

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Question: If 2 Americans had been held by a foreign country for the past 2 years without access to lawyers, against the terms of the Geneva convention, their charges were never communicated, they weren't allowed to call any witnesses or present evidence, and faced being sentenced to death in a secret military tribunal, would you be outraged?

 

Two British citizens currently face that prospect in Guantanemo. Maybe they are indeed guilty. Of what, I and no-one else has any idea. I do think though that they have a right to a fair judicial process.

 

Just more rantings from a leftist Euro liberal though. cry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JGowans said:

Question: If 2 Americans had been held by a foreign country for the past 2 years without access to lawyers, against the terms of the Geneva convention, their charges were never communicated, they weren't allowed to call any witnesses or present evidence, and faced being sentenced to death in a secret military tribunal, would you be outraged?

 

Two British citizens currently face that prospect in Guantanemo. Maybe they are indeed guilty. Of what, I and no-one else has any idea. I do think though that they have a right to a fair judicial process.

 

Just more rantings from a leftist Euro liberal though. cry.gif

 

Afghanistan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention, for one. Two, lawyers have nothing to do with it; this is not a civil or criminal trial, they are prisoners of war.

 

By the way, the Japs did this to many of our men in WWII. Can you say Bataan Death March? Sure, I knew you could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg_W said:Afghanistan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention, for one.

 

Two, lawyers have nothing to do with it; this is not a civil or criminal trial, they are prisoners of war.

The U.S. and Britain are signatories of the Geneva convention though.

 

Why do lawyers have nothing to do with it Greg? I am not suggesting innocence and don't want to seem insensitive to what preceeded this situation, but merely want to suggest that the rules have been bent or broken once again, and had the shoe been on the other foot, this would not be allowed to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the Japs did this to many of our men in WWII. Can you say Bataan Death March? Sure, I knew you could.

 

Right... And those Japanese responsible were prosecuted as war criminals. If the cause of death of some detainees are proven to be homicide then I hope those responsible will be similarly brought to account.

 

"In March, Amnesty wrote to President Bush to complain about the treatment of detainees after US military officials reportedly confirmed that post-mortem reports in the cases of the two men who died at Bagram gave cause of death as 'homicide' and 'blunt force injuries'. "

 

they are prisoners of war

 

No. If there had POW status this wouldn't be a problem, as they would have some legal status, rights and recourse, but they don't. The classification of "enemy noncombatant" has no legal standing, largely because it was invented after 9/11 and is not recognised internationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ade said:

By the way, the Japs did this to many of our men in WWII. Can you say Bataan Death March? Sure, I knew you could.

 

Right... And those Japanese responsible were prosecuted as war criminals. If the cause of death of some detainees are proven to be homicide then I hope those responsible will be similarly brought to account.

 

"In March, Amnesty wrote to President Bush to complain about the treatment of detainees after US military officials reportedly confirmed that post-mortem reports in the cases of the two men who died at Bagram gave cause of death as 'homicide' and 'blunt force injuries'. "

 

they are prisoners of war

 

No. If there had POW status this wouldn't be a problem, as they would have some legal status, rights and recourse, but they don't. The classification of "enemy noncombatant" has no legal standing, largely because it was invented after 9/11 and is not recognised internationally.

 

You just don't get it. It's a totally different thing because We are America, damn it! We don't need them; they need us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ade said:

By the way, the Japs did this to many of our men in WWII. Can you say Bataan Death March? Sure, I knew you could.

 

Right... And those Japanese responsible were prosecuted as war criminals. If the cause of death of some detainees are proven to be homicide then I hope those responsible will be similarly brought to account.

 

"In March, Amnesty wrote to President Bush to complain about the treatment of detainees after US military officials reportedly confirmed that post-mortem reports in the cases of the two men who died at Bagram gave cause of death as 'homicide' and 'blunt force injuries'. "

 

they are prisoners of war

 

No. If there had POW status this wouldn't be a problem, as they would have some legal status, rights and recourse, but they don't. The classification of "enemy noncombatant" has no legal standing, largely because it was invented after 9/11 and is not recognised internationally.

 

Well said, ade. It's also worth pointing out that plenty of "Japs" were also held illegal by this country during WWII. It cuts both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...