Right you are Jon,

Lets set these guys up with a 7-11 store..... or give them
shrimpboats.

Joe

Martin Baxter said:
Is the United States not a member of the United Nations and as such a
signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights?


Yeah, but they had their fingers crossed behind their back when they
signed it.

Dave wrote:
And does that say that when you capture people trying to kill your soldiers
you have to immediately let them go so they can return to the battle field?
I don't think so.

I don't either. And nobody has suggested that... gee, and you accuse me
of setting up a straw man.

Tell me, what category of persons can legally be imprisoned indefinitely
with no due process and no recourse, going solely on the gov't's say-so?
Are you in favor of the US becoming a Stalinist state that creates
"un-persons"?

DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:52:01 -0400, DSK said:

Dave wrote:
This is fairly typical of the muddled thinking one sees in some quarters.

You forgot to accuse the other side of calling names instead of
presenting facts.

Hardly a matter of "forgot." Some of us do apply a bit thinking with the
head before shooting from the lip. Peter hadn't, in the post to which I
responded, engaged in name calling. He had simply been guilty of muddled
thinking.

So..... which bit of muddled thinking was it when you called these
people POW's, then?

PDW

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:10:58 -0400, DSK said:


There is no category of person who can be "held incommunicado
indefinitely."

Straw man, Doug.

OK, how long, then?

A day?

A week?

A month?

A year?

2 years?

3 years?

5 years?

10 years?

At the Govt's pleasure?

You guys have brought back the old pre-Revolutionary French system of
lettres de cachet. Face it, your principles have been tested and found
wanting.

Hicks et al have been locked up, without contact with family, friends,
legal aid of their free choice etc etc for 3 years now. No oversight by
anyone of any independent nature. Even during WW2, the Red Cross got
into the German POW camps. You guys are acting along with the Japanese
& USSR.

Anyone can stick to their principles when the going is easy, and it
doesn't hurt. The acid test comes when things aren't going well. You
guys have failed.

I wouldn't have had the slightest problem if these people had been shot
if/when caught on a battlefield, in possession of arms, any more than I
do about killing the insurgents with arms in Iraq. However, once
captured, you need to deal with them in a civilised manner, not because
*they* are civilised, but because *you* purport to be.

PDW

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:22:58 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

Is the United States not a member of the United Nations and as such a
signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights?

And does that say that when you capture people trying to kill your soldiers
you have to immediately let them go so they can return to the battle field?
I don't think so.


It says everyone is entitled to due process, it does not say you may
invade another country, capture and detain anyone you like without
charge, occupy said country indefinitely, all without formal declaration
of war.


Cheers
Martin

Joe wrote:

I suggest you google up what the Geneva convention says about spies.


Are you suggesting that those captured on Afghan soil are spies?

Cheers
Martin
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:19:09 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

So..... which bit of muddled thinking was it when you called these
people POW's, then?

I don't recall doing so, but perhaps you can identify the message where you
believe I did.

Crawfish followed by a pike!

PDW

Fighting out of uniform for an army makes you a spy. The Geneva
convention is very clear on the matter.

Joe

"DSK" wrote
There is no category of person who can be "held incommunicado
indefinitely."

Spies, pirates, and mutineers caught in the act can be killed on the
spot, but when captured they must also be given due process.

Ahhh, now I see what you missed. These people did get "due process" in the
form of a militry tribunal back in Afghanistan or Iraq. Thats how they ended
up at Gitmo instead of a local prison, being shot, or being set free.

I we houldn't hold them indefinately. We should have been hanging them from
day one.

Vito wrote:
Ahhh, now I see what you missed. These people did get "due process" in the
form of a militry tribunal back in Afghanistan or Iraq. Thats how they ended
up at Gitmo instead of a local prison, being shot, or being set free.


???

Do you have a reference for this?

Even the military supervisors of the Gitmo prison don't know where some
of the captives came from, nor who captured them. Many were handed over
to military custody by clandestine agencies.


I we houldn't hold them indefinately. We should have been hanging them from
day one.


The ones who are given due process, sure. Or stoned, if that's more in
accordance with their own laws.

My problem is that the U.S. gov't is engaging in the practice of simply
imprisoning lots of people without showing any reason why, nor giving
any reasonable proof of guilt, in fact, denying the whole concept of any
accountability in the matter.

A strange thing for a proponent of 'freedom' to do.

DSK