Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
We don't charge POWs with crimes either. They don't get rights of habeus corpus or due process either. Same deal (but with even less protections then POWs get due to the nature of their status).
Prisoners of war are subject to the geneva convention and are not allowed to be tortured .
So are those being held in these detention centers.
Quote:
Prisoners are allowed a great many rights, and any Soldier controviening those rights are subject to very serious charges as certain allied forces have found out in Iraq.
Be clear.
Prisoners of War are allowed a great many rights. They are granted those rights as a reward under the 3rd Geneva Convention in order to encourage people to resolve conflicts in ways that minimize the loss of innocent life.
Prisoners captured conducting warlike actions in violation of those ideals (that would be terrorists in case you are confused) are not afforded the same rights as POWs. Otherwise, there would be no point to having a reward, now would there?
Quote:
Besides we are not even on the same ballpark as POW's here, for a start these people have not been taken from a theater of combat and are not "Combatants" in the sence they are not pointing weapons at the CIA people arresting them, they are taken from the street or from thier homes often on countries allied to the USA.
No. The people detained there are being captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not picked up in a mosque in the US for example. You are confusing two different things (not surprising since the article's author did the same thing). There's those that the US government detains and holds (who are all captued in countries we are currently engaged in "war" in). Then there are those who are picked up and *deported* to their country of origin. Like the Eqyptian citizen who was *gasp* deported to his home country.
Two different issues. When you blend them like that you create a perception that we're picking people up in Candada, the US, and Britain and scurrying them off to hidden detention centers in Poland whereever else. Absolutely not true.
Quote:
Stop dodging the issue with unrelated babble and admit that it is fundamentally wrong to detain people with no charge and torture them, especially when you have no evidence they have done anything wrong in the first place.
You're correct. It's fundamentally wrong to detain people with no charge
and torture them. It is *not fundamentally wrong to detain people with no charge though. You have yet to prove the torture part. Hence, your argument falls apart. It's nice speculation, but how about we find some evidence of this instead of flying about on inuendo?
Quote:
Quote:
You're mistaking this for a criminal justice issue. It's not. These people are not being detained so they can be charged and arrested for a crime. They are being detained because they are involved in groups planning to conduct attacks on US (or other) targets.
Holy Bob how did i miss this Gem....
1. If they are involved with a plan to attack the USA, they are commiting an offence that they can be charged with in an American or British Court.
No. They are not. A foreigner commiting an act of war against the US is *not* committing a crime within the US. He's an enemy. He can be detained and held "for the duration" of the conflict. Depending on his actions, he may face varying conditions. And he can certainly risk dying while actively engaged in said operations. However, he most certainly is *not* a criminal.
Not in the sense of habeus corpus, due process, etc. You are horribly confused if you think so.
Quote:
2. If 80% of people have commited no crime then it is likey they DON'T have any meaningful connection with said groups and ARE NOT planning any attack of any kind
100% of all POWs have committed no crime. Yet they are held without charge, without trial, and without hope of release until the conflict is resolved in some way. Your argument is flawed.
Your problem is that you are ascribing the general term "crime" to any act of violence/harm. But in the legal sense, that's not the case. A soldier fighting for his country is not committing a crime. He cannot be charged with murder in fact, even though he may have killed thousands of people.
Thus, you cannot assume that because someone has not committed a "crime", that they cannot be detained legally.
Quote:
3. By your arguement Vladimir Putin better watch out for CIA kidnapping squads because he probably has detailled plans to attack the USA, So does China, hell i bet even Britian has detailled attack plans for an attack on the USA.
And if we were willing to go to war with those respective countries, it would be completely legal for us to find and detain leaders of their military and detain them. Not sure what you think your point is here. It's a matter of a declaration of war and willingness to fight that war that matters.
Hence, why it's *not* a criminal justice issue. In exactly the way that when we declared war on Germany, we authorized our soldiers to kill german soldiers without risk of criminal charges (for either side). You seem to have a very poor understanding of the rules and processes involved in war.
Quote:
Number 3 puts in persective how pathetic your arguement is, as it's on the same level.
Nah. It puts in perspective just how much you don't understand this issue.
How about you actually read the Geneva Conventions? Especially Conventions number 3 and number 4. You might actually learn something about what governments can and cannot do with regard to foreign fighters.