"Peter Wiley" wrote
OK, how long, then?
......
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......
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.

You're right. But there guys had a trial back where they were captured.
Their sentance was detention at Gitmo instead of local prison, death or
freedom. They were sent to Gitmo because their trial determined they had
useful information. Once it is extracted they should be hanged.

"DSK" wrote
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?

Those who would otherwise be put to death where they were captured but who
possess information that we need.

Vito wrote:

But there guys had a trial back where they were captured.
Their sentance was detention at Gitmo instead of local prison, death or
freedom. They were sent to Gitmo because their trial determined they had
useful information. Once it is extracted they should be hanged.

Where can I obtain transcripts of these "trials", or are they like
Chinese State trials and secret?

Cheers
Martin

Joe wrote:

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

Indeed it is, from your own post "3. A member of the armed forces of a
Party to the conflict who is a
resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf
of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather
information of military value within that territory shall not be
considered as engaging in espionage..".

Even if the above were not true, nowhere in the Geneva Convention is an
act of combat defined as spying.

Now before you fly of the handle, I don't like what these miscreants
did, or stand for anymore than you, but if you arbitrarely imprison, or
excecute them without due process you become no better than they are.
Even Hitlers henchmen got trials.

Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:12:33 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

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.

Now could you answer the question I asked?

I'm sorry Dave I did.

Cheers
Martin

Now could you answer the question I asked?

I'm sorry Dave I did.


Sorry? For what? You didn't asnwer the question, Martin.


RB

"Capt. Rob" wrote:

Now could you answer the question I asked?

I'm sorry Dave I did.

Sorry? For what? You didn't asnwer the question, Martin.

RB

Go away Bob, your out without your mommy again.

Cheers
Martin

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Fighting out of uniform for an army makes you a spy. The Geneva
convention is very clear on the matter.

Joe


Next time I get into an argument with she-who-must-be-obeyed, I'll
remind her of that.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Dave wrote:



Now could you answer the question I asked?

I'm sorry Dave I did.

No, you engaged in considerable elision, but didn't answer the question. The
question required a simple yes or no answer. I take it that the answer to my
question is no.

Pots and kettles, you chose to parry my question with another, I chose
to by just as evasive.
To borrow from Doug, you first. When did elision move from the
linguists' lexicon to that of the jurist?

Cheers
Martin

"Martin Baxter" wrote
Where can I obtain transcripts of these "trials", or are they like
Chinese State trials and secret?

You can't. They are like Chinese trials, or even worse by US/UK standards.
They may involve a local tribal leader or mullah hearing evidence and
declaring guilt. But they ARE legitimate in accordance with local custom.
Thus those held at Gitmo are convicted criminals according to the law where
they were captured.

As we both know, law in Afghanistan or Iraq or any Muslim country, or France
or Spain or Cuba for that matter, is very different than that in the USA or
UK. If one doesn't like it one shouldn't go to those countries. We are
merely acting a surrogates for the countries where these convicted criminals
were captured because we believe they have info we need. Otherwise, they
should be hanged, shot or beheaded IAW the laws of those countries. US law
does not apply.