This Gitmo Bullshit - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
June 20th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

Ok, so this means the US soldiers in Afghanistan that are out of uniform wearing the clothes of local Afghantzi's are terrorists.

And what about when the terrorist is a member of a country's legitimate armed forces or police? Your definition is not so handy then.

No, I did not call American troops baby killers, read it again.

And if you convict these defendants in a court of law then punish them accordingly but holding them in limbo is immoral. They were disappeared, not informed of the charges against them and have been allowed no contact with anyone. Would you like to switch places with them? Doubtful, you'd be screaming about your human rights and your legal rights. Mistakes happen. Even in the US legal system people are wrongfully accused and then convicted and serve time for crimes they did not commit. What makes you think that somehow now when it comes to suspected terrorists this system is suddenly infallible?
June 20th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
I'm pretty sure those "people" aren't there because they were handing flowers to american soldiers. As someone said the geneva convention doesn't apply to these "people."

Incase some of you are not familiar with what the Geneva convention actually states.

Part 1 Article 4 section 2

"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "

source - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

As you can see the insurgents in iraq or any terriost for that matter or any supporters of insurgents, meet none of these conditions.
I don't believe in the use of torture to extract information though, because it is usually false. This waste american resources in hunting down false leads thats given just to make the torture stop.
As much as this pains me to say maybe the key is to offer a ticket home for correct intelligence, and maybe asylum in the US for something such as turning Osama.
It seems that you are the one that is not familiar with the Geneve Convention. You should have quoted the all article 4, here it goes:

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. I think that this is clear enough!!!
June 20th, 2005  
implicature
 
 

Topic: Re: This Gitmo bullsh*t


Quote:
Originally Posted by silent driller
It's probably in some other forum, but I think this is political so I'm putting mine here. What the f**k is the liberal left trying to do here with this Gitmo distraction? All this about us big bad Americans mistreating some terrorist sand creature by not letting him take a piss and not having the room at just the right temperature and making him listen to rap music as forms of torture? WOW. Big f***ing deal! Nevermind the fact that this guy and his cohorts wouldn't hesitate to cut off heads off civilian contractors or drag thier freshly burned bodies and hang them from a bridge. Nevermind all the IED's he might have set up or helped to set up. Nevermind the fact that he might be the 20th hijacker. And nevermind the fact that he may have information on the world's most wanted terrorist. BUT GOD FORBID WE DENY POOR LITTLE TERRORIST MAN A CHANCE TO GO PEE PEE! People need to grow the f**k up and quit whining about Gitmo. Come off it, guys.

well it is such a touchy thing and at the same time it depends on the person standing in front of you. i don't know what the word is in USMCJROTC but thus far in my training i am constantly being reminded that Marines are profesionals. Marines are constantly being looked at and analyzed. No matter where Marines go they will always be analyzed and it is pretty much true with all the us forces in general. all of the arguments in this topic agree on one thing and that is IT ISN'T WHAT YOU DO ITS WHO DOES IT. so keep in mind there are different rules for all players.
--
Boots
June 20th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Quote:
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. I think that this is clear enough!!!
Ok, first of all Iraq is an occupied country, we have been there for several years time and there is a government set up, I believe that qualifys as "occupied." If your stating these insurgents follow the laws of war... that is quite frankly laughable. I don't consider suicide bombers blowing up restaurants full of women and children, either obeying the laws of war or carrying arms openly.
June 20th, 2005  
implicature
 
 

Topic: It just hit me!


holy crap i knew that GITMO looked way too familiar to me...

My apoligies

in Boot camp we had a diddy to remember the five major battles of WWII..

G- guadalcanal
I- Iwo Jima
T- Tarawa
M- Midway
O- Okinawa
June 20th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 

Topic: Re: This Gitmo bullsh*t


Quote:
Originally Posted by silent driller
It's probably in some other forum, but I think this is political so I'm putting mine here. What the f**k is the liberal left trying to do here with this Gitmo distraction? All this about us big bad Americans mistreating some terrorist sand creature by not letting him take a piss and not having the room at just the right temperature and making him listen to rap music as forms of torture? WOW. Big f***ing deal! Nevermind the fact that this guy and his cohorts wouldn't hesitate to cut off heads off civilian contractors or drag thier freshly burned bodies and hang them from a bridge. Nevermind all the IED's he might have set up or helped to set up. Nevermind the fact that he might be the 20th hijacker. And nevermind the fact that he may have information on the world's most wanted terrorist. BUT GOD FORBID WE DENY POOR LITTLE TERRORIST MAN A CHANCE TO GO PEE PEE! People need to grow the f**k up and quit whining about Gitmo. Come off it, guys.
The only thing that is disturbing me is the unnecessary vulgar language usage. I do agree that there are some things that Liberals would find anything virtually any kind of evidence, ridiculous or not, to support their arguements. Since you live in a Country that allows its own citizens to excercise freedom of speech, I understand your anger. But unforunately there are other prisoner abuses that brings worldwide attention rather than "forcing them to listen to rap music, not letting them piss, and other minor issues."
June 21st, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
Quote:
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. I think that this is clear enough!!!
Ok, first of all Iraq is an occupied country, we have been there for several years time and there is a government set up, I believe that qualifys as "occupied." If your stating these insurgents follow the laws of war... that is quite frankly laughable. I don't consider suicide bombers blowing up restaurants full of women and children, either obeying the laws of war or carrying arms openly.
Rabs, I hate to belabor the obvious but there are NO suicide bombers being held in Camp Delta. 8)
These are people ACCUSED of a crime, not convicted, in most cases they haven't even been charged or informed of the charges against them. They are not allowed access to the evidence upon which the charges are being made in order to prepare a defence. That flies in the face of over 200 years of US law. In the US there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The days of the wild west ended over a hundred years ago and America professes to be a country that abides by the rule of law. It is time for them to stand tall and deliver in practice what they profess to the world.
June 21st, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
Quote:
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. I think that this is clear enough!!!
Ok, first of all Iraq is an occupied country, we have been there for several years time and there is a government set up, I believe that qualifys as "occupied." If your stating these insurgents follow the laws of war... that is quite frankly laughable. I don't consider suicide bombers blowing up restaurants full of women and children, either obeying the laws of war or carrying arms openly.
Afghanistan
June 21st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Rabs wrote
Quote:
Ok, first of all Iraq is an occupied country, we have been there for several years time and there is a government set up, I believe that qualifys as "occupied." If your stating these insurgents follow the laws of war... that is quite frankly laughable. I don't consider suicide bombers blowing up restaurants full of women and children, either obeying the laws of war or carrying arms openly.
Well, it was not ocuppied when you arrived. By your estatement I deduced that US troops always follows the rules of war, just like in Abu Ghraib. Remember that the use of ammunition loaded with uranium, the use of fragmentary bombs and many other toys are also forbidden by international law.
June 21st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
I founded some interesting info:

The interrogation methods:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...7/02.12.02.pdf

Read all, but pages 12-14 are very interesting.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...7/03.04.16.pdf

Now we will check the definition of torture according to UN Convention against torture:

Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application


I guess that for you staying in a POW for 4 years with someone yelling at you the all day, sleeping 3 hours a days, with dogs barking at you (if not biting), with constant privation of food/water, with sensorial privation, with constant use of anoying sounds at a great volume and lots more entertaiments is not enough to define it as torture. I do not know you, but I will go nuts in one sigle week.