 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Why should the US release CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION just to satisfy the whims of people who don't even have the law on their side?
|
Because a fair trial precludes intelligence info. I have yet to see proof of claims that such evidence is critical intelligence.
quote:
But it is the right thing to do
|
Castro is an idiot and a coward, but he's not quite that dumb.
quote:
You don't get it do you? If you are in a war zone and you have a weapon in your possession then you can legally be considered a combatant.
|
But they must prove that they are unlawful combatants, and then try them for the crimes committed while under that status. So far, the US has done neither, except spuriously claim the former to be true.
quote:
Being on the battlefield, with weapons, is not enough for you?
|
Prove it! Theres no evidence of that, certainly none that will stand up in a court of law.
Lets not forget that these people are human first, possibly terrorists later. I disagree with the US and sympathise with the Arabs, does that make me a terrorist? 
quote:
There was an executive decision to label anybody belonging to Al Qaeda an unlawful combatant.
|
So not only have they failed to show that they are unlawful combatants, they have failed to show they are Al Qaeda members, and they have failed to show they are guilty of supposed crimes for which they are incarcerated now!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Because a fair trial precludes intelligence info. I have yet to see proof of claims that such evidence is critical intelligence. |
STUPID. If they tell you what it is, don't you think that would get rid of the entire point of keeping it secret?!
quote:
But they must prove that they are unlawful combatants, and then try them for the crimes committed while under that status. So far, the US has done neither, except spuriously claim the former to be true. |
No, the Geneva convention says they DON'T have to prove it.
quote:
Prove it! Theres no evidence of that, certainly none that will stand up in a court of law. |
Again, THEY DON'T HAVE TO!
quote:
So not only have they failed to show that they are unlawful combatants, they have failed to show they are Al Qaeda members, and they have failed to show they are guilty of supposed crimes for which they are incarcerated now!! |
They haven't proved to YOU. What makes you so special, that you must pass judgement on anything before it is true?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Firstly.. WHY???
|
How about your backyard instead?
They're not lawful combatants. The fact that we didn't summarily execute them means we've already gone beyond what is required.
quote:
Secondly... Why not ordinary civilian courts? Isn't there double standards when the only American citizen there is tried under civilian juries etc? Also the two British guys up for trial there look like they have some hope, though the Americans don't want the same legal opportunities given to the rest of the prisoners. Why not?
|
See above. They are unlawful combatants. They are not being held for "ordinary civilian" crimes, and they have no right to access to "ordinary civilian" courts. The reason the Brit citizen ******* prisoners are getting any slack at all is because we tossed Blair a bone.
quote:
Thirdly, and this takes the form of a question as much as anything else. I would like to know what people think about the presumption of innocence before guilt. I agree with it very strongly of course, but hearing other arguments is interesting.
|
If you arrest someone in their home, it's a bit different than capturing an armed guy in a war zone. There's no "presumption of innocence" at all - it's a presumption of "guilty of what?" We didn't bother with the transport of the aforementioned *******s for sport, or because we had a bunch of empty transport plains deadheading to Gitmo. These represent a small portion of those captured during combat operations, and subsequently interrogated. The vast majority of prisoners were either released, or held by the Afghani government and never shipped over to Gitmo.
quote:
Fourthly and on a slightly different note, Bush said that "these are bad people", referring to the two British men up for trial, and presumably the rest of the inmates. This of course either demonstrates that they are pretty much condemned, or that Bush is irrationally jumping to conclusions, or that he is operating on fallacious, absolutist principles of good and bad, without evidence to make those assumptions, pretty much except that these men were at the wrong place at the wrong time, thus got arrested in Afghanistan.
|
Well, you can say anyone who got arrested was obviously in the wrong place at the wrong time , but that doesn't address what they did before getting caught. Are you trying to claim these were innocent tourists? The evidence of their training with an avowed jihadi organization which has declared itself at war with the western world, plus their being captured in combat operations and security sweeps subsequent to those operations kind of makes the innocent tourist angle dicey.
quote:
Fifthly, to those that support Guantanamo, why? Isn't fair trials, innocence before guilt, and adherence to the spirit and letter of international conventions that the US signs up to, enshrined in your constitution? IMO, being patriotic at best is being loyal to that constitution, not to Bush or irrational sentiment based as much on revenge as anything else. Perhaps some of the arguments for Camp X-ray or whatever its called would be interested, because I may be missing something... |
(a) Warfighting is an executive branch business (since the President is also Commander in Chief) and is not otherwise regulated by the Constitution.
(b) Unlawful combatants are not entitled to the status of EPW's, let alone to procedural rights enshrined in combatant nations criminal law systems. Their rights (such as they are) are very limited.
(c) Until I see some indication that there are serious defects in the form and makeup of these military tribunals, I'm not concerned with them being used for non-US citizen unlawful combatants detained in combat operations overseas. US citizens clearly have a different set of rights and obligations, and individuals arrested by law enforcement authorities in connection with non-warfighting criminal acts are a different story.
IF the military tribunals follow the form and general rules of US general court-martials, they they're procedurally as good for all practical purposes as the US Federal court system.
All that aside, I'm not really a big fan of Camp X-ray, as it seems inordinately expensive. I hope we've managed to extract as much intel of value as possible, because otherwise, it's a fairly big waste. Straightforward summary tribunals and summary execution back in Afghanistan would have been much easier and cheaper, and perfectly legal too, so don't complain too much about what these *******s have gotten so far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
Ah I cant be arsed to read the whole thing, read this...
http://www.llrx.com/features/ustreaty.htm
"B. U.S. Treaties and Agreements
"Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls 'the supreme Law of the Land.' Yet, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law."1 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty "as an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation."2 Under United States law, however, there is a distinction made between the terms treaty and executive agreement. "In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate' (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as 'executive agreements' in the United States."3 Generally, a treaty is a binding international agreement and an executive agreement applies in domestic law only. Under international law, however, both types of agreements are considered binding. Regardless of whether an international agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc.; if it is submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, it is considered a treaty under United States law."
In other words, supreme law of the land (geneva and UN, as I believe the senate consented.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-07-2003 04:47
Read the thing.
|