Flown to Guantanamo Bay, which is technically foreign territory, the detainees from Afghanistan have no rights under the U.S. constitution and cannot appeal to US federal courts. Any rights they might have under international law have been firmly denied. According to Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees "will be handled not as prisoners of war, because they are not, but as unlawful combatants." The Geneva convention makes it clear that anyone detained in the course of an armed conflict is presumed to be a POW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise. Our unilateral determination is highly convenient, since the 1949 Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war stipulates that POWs can only be tried by "the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the detaining power". The US seems to be aiming at prosecuting at least some of the detainees in special military commissions having looser rules of evidence and a lower burden of proof than regular military or civilian courts. That issue aside, these men have basic human rights. is a violation of the 1984 convention against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Forcefully shaving off their beards is a violation of the right to human dignity under the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights. Forcefully sedating a detainee for non-medical reasons violates international law. Yes, strict security arrangements are important in dealing with potentially dangerous individuals, but none of these measures are necessary to achieving that goal. It is most important that human rights be honored when governments are most tempted to violate them, else they are worthless. The United States has claimed the moral "high ground" since September 11, and benefited enormously from so doing. Ignoring even some of the rights of those detained in Guantanamo Bay squanders this intangible but invaluable asset. The violations in Guantanamo Bay will also undermine the ability of our government to ensure adequate treatment the next time American citizens are captured and held. But the fact that this violation of Geneva Convention standards will likely come back to haunt us is of little concern to the people making these decisions. They will not face military tribunals in foreign countries. Peace.
goofyfish ... You're missing the obvious: How could they be P.O.W.s when their country was too poor to provide them with uniforms? Ergo: "Unlawful Combatants" Hmmmm ... Too bad the CIA didn't provide them with uniforms when they were fighting the Soviets instead of just Stinger missles and AK-47s. Hmmmm ... Did wearing black pajamas make the V.C. "Unlawful Combatants"? Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Prison camp photos spark protests I think they deserve better,like a swim every day in the sea out there! (it's shark infested). Don't forget these people were brutal in the extreme,even to their own people. A woman would get a beating if just a bit of her skin was showing. America you are treating them TO NICE. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
IMO, these people gave up their rights when they joined such a ruthless and inhumane group as the Taliban. I doubt they respected the rights of the people in Afganistan when they murdered so many of them. I doubt they were respecting the rights of American citizens when they demolished the World Trade Center. In my view, they do not deserve even the most basic rights after what they have done in the past. From what I have heard though, they will not be tortured. The American military will simply tell them "If you don't tell us what we want to know, we'll put you in the general prison population and tell them who you are and what you did." Because you are right in one respect, I don't think America has the right to torture anyone. NA has grown too soft on criminals and terrorists. I say if you're part of a terrorist organization you just lost any and all rights you may have in any governing bodies legislature.
Who are you, or I, or Mr. Rumsfield or any other person to unilaterally declare that an individual has no rights BEFORE it has been proven that the INDIVIDUAL in question is guilty of a crime. Do you know that any of the men in that camp participated in the attack on the world trade center? Do you know that any of them ever beat a woman? No, you cannot. The United States is nation of laws. Canada is nation of laws. The United Kingdom is nation of laws. Afghanistan is the way it is because the world lost interest in the region once the Soviet Union was forced out. The Taliban filled the power vacuum that was left. The world was totally unconcerned about the brutality of this government until the spotlight was thrown upon it after September 11th, 2001. Where was your concern for the plight of these women in 1999? In 1993? Before? It is appalling to me that people who grow up with law can so casually accept it when the very instrument that protects them is cast aside on a whim. "They do not deserve even the most basic rights..." Sound just a bit like theTaliban, don't you think? Peace.
All those brought back to America as "Unlawful Combatants" participated in the Taliban. The Taliban not only supress freedoms and harbored terrorists, but they are responsible for the murder of thousands of Afghans. It does not sound one bit like the Taliban, as they were denying rights to innocent people. Members of the Taliban, or Al-Qeada, are not innocent people any longer. That is the huge difference between their denyal of rights and the denyal of rights we should be imposing on them. Basically, if they don't give a shit about innocent people's rights and freedoms, why should we extend them that curtousy?
And again I say to you: who has decided that the men being detained are not innocent? What court or jury has established this? I must have missed it. Gut reaction to violence, particularly violence on the scale we are discussing is natural. It can also lead to a mob mentality of "string 'em up!" which makes us no better than those we accuse. It is for that reason that we must pause and allow a system of laws determine who is guilty. Peace.
The bottom line is, we need to send a message to all terrorist organizations in the world. By giving them the same rights as a normal US citizen, you aren't sending a message at all. It will be a sad day indeed when terrorists start to realize they can kill thousands of innocent people and still have the same rights as your average Joe.
In fact, we ARE sending a message to the entire world: Laws only apply when they are convenient to us. Send a message to terrorists? I absolutely agree with you. But one final time, the point you continue not to address... who has weighed the evidence and found these detainees guilty of terrorism? Peace.
Did they, Odin? If so, that makes them prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva Convention. If not, what is their crime, and who has established their guilt? In either case their continued detention is unlawful. Peace.
prisoners of war How does that make them prisoners of war???? In WW1 & WW11 if a soldier had no uniform then he would be shot as a spy. Maybe they should all be shot then! Shooting at soldier's does not make one a soldier!
Geneva Convention Also under the Geneva Convention,they are only able to ask for name rank & serial number. So if the next plane crash is going to be in Maryland.I think you will say they should have asked them before they bombed ME. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: prisoners of war We invade their country, and you believe that lack of uniform makes them a spy? And if I were to concede the point, and they are not prisoners of war, what code of law would you have them fall under? As for your second post, I have no idea what you mean, sorry. Peace.
Surley they are Arabs that were not in there country. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also under the Geneva Convention,they are only able to ask for name rank & serial number. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You mean you do not understand the above!
Were they? Or are you fishing? Has the US detailed the nationalities of these men, or merely lumped them together as "Taliban fighters and members of al Qaeda?" As far as your "name, rank and serial number comment" the treaty is slightly more complicated than that (see Part III, Section 2, Article 17 ). In any case, detained individuals must be treated in accordance with laws, ours or those of the international community, or we are no better then those we accuse. America doesn't guarantee a fair trial to any defendant because he "deserves" it. America protects the rights of even the most despised defendants because in doing so, we protect the rights of all. We do it because we are not some Middle Eastern or Latin American dictatorship where people are dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and never heard from again. Peace.
America doesn't guarantee a fair trial to any defendant because he "deserves" it. America protects the rights of even the most despised defendants because in doing so ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So what are you worried about,its America that has them! Or is the above statment rubbish!
I fully understand your position goofy, and under normal circumstances I would agree with you. However, these are not regular circumstances.
