EU Calls For Guantanamo "Anomaly" Shutdown

[betazed]

The appropriate logic extension is that all countries are obliged to treat people in their custody in accordance with the same laws in which they would treat them in their own country.

Why? As I said, to me at least it seems that, if you want to be under the sanctity and protection of US laws, then you must also adhere to a US system (before and after the application of US laws) - which not only has US laws but also US responsibilities. Laws are only one aspect of the system that is part of a bigger whole.

The G-Bay prisoners were not part of the US system to begin with. So why are you asking them to be part of the US law?

The difference between your and my opinion stems from the fact that you are seeing US legal system as a monolithic object that can be applied to anyone. I am unable to see the monolithicness. Rather a I see a whole entangled mesh of legal, societal and political system. You either take the whole thing (with all its advantages and disadvantages) or you don't take anything.

What is your logic of cherry-picking out just the legal system?

Your argument seems more like a moral argument to me on the lines - "since you have responsibility of these people treat them well". My argument is not against the morality. All I am saying is that the reason that you are using to justify that morality is not entirely sound.

Read my post to elhorir, and see that whenever someone is under a US adinistered area, than he/she has the duty to observe US laws, and US has the prerrogative of applying it's penalties, under the scope of such laws.

I read your post and I agree that when a person is under US law he should be treated under US law. But were the G-bay prisoners under US law when they were captured (for whatever reasons)? {They are now, so whatever crimes they commit now should be treated with US laws} But whatever they did (or did not do) in the warzone did not come under US laws because the warzone was not under US laws at that point in time. So how can you ask for US jurisdiction for those actions?

Indeed, International institutes is the issue in here.

Indeed. An international court handling the cases under international law (and not US law) seems perfectly logical.

 

[bathsheba666]

Indeed. An international court handling the cases under international law (and not US law) seems perfectly logical.

A neat get out, since the US appears not to recognise International Law - except when it suits them.

 

[bathsheba666]

Untill the EU is ready to invade the US and make it close Gitmo it can collectivly kiss our rosey red arse. This goes for the EU its supream courts and the UN.

Not that I'm proposing it, but can't we invade Gitmo and close it down?
The US is quick to point out Gitmo isn't US territory, so I assume it shouldn't care.

 

[betazed]

A neat get out, since the US appears not to recognise International Law - except when it suits them.

I was not intending in any way for it to be a "get out" but I appreciate the irony.

It gets harder everyday to argue for the US on any issue.

 

[SSG Paul]

I'm a USian who hangs my head low every time I hear the word Gitmo. What a stain on the US in the eyes of the world and many (perhaps most?) USians.

But, the question comes up. What exactly do we do with suspected terrorists captured in foreign countries? I didn't think it was legal to try them in US courts. An interntional court would be good for me, but undoable since the US won't allow their own to be tried internationaly. POW status does not work because a POW is typically esay to ID as a foreign soldier due to their uniform, of course, terrorists don't wear uniforms.

 

[bathsheba666]

but how come they arent upset about all the other gulags around the world, that in comparison make Guantanamo look like an amusement park?

Not sure either suggestion is accurate.

It's very simple really.
You expect third world conditions and immorality in immoral third-world countries.

You don't expect it in supposedly moral first world countries.
You're held to higher standards.

Part of the raison d'etre of an international community is to raise standards.
That's difficult enough without the supposed standard bearer deciding to join the barbarians.

 

[nonconformist]

Yea, I know. That article stated alot of heavy handed torture and abuse that goes on at Guantanamo. For example:

"'special interrogation techniques', including methods involving sexual humiliation, 'water boarding', 'short shackling' and using dogs to induce fear."

The horror .
5th damn EDIT: Here is the definitions of water boarding and short shackling.
This is a psychological technique and not really a physical one. It's going to be banned soon by the US anyways.
Wow, they're shackled to the floor and forced to sit for a couple of hours.

All of which were pretty standard torture techniques used by the Gestapo, KGB/NKVD, and VietMinh.

In fact, probably more people in the USSR confessed to "crimes" (and therefore were going to be executed/put in gulags) as a result of sleep deprivation than the use of any other torture.

Congratulations, you have become your worst enemy.

 

[FredLC]

I read your post and I agree that when a person is under US law he should be treated under US law. But were the G-bay prisoners under US law when they were captured (for whatever reasons)? {They are now, so whatever crimes they commit now should be treated with US laws} But whatever they did (or did not do) in the warzone did not come under US laws because the warzone was not under US laws at that point in time. So how can you ask for US jurisdiction for those actions?

The alternatives would be to treat them by their own legal code, by the code of the country they were captures, or set them free in legal vacuum.

And this is the point I want to come across - a legal vacuum means impossibility to punish, not a free pass to punish at will by the state. When a crime is commited and no law exists that apply to it, what should be done is start procedures to the creation of such law, not punishments arbitrarily lined out by the executive.

Indeed. An international court handling the cases under international law (and not US law) seems perfectly logical.

While I agree with that, this is not exactly what i meant. Looks like I'm gonna have make some explanations on iternational law here, but this will have to wait for later - Brazil will soon make it's first WC game, and I'm off to watch.

Regards .

 

[blackheart]

What the hell is an illegal combatant? If they're illega, then why aren't they tried for their crimes?

And why are we (America) denying basic judicial rights to ANYONE, regardless of their nationality or what they have done? Have we gone back to the 1800s now where due process is pick and choose, or are we in the 21st century where equality has been fought for, for all people. This is especially ironic when the government preaches about spreading democracy and liberty when it is denying those very things to people held in its own facilities.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Not sure either suggestion is accurate.

It's very simple really.
You expect third world conditions and immorality in immoral third-world countries.

Agreed, but, even though I believe Guantanamo is criminal, and a new disgrace, comparable to our Japanese internment camps in WW2, I also know that these prisoners are not being held in conditions comparable to gulags in third world countries.

Part of the raison d'etre of an international community is to raise standards.
That's difficult enough without the supposed standard bearer deciding to join the barbarians.

I think its important for everyone to remember that Bush was only appointed President by the Supreme Court in 2000. He'll be gone in two years (so they say, personally, I doubt it). America is bigger than Bush, its better than Bush.

 

[amadeus]

How many divisions has the EU?

 

[IglooDame]

How many divisions has the EU?

Enough to make it a lot more of an interesting fight than, say, US vs Iraq or US vs Somalia.

 

[jameson]

[in response to rmsharpe]

"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing." ..."

You know the end-times are near when random lines from favourite novels and movies end up being bizzarrely appropriate.

The US has no moral superiority anymore; it's just another random power throwing its weight around never mind who or what gets in the way. Happy now ?

 

[nonconformist]

How many divisions has the EU?

I think a much more relevant question would be "How many people willing to drive airplanes into buildings on American soil are there?".

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I think a much more relevant question would be "How many people willing to drive airplanes into buildings on American soil are there?".

Isn't that great logic how we got into this situation in the first place?

Intresting little fact not many realize or bring up. Every insurgent in the region can be legally shot on site by a military officer of the ocupation force as a spy or sabatour. Yes, that is what men in black pajamas count as. I personally think Gitmo does have to go and the military trials need to start.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

He is right, and if he succeeds, there will indeed be less evil people in the UN

You know from someone of your intelligance I expect a bit more Steph, really.

 

[jameson]

Isn't that great logic how we got into this situation in the first place?

Intresting little fact not many realize or bring up. Every insurgent in the region can be legally shot on site by a military officer of the ocupation force as a spy or sabatour. Yes, that is what men in black pajamas count as.

Sure, but almost 60% of the Gitmo detainees are not accused of committing any kind of hostile action against the US; they're accused of 'associating with' the enemy (from the Seton Hall study based on US Army data made public so far on the Gitmo detainees).

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Sure, but almost 60% of the Gitmo detainees are not accused of committing any kind of hostile action against the US; they're accused of 'associating with' the enemy

Associating by holding onto a rpk, a few ak's and some arty shells in your mudhut basement for Mohammed when he comes by to pick them up is a hostile act in my mind, even if they did lack the balls to put on there black pj's and come get some.

Start the tirbunials and deal with them or start dealing with them in the field

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Deal with them in the field then. Youre actually telling me you think holding a couple hundred guys in Guantanamo actually makes a difference in this goddam war on 'terror'? We're dealing with millions here.

 

[Mr. Do]

Why? As I said, to me at least it seems that, if you want to be under the sanctity and protection of US laws, then you must also adhere to a US system (before and after the application of US laws) - which not only has US laws but also US responsibilities. Laws are only one aspect of the system that is part of a bigger whole.

The G-Bay prisoners were not part of the US system to begin with. So why are you asking them to be part of the US law?

I'm not, but when the US detains someone, then they are, by definition, whether you or I like it or not. And of course, the US are detaining people based on their own system- I sincerely doubt that in Afghanistan it is a crime to resist the invasion of a foreign power, is it?

By being removed from whatever society they are a part of and placed in US custody, it dopesn't matter a jot where they come from, they still deserve the human rights that international or US law says they deserve. I'm sorry, but your logic makes zero sense; if you think that the US legal system can only apply to one group and is not flexible to deal with others place into it, then you are the one seeing it as a monolithic body, not me.

And of course, I agree that an international court would be best for these matters. Let me know when you convince the administration that such a court should be listened to, please, but until then I'll stick with the, "human rights apply to humans even if they're illegal combatants" thingy.