20-01-2002 23:58									#61
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Rumsfeld already said. They are "Unlawful Detainee's" (IE: Foriegn Criminals. Like the Mafia.)

	21-01-2002 00:01									#62
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E The U.S is obviously not behaving as a civilised country. Who's surprised? Greatest democracy in the free world. NOT at all. Look to Europe and learn something ABOUT civilization.

You mean:

1)The nazis

2) The spanish inquisition and other new world activities.

3) the french reign of terror

4) the british in ireland, or south arica, or in the sepoy rebellion

5) The Belgians in Africa

I'd go on, but I don't want to turn this into a troll.

Just reminding everyone that civilization aint all its cracked up to be.

	21-01-2002 00:05									#63
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Are we talking about Al-Queda prisoners or Taliban prisoners? Just curious.

I will say all of this talk about it not mattering what we do to them, etc., is kinda scary...if we can't give even our worst enemies equal protections and such - even if we don't, technically, have to - then what makes us better than them? Worse, who ELSE are we willing to deprive of due process? Maybe next it'll be POWs in general, then maybe violent criminals, down the slippery slope to political dissenters, maybe?

	21-01-2002 00:11									#64
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat So they are not PoWs, so they are what? And does this what deserve a free trial? If not, I would be interested to know why. So much for a war on terrorism... Um... If they aren't soldiers by any definition, wouldn't killing them be homicide?

They are "unlawful combatants" - meaning they have no legal status or protections. The fact that they aren't covered under the Geneva Convention does not make them civilians, or any other class of person protected under international law.

The Geneva Convention requirement (suitably vague) merely requires a "competent tribunal" meaning one constituted under some portion of the laws or military regulations of the country holding the prisoners - there's no time frame set for that, the only thing is that shooting them, or sentencing them to some confinement below the standards of the Geneva Convention, or hard labor for officers, etc., has to wait until after the tribunal.

Meanwhile, fenced in temporary holding facilities are not a violation of the GC - every army in the field has done that, and the US is building a maximum security prison specifically to house these people.

What should they get in the meantime? Rooms in the ****ing Four Seasons hotel in Miami?

	21-01-2002 00:23									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Are we talking about Al-Queda prisoners or Taliban prisoners? Just curious.

Primarily, at least, al-Qaeda prisoners. I don't think the US has made the distinction (yet) between Taleban and al-Qaeda with regard to their combatant status, but these are mostly "special" prisoners handed over by the NA or other allied forces, or who we've captured directly and determined that we should keep, rather than return to local authority. A majority of Taleban have been allowed to just go home, a majority of al Qaeda are imprisoned by the Afghani government. We're holding the cream of the crop, so to speak, but from what I've read, very few of who we're holding are Taleban, and I haven't heard of any non-al Qaeda transferred to Gitmo yet.

quote: I will say all of this talk about it not mattering what we do to them, etc., is kinda scary...if we can't give even our worst enemies equal protections and such - even if we don't, technically, have to - then what makes us better than them?

Technically has nothing to do with it - they have a status under international law as unlawful combatants, nothing in the US Constitution or other US law ever indicated the framer's intent that the protections extended to US residents were intended to be applied to hostile foreigners taken prisoner overseas in wartime. They don't have the legal rights under US or international law that ordinary civilians, or ordinary POW's have. That's not "technical" it's a deliberate exception made in the Geneva Convention.

Meanwhile, we're housing them in temporary facilities, feeding them, allowing them to practice their religion, providing them with Korans, etc. - all in accord with the Geneva Convention, despite some whiners who allege otherwise.

quote: Worse, who ELSE are we willing to deprive of due process? Maybe next it'll be POWs in general, then maybe violent criminals, down the slippery slope to political dissenters, maybe?

Why don't you rephrase that to make it match reality, instead of your ideological prejudice. Eliminate the word "ELSE" because these *******s have NOT been deprived of "due process" and are being treated to a HIGHER STANDARD than they are due under relevant international law.

I know you desperately want to believe the evil Feds are gon' git you for your right-wing views, but it ain't happening, and you can't stretch the more than lawful detention of unlawful combatants from a terrorist organization taken prisoner in a foreign war to unconstitutional interference with the political rights of US citizens.

	21-01-2002 00:29									#66
	Full PM-box? Change here!

MtG, no I know what you're saying, and I know they have no Constitutional rights that have been violated. It seems to me, though, that we should just hold them as we would either normal prisoners, or POWs, and try them as such. I get bad vibes from terms such as "unlawful combatant" and things of that nature.

And believe me, I don't have rightwing views. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc., have right wing views, and I'm certainly not a big fan of that crowd

	21-01-2002 00:39									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I'm just hosin' with you. Yeah, Ashcroft in particular, and Rumsfeld to a lesser extent, do worry me with some of their views. More and more, I think Ashcroft is the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell.

The "unlawful combatant" distinction was intended to be a deterrent to warfighting activities which are beyond the bounds of what the GC signatories liked to pretend is "civilized" warfare. Things like terrorism, sabotage, guerilla forces who blend into the civilian populace, quasi-military forces like the SD and Einsatzgruppen in WW2, etc.

The idea was that people who engage in these activities should not have the same legal protection as conventional combatants in uniform who fought under internationally recognized laws and customs of war, but got captured.

	21-01-2002 00:50									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I'm not sure, though, that a distinction can be made. I certainly don't agree that the Geneva Convention rules can be applied to any non-signatory. That seems utterly ridiculous.

I tend to agree with the quote that "All's fair in love and war" (and I add fighting in there too ).

Not to excuse the WTC attacks - the point, though, is if a nation-state did that, in my opinion it's a valid form of warfare that shouldn't be "punished" any more harshly than any other form.

	21-01-2002 01:02									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The Geneva Convention rules obligate signatory nations to extend legal protections to POWs of either signatory or non-signatory nations.

The goal (and general result) is to protect individual POWs and other prisoners not covered under individual agreements.

If a non-signatory power commits acts that don't meet convention standards, they're not "punished" for not abiding by the Geneva convention, but they can be punished by the victorious power for violation of the rules and customs of war, as the Nazis were punished by various military tribunals and special tribunals after the war.

Oh, and the distinction is fairly easy and clear in practice.

	21-01-2002 01:27									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: If a non-signatory power commits acts that don't meet convention standards, they're not "punished" for not abiding by the Geneva convention, but they can be punished by the victorious power for violation of the rules and customs of war, as the Nazis were punished by various military tribunals and special tribunals after the war.

That's my problem. Doing that is punishing a nation or a person for actions that weren't illegal according to the standards that nation or person went by, or was forced to go by. The Nazis in WW2 were only one example - there was no basis for punishing any of the Nazis, as their actions were perfectly legal according to German law, and punishing them is in effect telling them they should have taken another action that could have resulted in their imprisonment or death, which is making a moral judgement for another, when you didn't have to make that same judgement yourself. It's preposterous.

	21-01-2002 01:30									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Three cheers for moral relativism.

	21-01-2002 01:30									#72
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The only point I would like to make is that we Americans are supposed to set an example of conduct, as are all other nations.
If we treat others like human-beings... theoretically we will be treated the same. Take an example from Shakespeare's, Macbeth. The blood you shed teaches others to shed your blood. Fools who never learn from history, to repeat a cliche, are doomed, in more than one sense, to repeat it.

Also those mother f***ers who have been brain-washed by the term "war on terrorism," it really is best summed up by one word: revenge.

Kiss you blessed golden cow's, Bush's, ass when he gets the whole mother f***ing country blown to bits. I didn't vote for him.

	21-01-2002 01:37									#73
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by poison_flower The only point I would like to make is that we Americans are supposed to set an example of conduct, as are all other nations. If we treat others like human-beings... theoretically we will be treated the same.

Except of course that's BS. Especially when talking about religious fanatics.

	21-01-2002 01:42									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

BS or not... someone has to have some sort of restraint in this situation, and I have yet to see anything, but an incredible blood-thirst.

	21-01-2002 01:53									#75
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by poison_flower BS or not... someone has to have some sort of restraint in this situation, and I have yet to see anything, but an incredible blood-thirst.

What do you mean, "someone has to have restraint"? Has the US gone and executed the suspected terrorists without a trial or something? I was under the impression that half of the reason we're building a new prison facility is to avoid mob justice from being enacted by other inmates.

	21-01-2002 01:54									#76
	Suffering from ads?

Flower thats bullshit. What is inhumane about punishing them for trying to kill us?

Also, what the hell are we doing in guantanomo that violates geneva? There getting fed, get to talk, a sheltr over there head, and there not being beaten!? So there there is 0 wrong with what we are doing.


Set examples? Ya...like in all the wars since WW2 our prisoners have been treated like complete ****!!!!! No matter how good we treat the other side. So dont give me that bullshit!

quote: Kiss you blessed golden cow's, Bush's, ass when he gets the whole mother f***ing country blown to bits. I didn't vote for him.

People like you get this country blown to bits.You *****, Moan about everything...there is nothing wrong with whats going on in guantanomo. 0.....nada.....zilch. So stop trying to find somting wrong, and turn it into a political sword as a reason to justify your dislike of our president and the war on terror.

	21-01-2002 01:58									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

You seem to forget that what is and what can be are two very different things. Mob-mentality has lead to quite a few breaches in the fascade of restrait portrayed by a nation. I see the American blood-thirst as one of the most dangerous forms of mob-mentality to this date.

	21-01-2002 02:02									#78
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Flower thats bullshit. What is inhumane about punishing them for trying to kill us? ... People like you get this country blown to bits.You *****, Moan about everything...there is nothing wrong with whats going on in guantanomo. 0.....nada.....zilch. So stop trying to find somting wrong, and turn it into a political sword as a reason to justify your dislike of our president and the war on terror.

Punishment is different from revenge... all I'm saying is that we need to take a step back, stop believing everything we are told and remember that this nation is run by the richest few, which serve their own best interests, by the way.

Act like a **** be treated like one.

	21-01-2002 02:02									#79
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Your a moron


*looks outside*

There is no lynchmobs and sure as hell no mobs demanding revenge...

So please describe exacty, what the hell you are talking about!? (if you even know )

	21-01-2002 02:04									#80
	Support Apolyton

Am I right in assuming that the people taken to Guantanamo are the real hardcore Al-Qaeda leadership people? And I assume that most of the Al-Qaeda/Taleban grunts have just been handed over to the Alliance?

As most of them are not Afghan, I reckon they're probably better off in US hands than in Alliance hands (who are probably slightly faster in summary justice).

I can't see any problems at all with the treatment. The whole sensory deprivation (ear muffs, blacked out goggles etc) is slightly disconcerting, but if that was only done for the trip and immediately after...

The rest of the procedures are seem to be fairly usual for highrisk, max security prisons. I really don't see what all the fuss is about, they are (or could be) killers and should be treated as such. I wouldn't go as far as saying that the inhumanity of their organisations actions means that they don't deserve some basic human rights, but they shouldn't expect anymore.

	21-01-2002 02:07									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

My point... which you you looked completely over... is that we need to continue to practice restaint, and open our eyes to the motives of our leaders. My other point is that President Bush could very well turn this entire thing into a Roman circus.

	21-01-2002 02:09									#82
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by poison_flower Punishment is different from revenge..

No it isnt..in essence, when a murderer goes to jail, it is a sort-of- state sanctioned punishment!

quote: . all I'm saying is that we need to take a step back, stop believing everything we are told and remember that this nation is run by the richest few, which sereve their own best interests, by the way.

What are they telling us? I dont se Bill Gates, Ted Turner or Donald Trump saying anything? Or am I missin somthing!?



The nation is run bye the richest few!!!!!!



Suppose your going to now tell me that the top 1%, holds 90% of the wealth (Which is complete bullshit btw)

Not that im sticking up for the miesers. But I dont scape-goat them! But Scape goating is alot easier huh?

quote: Act like a **** be treated like one.

Ya and al-aqueda are little ****s that would slit your throat with a sharp rock if you came to close to that cage.

There ****in murderer's....

	21-01-2002 02:09									#83
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Your a moron *looks outside*

By the way, your is not the same thing as you're... and I'm the moron.

	21-01-2002 02:15									#84
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Punishment implies lack of malice. Revenge does not.

There are more rich people in the world than Bill Gates et. al. Take a look at Jonathan Kozol's, Amazing Grace, and then tell me that the rich don't have incredible influence over government.

Murderers should be punished. I fear, however, that American's only seek revenge.

	21-01-2002 02:23									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Murderers should be punished. I fear, however, that American's only seek revenge.

So that means we should release them all because some of us want revenge

Moreover....they arent innocent. Al-Queda members have one sole reasons: To kill people like you and me at any oppurtunity.

quote: There are more rich people in the world than Bill Gates et. al. Take a look at Jonathan Kozol's, Amazing Grace, and then tell me that the rich don't have incredible influence over government.

Weanie scapegoating Like how the Nazi's and Bin Ladin Blamed the Jews for the same thing!

If youlive in a democracy, true influence is the vote. Plain and simple. Rich people only vote once. Ralph Nader didnt lose bcause he didnt have enough money. He lost because nobody liked him.

	21-01-2002 02:30									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

If the USA was like the Romans, and if we were motivated by revenge, several middle eastern cities would vanish in mushroom clouds.

But we're not like the Romans. Or the Russians, come to that. So I suggest you explain what we're doign which violate their human rights.

	21-01-2002 02:30									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Three cheers for moral relativism.

It's not moral relativism. I actually believe in absolute morals. It's saying, for example, "The Holocaust was morally wrong, yet it would also be wrong for us to punish you for it, because it did not violate your laws and we have no moral authority to impose our beliefs and laws upon you."

	21-01-2002 02:31									#88
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat They are "unlawful combatants" - meaning they have no legal status or protections. The fact that they aren't covered under the Geneva Convention does not make them civilians, or any other class of person protected under international law.

What about the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or did they waive those by going to war with america?

	21-01-2002 02:33									#89
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Faeelin and if we were motivated by revenge,

*sniggers*

	21-01-2002 02:34									#90
	Suffering from ads?

"So that means we should release them all because some of us want revenge"

No, but we should examine our motives carefully.

"Weanie scapegoating Like how the Nazi's and Bin Ladin Blamed the Jews for the same thing!"

When a group of people happens to be at fault for systematic inequality is isn't scapegoating. I am simply laying blame where blame is due.

"If youlive in a democracy, true influence is the vote. Plain and simple. Rich people only vote once. Ralph Nader didnt lose bcause he didnt have enough money. He lost because nobody liked him."

The rich may only be able to vote once, but what choice do we have? All we have to choose from is a bunch of sniveling rich-ass opportunists.