[******************************* When they captured people in Afghanistan, on the battlefield, they were sent to local interrogation camps, where interogators then decided whether these people should be sent to a local prison, or to Guantanamo. This was not based on the actions of the fighters, but on what they would admit to under torture and on hear-say. And this is the famous "criteria" for going to guanatanamo or not.[/quote]
And yet somehow only 500 or so ended up in Gitmo. Clearly, there was more criteria then just being captured fighting against Americans... Could it possibly have been their actions before and/or during the conflict beyond just fighting? Yeah. I think so...
Heck. Moazzam Begg wasn't involved in the fighting at all. He wasn't captured "on the battlefield". He was captured because he was suspected of aiding Al-qaeda in some way while acting as a civilian. While reading up on the issue, I heard many cases of people being detained, but not one mention of someone who'd been fighting against the US as a soldier ending up in Gitmo.
How about you proove that those held in Gitmo were sent there purely because they were fighting against US troops during the conflict in Afghanistan. Since you seem to want to assume they are POWs, and should recieve the protections as such, it shouldn't be a problem, right?
If you can't, then you are just acting based on rummors you've heard. They are not substantiated and are based on the same lack of understanding of the GC that I've been pointing out all along. Most people assume anyone captured during a war is a POW. Thus, they call the prisoners in Gitmo POWs. Then they look at the treatment of those prisoners and argue that it's not appropriate treatment for POWs. But their (and your) argument is flawed from the get go. I keep arguing that these are not POWs, and you keep insising they are. Yet you can't seem to show any evidence that they should have recieved POW status other then the fact that they were captured during a military conflict.
Show me some proof. Any proof, that the people detained in gitmo *should* be catagorized as POWs. If you can't, then your entire argument is based on pure assumption.
Quote:
Whether you technically call it "at war" or not is irrelevant. At the time the detainees in Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan, we were in an active war and occupying parts/all of it (depending on exact timing of capture of any given detainee). The rest is irrelevant to this discussion
Once again, this is wrong. There are "laws of war" (jus in bello) and there are "laws for AFTER the war" (jus ad bellum). Hence whether the country is at war or not, is perfectly relevant to the discussion.[/quote]
Yes. You are correct. However, the 4th convention specifically applies to any period of occupation (and for some time after that) *after* main hostilities have ended. Since we're still getting insurgencies in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Convention applies equally. That's why I said that whether or not there's a "war" being fought is irrelevant. Actually, it is relevant in one way. Technically, no prisoner captured *after* the war can be a POW. Since by definition, the other flag has surrendered, there can be no "legal" combatants on the other side.
But for someone with so much knowledge of the rules of war, you'd already know that, right?
Quote:
This is a very nice story, and I congratulate you for your capacity to swallow every lie thats being fed to you, so you feel better about the actions of your peace-loving governemnt. But its ********* All the actions you described above might have happened once or twice. But not 500 times.
Most of the people in Gitmo were captured on the battlefield, even the US goverment says it. Even they did not try to argue at the time that were "spies or sabopteurs", they just said that the GC did not apply. Just like in Abu-Graib.
Really? Show me where the US governemnt says they were captured "on the battlefield"?
Um. They used the terms "illegal combatants", and "non-uniformed combatants". They most certainly were talking about the fact that the actions of those detained disqualified them from POW status. And they did not say that the GC did not apply (ok. Someone may have used those words, but that's not the rules they used). They were specifically talking about the POW status (ie: 3rd convention). Not the Geneva Conventions as a whole.
The confusion on that issue is that as I've stated many times, most people assume that POW status and treatment *is* the Geneva Conventions. So when they ask if those rules will be applied, and someone from the administration says that they don't in this case, it gets reported as "Administration claims that the Geneva Conventions don't apply". That's not what was *actually* said though. I remember the statments made by the Bush administration at the time. They specifically stated that those specific prisoners did not qualify as POWs.
Funny that you accuse me of just believing a line of BS. To me, that's what you are doing. You've been feed a line of half reasoned illogic and have clung to it and accepted it at face value. Again. Your *entire* argument is based on the assumption that the prisoners held at Gitmo really were just soldiers acting legally on the battlefield. My argument is that this assumption is wrong. Heck. The US government *said* right then that they were not POWs and that their actions disqualified them for that status when they detained them in the first place. Now, we can assume there's a huge conspiracy going on to lie about that, but you have no proof of that either. Every single thing you base your argument on is unsubstantiated rummor.
I'm at least taking the "official" story. Until I see real evidence to the contrary, why on earth not believe it? Unlike the typical tinfoil hat wearer, I don't just automatically assume my government is lying to me about everything. Especially when in this case, there's absolutely no reason for them to do so. Either they believe these guys are directly connected with various terrorist groups and illegal insurgencies and thus want to detain them to get information from them, or they don't. What possible reason would our government have to detain random people, knowing they have no connections to any illegal actions in Afghanistan, but then lie and say they do?
Sorry. That makes zero sense. The only reason to detain them is if you think they have valuable information. Thus, the most logical explanation is that every single detainee is there because those who detained them really do believe that they are connected directly to some group involved in terrorism and/or insurgency.
How about you explain to me why they'd detain them if that wasn't true? Can't can you? Again. You're just one of those people who assumes that the government is "up to no good", no matter how nonsensical the actions are.
Quote:
You must be joking. "Treated humanly"? Please tell me you are joking. Have you been closing your eyes and covering your ears singing "la la la" when the details of what happens in Gitmo came out? Or do you think its "humane" to keep people in cages for years, to keep people in solitary confinement for weeks on end, to keep their face permanently in gazmasks, to be urinated on, to have your holy book shat on, to be tied to a leash and made to bark like a dog, to be abused by interogators? And this is only the stuff that came out, and you can bet what ever the **** you want that much worse goes on there... Is that what you call "humane"? You have a very ****** up definition of humanity...
Huh? The conditions of prisoners in Gitmo are no worse then those in any prison in the US, and in some ways are *better*. You seem to simply be assuming that imprisonment itself is "inhumane", but that assumption invalidates your argument. You don't get to set the criteria for what is and isn't "humane treatment" based on your own skewed worldview.
Again. Show me proof of abuse in Gitmo. Not allegations. Proof. Anyone can make an accusation.
Quote:
And explain to me, if the US governemnt is doing only legal thing, why the **** to need to have this base OUTSIDE of US territory? More than that, they argue that this base in not even in Cuban territory! It exists OUTSIDE of ANY legal juridiction!! Does that sound like the kind of arrangment made by a country who has nothing to hide from the law? And how come they get leases from Cuba, their nasty-dangerous ennemy? How is that ok? Does it make sense? If you dont understand that Guantanamo is a modern Gulag, then you are a dangerous idiot.
Um. So that they aren't in a country where other civilian groups acting illegally can cause yet more problems? The whole point is to disconnect them from their contacts around the world.
Just because you don't understand the history of Guantanamo Bay is not my fault. Maybe you should educate yourself on the matter before arguing that it's a "gulag" just because your assumptions make it so.
Quote:
None of your arguments stand up. You say they are being questioned for terrorist activities. They have been in a cage for 2 years. Do you really think they have ANY idea what the **** is going on at the moment in terorist networks? Do you even have any idea how terrorist organisations work? If those real terrorists know that someone who is aware of their plans is in ennemy hands, they will simply change their plans. Those people in Gunatanamo are completely useless, by now they are just old rotten shells of human beings, without any credible info to provide. Do you understand the fact that any information given under torture has no value, simply because the guy says whatever he thinks will get him off the hook?
There's been no evidence of torture being used at Gitmo. None. Yet you insist on arguing that "information gained under torture has no value".
Rhetoric much? I think so...
Quote:
And please, spare me your BS about the GC. The GC aplpies ONLY in time of war. America is not at war with Afghanistan. I cant make it more simple than that.
Proof you haven't read the GC. Sigh. You are correct that the *third* convention only applies during time of war. The other's apply all the time though.
It's funny. I keep saying that your problem is that you're assuming that the 3rd convention is the entirety of the GC, and yet no matter how many times I point this out, you keep on basing your arguments off of that exact same incorrect assumption.
Stop doing that. After I've shown you that the GC contains more then just POW treatment in a time of war, you need to actually change your assumption to match. How on earth can you expect me to take any argument you make seriously when you clearly show no ability to look at the facts around you and draw even some basic rational conclusions from them.
The GC covers more then treatment of POWs in a time of war. Sheesh! If you make a single argument based on the assumption otherwise, I'm just going to assume that's the same as you saying: "You're right gbaji. I'm a complete and utter moron".
Got it? Learn when information is presented to you, or you'll be doomed to keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over.
You know what? I'm going to ignore the rest of your post too, since it's pretty much just you rambling on and making more assumptions about things you don't know happened, and twising rules of the GC around in ways I've already prooved aren't correct.
Go read the GC. Specifically, read the 4th convention. Then come back and argue a point.
Also. Stop mushing 8 different allegations into one and pretending they are all facts. When you say that "torture is illegal", you are making a simple factual statement. You are correct. Torture is illegal. But since this is a topic aobut Guantanamo, and there have been *zero* reports of torture in Gauntanamo, I can only conclude that your just tossed that statement in there hoping that if you say the words "torture" and "Guantanamo" enough times in close proximity, some people will connect the two.
You're making what I call a rhetoric based argument. You simply make factual statements that don't actually prove anything, or make any sort of logical argument, but the statements themselves contain powerful words that people will associate together. This sort of arguing tactic relies on the fact that if you just string together things like "torture", "illegal", "prisoners", "abuse", "conspiracy", "violations", etc most people will ignore the actual argument made and just assume you made a point in there somewhere.
All you're doing is repeating words. If you want to debate a point, you need to actually *make* a point. Start with facts. Show how they are relevant. Then show how they indicate a further truth. Don't just slam as many "bad" sounding words together as possible. I have virtually zero respect for that.
