EU Calls For Guantanamo "Anomaly" Shutdown

[Elrohir]

Alright then; I was going to end posting in this thread as well. It's clear that neither one of us can comprehend the other's viewpoint; so why bother continuing any longer? We both think we're right, and we're not going to be convinced.

Nice talking with you Fred.

 

[nonconformist]

Source?

Even if that's true, would you admit that the 10% who are not Iraqi's, at least, do not get Geneva Convention protections?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm
And various other sources.
At any one time, there are 20-30,000 people fighting the US.
Of those, a maximum of 3,000 were in Iraq.

As for the remainign 105, the only ocndition thye wouln't be co0vered under i being mercenaries.

That's funny, because I'm sure I could have heard that the vast majority of attacks are not longer shoot-outs, but car bombings instead. Do you have a source about these well-organized openly operating terrorist units? I Googled "Zarqawi Black Squad" and found nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4866118.stm

As a US tank comes into view on a street in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, three fighters in civilian clothes and headscarves aim their weapons and wait. They claim to be part of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"This is a message to America," one insurgent says to the camera.

"Look at your might and power, yet you are unable to walk the streets of Ramadi, which belongs to the mujahideen."

Iraq insurgents
Al-Qaeda insurgents see themselves as challenging US power

He turns back to the tank, which has paused a few blocks away. "I swear by almighty God we will destroy them," the insurgent says.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1006-02.htm

These days, the ominous flag also pops up in a Baghdad neighborhood known for daily shootouts between Islamic militants and American forces. When insurgents burned a U.S. armored vehicle there recently, locals stuffed the black banner in the vehicle's smoldering gun barrel. In an anti-American demonstration not long ago in the northwest city of Samarra, which is now the object of a joint U.S.-Iraqi military offensive, demonstrators carried the al-Zarqawi group's flag in broad daylight through public streets for the first time.

Is the US bombing marketplaces? Are they deliberately killing civilians, or terrorists? I see a difference between dropping a 500-pound bomb on a terrorist, and blowing up a school bus full of kids. One is justice; one is twisted bloodlust.

Yeah, both are pretty indiscriminate.
I do, however, point ou to the figure that only around 5% of Insurgent attacks in Iraq are against Civilians.

And which one would that be? Both are in danger of dying; flying a bomber in combat is hardly a safe vocation.

It is when you've got the most advanced army in the world, with the cruellest weapons, and you're fighting against guys with AKs and rifles.

No, it doesn't. We've gone over this again and again. It does not provide protection for illegal combatants.

Geneva Convention 3, Article 4, Section 6:
"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

If they don't do those things, they are not protected by his clause. It's that simple.

They are protected by that.
I've read Geneva IV (1949), and they are. They act as a cohesive unit, are generally distinguishable, and they most definitely carry arms openly.
They qualify on at least one of these, and aren't mercenaries, and are, as such, legit combattants.

Probably. Neither one of us is going to be convinced; that's obvious. Yet I feel the need to try.


You keep bringing up the idea that they should be tried, which mystifies me. If you recall, I am for the trying of most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Why do you keep trying to convince me of something I already think?


I'm for accepting their basic human rights - I'm not saying they should be tortured, or raped, or beaten, or just shot for the heck of it. I am only saying that they do not receive protections under the Geneva Convention, which they do not.

You probably don't need to quote the full text. The main points are, according to Wikipedia, these:



I don't have any problem with these. Do the ydiffer with what is put forward in the full, actual text? I don't consider my position to be at all against any of these principles; could you enlighten me as to why, believing as I do, these principles are violated?[/QUOTE]

 

[malclave]

Okay, I have to admit the turn of the thread's discussion has confused me.

Are we discussing the people being held in Guantanamo Bay, or the insurgents in Iraq?

 

[nonconformist]

Okay, I have to admit the turn of the thread's discussion has confused me.

Are we discussing the people being held in Guantanamo Bay, or the insurgents in Iraq?

I've no idea, but I've the feeling that for many people they aare but the same.

 

[mdwh]

I am not too familiar with all of the actions of the Afghani Mujaheedeen. Did the respect the laws of war? Did they fight the enemy military, or did they blow up civilian targets?

I wouldn't consider the French Resistance to be terrorists, no. Simply because they, by and large, fought the Germans who had invaded their country, rather than going around and blowing up buses and pizza parlors filled with civilians.

See what I mean? He argues under the undeniable assumptions that we already know them to be terrorists.

The question is not "Were the French Resistance terrorists". The question is, are those in Guantanamo terrorists? This is not known. No evidence has been presented of them "blowing up civilian targets" (indeed, the only ones we know have been doing that is the US, in Iraq). You need a trial in order to convinct them of these accusations.

As far as we know right now, those in Afganistan were also respecting the "laws of war", and fighting the American invaders. To say anything else is pure speculation, with no evidence to support it.

 

[Mr. Do]

This should be the counter-argument? So the pickpocket isn't less vicious than a mass murderer?

Just out of interest, does that argument also hold true towards the actions of the United States, in that rather than attacking a "pickpocket" country like Iraq, merely suspected of having WMD's and enacting some quite bad human rights abuses, it should have attack a "mass murderer" instead, say, North Korea or even China itself, who are both clearly guilty of far worse international crimes than Iraq when it comes to WMD's, human rights violations, lack of democracy etc.?

 

[Winner]

Just out of interest, does that argument also hold true towards the actions of the United States, in that rather than attacking a "pickpocket" country like Iraq, merely suspected of having WMD's and enacting some quite bad human rights abuses, it should have attack a "mass murderer" instead, say, North Korea or even China itself, who are both clearly guilty of far worse international crimes than Iraq when it comes to WMD's, human rights violations, lack of democracy etc.?

As for the North Korea, yes. China is too big (universal argument in the world politics). North Korea's crimes are so terrible, that even the Chinese are concerned.

 

[Mr. Do]

So you do agree that the west should choose its battles, and not just wade in against the worst offenders where there is simply too much to lose. Just like with the EU in this case (And the EU has condemned countries like North Korea and Iran in the past).

 

[Winner]

So you do agree that the west should choose its battles, and not just wade in against the worst offenders where there is simply too much to lose. Just like with the EU in this case (And the EU has condemned countries like North Korea and Iran in the past).

Well, yes, sort of. I think the West should do something only in that cases, where there is a chance of success. It is obvious that China is too big to force it to do what we want, so we need to persuade it by other means.

I just wanted to say that if EU is so lound when it comes to a minor violation of human rights by the US, and turns a blind eye on Cuba, Iran, Russia and so on, it is totally hypocritic and against our interests. We need Americans on our side and you can hardly achieve that if you bash them on every occasion.

If the US started to build forced labour camps and placed hundeds of thousands of people there, then the EU should raise a voice. Otherwise it should focus its attention elsewhere.

And it doesn't have to go too far. EU ministers blocked the Czech proposals to adopt tougher stance on Cuba several times. They want a "dialogue". What kind of "dialogue" can we possibly have when the other side doesn't listen?