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.

DSK

Dave wrote:
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.

You're just saying that because you don't have an answer to his
statement... the Bush Administration insists that the Gitmo prisoners
are not POWs and refuses to accord them the rights due to such.

All we have is the repeated contention that they are "enemy combatants"
and therefor not due any process whatever.

How can any American can think it's right to simply grab people and
imprison them indefinitely, with no recourse to any legal procedure
whatever?

If they are enemies, then they are accorded the treatment due to
prisoners. If they are terrorists, then they get a trial. If they are
citizens of another country, we owe that gov't a legal process showing
why we are holding them.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
You're just saying that because you don't have an answer to his
statement... the Bush Administration insists that the Gitmo prisoners
are not POWs and refuses to accord them the rights due to such.

All we have is the repeated contention that they are "enemy combatants"
and therefor not due any process whatever.

How can any American can think it's right to simply grab people and
imprison them indefinitely, with no recourse to any legal procedure
whatever?

If they are enemies, then they are accorded the treatment due to
prisoners. If they are terrorists, then they get a trial. If they are
citizens of another country, we owe that gov't a legal process showing
why we are holding them.

You are trying to apply logic to law but law is seldom logical.

The rules say that a 'combatant' captured out of uniform need not be treated
as a POW. He can be shot out of hand, held incommunicado indefinitely, even
killed without trial, as a spy or saboteur. According to Bush, those held at
Gitmo are in this special catagory.

Doug,

If you think the Geneva Convention is a wonderful thing, I don't
understand why you would want to weaken it by implying there's no
advantage to
signing it. Al-Qaida and the talliban do not play by the rules of the
Geneva convention.
The geneva convention that covers the rights of prisoners had it's
standards set by civilized people.

Al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgents defy all the rules enshrined
and symbolized by the Geneva Convention (and, often, the Koran) and yet

administration critics piously demand that these thugs should be given
all
the benefits that come with being a signatory to it.

Well, if the barbarians get all of the benefits of the Geneva
Convention
without obeying any of its rules, then it becomes not merely quaint,
not
merely worthless, but a tool of those who wish to overthrow all it
stands
for.

Joe

If they are enemies, then they are accorded the treatment due to
prisoners.


Dave wrote:
Nice try, but no cigar, Doug. There's no convention dealing with "enemies."
There is one dealing with "prisoners of war." The two are not synonyms.


I didn't claim they were.


Vito wrote:
You are trying to apply logic to law but law is seldom logical.

The rules say that a 'combatant' captured out of uniform need not be treated
as a POW. He can be shot out of hand, held incommunicado indefinitely

Wrong.

... even
killed without trial, as a spy or saboteur. According to Bush, those held at
Gitmo are in this special catagory.


This is a reply to both Vito & Dave.

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. Enemy
soldiers on the battlefield can be killed. Otherwise it's simply murder.

To repeat- I do not comprehend why *any* American thinks it's OK to
simply grab people and lock them up forever, just because it's
convenient for the gov't. It would have been inconcievable to me a few
short years ago that any American would approve of torture of prisoners.

But it's happening. At least we can still sing songs about how brave &
free we are.

DSK

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:00:16 -0400, DSK said:

If they are enemies, then they are accorded the treatment due to
prisoners.

Nice try, but no cigar, Doug. There's no convention dealing with "enemies."
There is one dealing with "prisoners of war." The two are not synonyms.

Now the question is, was your argument evidence of your inability to think
clearly, or the opposite--your ability to manipulate the language to fool
others who don't think clearly.

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?

Cheers
Martin

Joe wrote:

the benefits that come with being a signatory to it.

Well, if the barbarians get all of the benefits of the Geneva
Convention
without obeying any of its rules, then it becomes not merely quaint,
not
merely worthless, but a tool of those who wish to overthrow all it
stands
for.


Joe I think your understanding of the situation is rather puerile, one
cannot call oneself "civilized" and at the same time resort to
barbarianism: The Geneva Conventions apply to situations outside of war.
I suggest you Google up the "Convention against Torture", I'll include a
bit here for you to read:


Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under
its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when
such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles
10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to
torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

Now I remind you that the USA is a signatory to this convention, there
is nothing in this Convention that requires that detainees, of any ilk,
must be from a nation that is also a signatory in order to receive the
protection provided therein.

Cheers
Martin
Joe
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

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

Essentially, under the GC, the captives in Gitmo are spies.

Article 46.-Spies

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this
Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who
falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage
shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be
treated as a spy.

2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on
behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party,
gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as
engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his
armed forces.

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 unless he does so through an act of
false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such
a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war
and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in
espionage.

4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a
resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged
in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status
of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is
captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.


I would welcome a cited excerpt of the GC, saying differently and
describing the type of "warrior" OBL, AQ and fellow
travellers are.

Joe

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Doug,

If you think the Geneva Convention is a wonderful thing, I don't
understand why you would want to weaken it by implying there's no
advantage to
signing it. Al-Qaida and the talliban do not play by the rules of the
Geneva convention.
The geneva convention that covers the rights of prisoners had it's
standards set by civilized people.

The true test of a civilization is not how it treats good and decent
people, but how it treats those who do evil.

Our laws and constitution are designed not for majority rule, but
rather to protect the minority from the majority.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
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.

hmmmm....


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