This Gitmo Bullshit - Page 6




 
--
Boots
 
July 4th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
That's most likely one of the reasons he was detained by the U.S.; he broke international law/engaged in terroristic activities/what have you. So we rolled him up, but as far as national law goes, I don't think that he can be charged successfully with committing an act that under the new government is a NATIONAL crime but that under the government existing when that act was carried out was not considered a crime by that government. Same general principle as the Nazi war criminals, the heinous acts they committed were not criminal under Hitler's government.
I openly wonder why if your point is true he was turned over to a Kuwaiti court rather than the International Court for breaking international law?
July 4th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Number 1: Article 4 of the GC describes a context: "provided that they act according to the rulesand costums of war". they never did, so article 4 does not apply.

Number 2: International Law. If it was for that Saddam would be still mass-murdering his own people and thanks to International Law the genocide in Sudan is not considered to be a genocide.

Hence: the US should verify that its own constitution is respected. Now where and how does Camp Delta infringe the US Constitution? What has the Supreme Court say about that?

(how many people are detained in Gitmo? are they all from Afghanistan? What percentage of them has had a trial so far?)
IG, the respect of customs of war is a very subjetive term. When allies bombs hit civilian aeras they are also breaking the customs of war, when they use cluster bombs next to civilian areas they are also breaking them, the use of depleted uranium also breaks many principles(not laws)....I think we can state that in armed conflicts the customs of war are partialy or completely ignored, basically due to the preocupation of the military to their soldiers and not to the civilian population. In the Depleted Uranium threat a member of the USAF said it clearly, check it.
July 6th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Redneck, one point that got missed as this thing has lumbered along was my comment about shutting Camp Delta down. What I meant was not that you turn all these prisoners free and we all go drink tea under the peace tree... rather shut it down, move them to a facility taking into account the rather heated international criticism and establish a new camp that is above reproach. Its got a bad name. It is in a definite grey area legally but the purpose was honourable. My suggestion is to meld the intention with the criticism from abroad and build a better mousetrap.
--
Boots
July 6th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
And you think the new camp would not be attacked just as vigorously or as irrationally? It doesn't matter where the detention facility is or what you call it, people will be up in arms about it because the very existence of a terrorist playpen somehow feeds into their political and social agendas.
July 6th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
See my post "LARK Program" in jokes section.