EU Calls For Guantanamo "Anomaly" Shutdown

[Elrohir]

Your logic is flawed. If a captured insurgent can be but 0 or 1, you are classifying him as ½.

Not at all. A captured enemy can be one of several things: A uniformed soldier, who serves in his nation's armed forces, and fights according to the laws of war. He is a POW, and deserves his rights under the Geneva Convention. Then there is the unconventional, non-uniformed soldier, who has taken up arms in the invasion of his country, and did not have time to organize into official military units, or get a uniform. But he still obeys the laws of war, fights openly, and will join a official military unit when possible. The second group is also afforded Geneva Convention rights.

The terrorists in Iraq fit into neither catagory. They are not uniformed soldiers; but neither do they follow the laws of war or fight openly. Many of them are not even Iraqi's. A third definition must be created for them, that of "illegal combatant".

Is my logic clearer now?

Anyone carrying arms openly, wearing some form of uniform, or fighting as a cohesive unit must be treated as a combattant. It's not an "and" it's an "or".
And unless you have definite proof they're not combattants, you have to treat them as combattants.

Tangentially, I believe that the count the American tribunal is trying t indict Saddam on was perfectly legal under Iraqi law.....

Yep. But the terrorists in Iraq neither carry arms openly, wear a uniform, or fight as a cohesive unit. They are clearly not legal combatants.

They're soldiers, aren't they?

So you see no difference between those who fight the enemies military, and those who deliberately target civilians, and for no reason other than the desire for bloodshed and chaos? How sad.

Interrogation is illegal, except for three pieces of information:
name, rank and serial number.
Solitary confinement is allowed for a maximum of (I believe) of ten days.

Only under the Geneva Convention. And they are not protected under it, so this does not apply.

Elrohir: the entirety of your logic here is flawed, and now i'll tell you why.

There are two reasons:

The first is to assume that having a condition that determines the need of a trial is a privilege, that can be conceded or revoked by an enemy power.

It's not!!! Simply put, all people are inherently civilians, and can only be arrested under civilian regulations. Period.

When one of these civilians happens to join an army, he/she surrenders his/her civilian condition, and enters a military condition - a situation in which he/she will be judged by a military court in case of wrongdoing related to the service.

there is no alternative to this.. So, an "illegal combatent" IS a CIVILIAN, and fully entitled the guarantees of a civilian trial whenever he/she does wrong.

You are incorrect. Some people are fighters, some are civilians. In wartime, there is a legal difference between them. In war, if you bomb an enemy base that is acceptable. If you bomb an enemy city with civilians in it (Unless there is a military target you must reach inside the city ) it is not. An "illegal combatant" is not a civilian; he is an illegal combatant. There is a difference.

When I say what I say, I'm as much worried with the whole and spirit of the US in this situation as I am with innocents that might have been arrested by you. Remember the old saying - when fighting a monster, be careful not to become one yourself.

So far, your administration is being rather careless...

Regards .

There is a difference between locking someone in a dark cell for a few days, and sawing their heads off with a dull knife as they scream for the camera. We've a long way to go before we are nearly as bad as the terrorists we are fighting; thank you for your concern though.

 

[nonconformist]

The terrorists in Iraq fit into neither catagory. They are not uniformed soldiers; but neither do they follow the laws of war or fight openly. Many of them are not even Iraqi's. A third definition must be created for them, that of "illegal combatant".

The majority of those in Iraq, close to 90% ARE Iraqis.

Yep. But the terrorists in Iraq neither carry arms openly, wear a uniform, or fight as a cohesive unit. They are clearly not legal combatants.

Au contraire, not only do they carry their arms openly (Zarqawi's Black Squads not only caryr their weapons openly, na dwear uniforms to instill fear into the local populations of alrge towns, but also line the highways they control with their black flags), and most do fight as cohesive untis with rigid command structure.

So you see no difference between those who fight the enemies military, and those who deliberately target civilians, and for no reason other than the desire for bloodshed and chaos? How sad.

Is there any difference between a person ramming a car into a crowded marketplace, and one who bombs a marketplace from 20,000 feet?
The only difference I see is one of them has the balls to die for that cause.

Only under the Geneva Convention. And they are not protected under it, so this does not apply.

Yes they are. Geneva provides protection for everyonbe in a combat zone, except for mercenaries.
Civilians, the wounded, and partisans are all protected.

Thankyou, please come again.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

So much crap in this thread.
Even it is technically legal (well, not on US territory), it is still immoral.
Constitutions and international treaties aren't worth the paper they are printed on if they can be bypassed so easily.

 

[FredLC]

You are incorrect. Some people are fighters, some are civilians. In wartime, there is a legal difference between them. In war, if you bomb an enemy base that is acceptable. If you bomb an enemy city with civilians in it (Unless there is a military target you must reach inside the city ) it is not. An "illegal combatant" is not a civilian; he is an illegal combatant. There is a difference.

Man, it's hopeless.

You want to call these people illegal combatants? Fine! Call them that. I'm tired of disputing definitions.

Nonetheless, "illegal combatants" or not, they should be tried, because that is a right of all human beings.

There is no law concerning them, as you seen to believe? No excuse for not giving them a trial. Legal thinking have a long time ago dealt with vaccums in legal systems. They should be tried by analogy, adopting the rules of whatever group is the least very different of them.

In this case, as you set apart fighters - whoever bear any weapons - from civilians - whoever don't - analogy would demand giving them the treatment of soldiers up until proper legislation is elaborated.

Elrohir, it's like this: no human group is devoided of rights, specifically, the right to "due process of law". None at all!!!. Anyone who deprives human beings from basic human rights do so in violation of national and international laws - be them the terrorists themselves, or your government. That is the absolute truth behind all criticism addressed at Guantanamo, and something you failed to confront up until this point.

Do I really need to bring up a transcription of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to this thread? Are you prepared to make an argument that the people at Guantanamo are not human beings - the only argument that would put them away from the protection of that document?

There is a difference between locking someone in a dark cell for a few days, and sawing their heads off with a dull knife as they scream for the camera. We've a long way to go before we are nearly as bad as the terrorists we are fighting; thank you for your concern though.

Yeah, there is an obvious difference. Soldiers who lock people in dark places should get penalties smaller than those who saw people's heads off.

They should still get penalties, though - and THAT is what you are unwilling to accept.

Regards .

 

[mdwh]

Dictionary.com:

We could follow the Geneva Convention if we wished do. But we are, when dealing with terrorists, not obligated to. We will respect their basic human rights after capturing them

Have they been convicted of terrorism? No.

I really wish people could understand what the point of a trial is. It's not about "human rights". Even if I gun down a load of people in public and it's obvious it's me, I still get a trial. What are you people so scared of?

The only possible answer we can conclude is that there is little evidence of these people being involved in terrorism in the first place.

A trial is not about "rights", it's about finding out if someone committed the crime or not, whether or not it's obvious. Anyone who talks about them not deserving a trial either doesn't understand basic legal principles, or is openly saying that they are in favour of people being locked up, whether or not they are innocent or guilty.

And we are not talking about terrorists who have gunned down people in public, so your dictionary.com definition doesn't apply. What laws did they violate? Why aren't the American soldiers being held as unlawful combatants?

Tell me Fred and co, do you see any difference, morally or legally, between a man who wears a uniform, carries a rifle, and fights the enemy who invades his country; and the man who does not carry weapons openly, and fights not only the enemy soldiers, but killing civilians without conscience as well?

What has this got to do with the thread?

The question is, how does the former differ from someone who carries weapons openly and fights the enemy who invades his country, but just doesn't have a uniform? I don't see it does.

And what about the difference between that, and soldiers who, whilst they may wear uniforms, they invade foreign countries, and kill not only the soldiers of that country, but also civilians without conscience? Yes, there's definitely a difference there. Is Bush going to be punished? (Though note, since I understand how the legal system works, I still would disagree with him not getting a trial.)

 

[mdwh]

There is a difference between locking someone in a dark cell for a few days, and sawing their heads off with a dull knife as they scream for the camera. We've a long way to go before we are nearly as bad as the terrorists we are fighting; thank you for your concern though.

What has that got to do with anything? Would you say, it's okay for someone to beat you up with a baseball bat, because that's not as bad as what terrorists do to other people? Of course not.

 

[mdwh]

Everytime I've debated with people about Guantanamo, it's emerged that those in favour are working under the undeniable assumption that the people in there are terrorists. They are so convinced of the fact, that they don't even bother to argue the point.

So they don't need a trial, because we already know they are terrorists. It's okay to treat them like this, because it's not as bad as what they, i.e., terrorists, have done. They can't be treated either as POWs or civilians, because they're terrorists. Anyone who argues against them is seen as supporting terrorists.

We go round in circles about whether they're illegal combatants, or whether they should be tried - but this misses the point that one side is working on the undeniable assumption that they are known terrorists, and the other side is completely oblivious to any supposed evidence supporting that assumption.

So, since it never seems to be clear to such people, I'm stating it: until you present us evidence, I do not believe that people in Guantanamo are terrorists. Where is the evidence?

 

[Elrohir]

The majority of those in Iraq, close to 90% ARE Iraqis.

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?

Au contraire, not only do they carry their arms openly (Zarqawi's Black Squads not only caryr their weapons openly, na dwear uniforms to instill fear into the local populations of alrge towns, but also line the highways they control with their black flags), and most do fight as cohesive untis with rigid command structure.

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.

Is there any difference between a person ramming a car into a crowded marketplace, and one who bombs a marketplace from 20,000 feet?
The only difference I see is one of them has the balls to die for that cause.

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.

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

Yes they are. Geneva provides protection for everyonbe in a combat zone, except for mercenaries.
Civilians, the wounded, and partisans are all protected.

Thankyou, please come again.

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.

Man, it's hopeless.

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

You want to call these people illegal combatants? Fine! Call them that. I'm tired of disputing definitions.

Nonetheless, "illegal combatants" or not, they should be tried, because that is a right of all human beings.

There is no law concerning them, as you seen to believe? No excuse for not giving them a trial. Legal thinking have a long time ago dealt with vaccums in legal systems. They should be tried by analogy, adopting the rules of whatever group is the least very different of them.

In this case, as you set apart fighters - whoever bear any weapons - from civilians - whoever don't - analogy would demand giving them the treatment of soldiers up until proper legislation is elaborated.

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?

Elrohir, it's like this: no human group is devoided of rights, specifically, the right to "due process of law". None at all!!!. Anyone who deprives human beings from basic human rights do so in violation of national and international laws - be them the terrorists themselves, or your government. That is the absolute truth behind all criticism addressed at Guantanamo, and something you failed to confront up until this point.

Do I really need to bring up a transcription of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to this thread? Are you prepared to make an argument that the people at Guantanamo are not human beings - the only argument that would put them away from the protection of that document?

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:

* The right to life, liberty and security of person.
* The right to an education.
* The right to participate fully in cultural life.
* Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.
* Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
* Freedom of expression and opinion.

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?

 

[tomsnowman123]

So, since it never seems to be clear to such people, I'm stating it: until you present us evidence, I do not believe that people in Guantanamo are terrorists. Where is the evidence?

I am sure there are some terrorists in gitmo, it's just that many are probably wrongly held, and, without a trial, it won't be determined, which is uncredibly unfair.

 

[mdwh]

I am sure there are some terrorists in gitmo, it's just that many are probably wrongly held, and, without a trial, it won't be determined, which is uncredibly unfair.

Indeed - I was having trouble working out how to word it. I can believe it is reasonably probable that there are at least some terrorists in Guantanamo, but the problem is we have no idea who they are, and that is no reason to lock them all up. A random sample of several hundred people anywhere would probably include some criminals, but it would be absurd to lock them all up!

In the absence of evidence to convince me otherwise, I consider the probability of any *individual* in Guantanamo being a terrorist to be low - certainly nowhere near "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[Azash]

Not at all. A captured enemy can be one of several things: A uniformed soldier, who serves in his nation's armed forces, and fights according to the laws of war. He is a POW, and deserves his rights under the Geneva Convention. Then there is the unconventional, non-uniformed soldier, who has taken up arms in the invasion of his country, and did not have time to organize into official military units, or get a uniform. But he still obeys the laws of war, fights openly, and will join a official military unit when possible. The second group is also afforded Geneva Convention rights.

The terrorists in Iraq fit into neither catagory. They are not uniformed soldiers; but neither do they follow the laws of war or fight openly. Many of them are not even Iraqi's. A third definition must be created for them, that of "illegal combatant".

Is my logic clearer now?

Well, not really. Where I came from was that any captured insurgfents would/should be tried either as POW or as civilian, but "illegal combatant" is just hovering somewhere inbetween.

 

[malclave]

Well, not really. Where I came from was that any captured insurgfents would/should be tried either as POW or as civilian, but "illegal combatant" is just hovering somewhere inbetween.

POWs would not generally be "tried", just held until the cessation of hostilities.

I'm not familiar with the legal systems of Afghanistan and Pakistan (IIRC, those are the two nations which would have jurisdiction for trying most of the people in Guantanamo Bay in a civilian court).

 

[Steph]

Elrohir, would you have put in Guantanamo the Afghan mujaheedeen who fought the Russians with guerilla and "terrorist" method, with American support?
They did not really have uniform. And I don't recall they were exactly following the rules of war to the letter.

Would you have done the same with the French Resistance during WWII? They did not carry their weapon openly, and the Germans labelled them terrorists.

 

[Pyrite]

"Would you have done the same with the French Resistance during WWII? They did not carry their weapon openly, and the Germans labelled them terrorists"

That's different, they were fighting for freedom (TM).

 

[Azash]

And what are the insurgents fighting for, then?

 

[FredLC]

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?

Because you are unwilling to accept the logical conclusion - that keep them arrested indefinitely, with a trial not only pending, but uncertain to ever happening, is to fraud their right to trials in the first place.

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.

Man, protection from arbitrary arrest - there is, one determined without proper procedures - is among the basic human rights. You have simply selected out one of the basic rights you think you support in order to feel able to keep saying that noble and shiny sentence.

Quite frankly, it is exactly the same as if the US had as a policy the summary execution of surrended enemies on site, the international community complained, and you aswered: "but we are not torturing or imprisioning them arbitrarily, so we are respecting the basic rights".

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

* The right to life, liberty and security of person.
* The right to an education.
* The right to participate fully in cultural life.
* Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.
* Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
* Freedom of expression and opinion.

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?

Where is the right of liberty of these people, which are imprisioned? AFAIK, it can only be constricted after trials. Even when a person is arrested in flagrant offence, the arrest must be corroborated by a judge in 48 hours, or the person must be freed.

Anyway, this is the link to the Official UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights page, in English, from where I excerpt these:

Originally writtem in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1 – Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2 – No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Please, comment these articles and than re-adress your notion that "you are respecting the 'basic' human rights".

Regards .

 

[Elrohir]

Elrohir, would you have put in Guantanamo the Afghan mujaheedeen who fought the Russians with guerilla and "terrorist" method, with American support?
They did not really have uniform. And I don't recall they were exactly following the rules of war to the letter.

Would you have done the same with the French Resistance during WWII? They did not carry their weapon openly, and the Germans labelled them terrorists.

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. They respected the "laws and customs of war", as is outlined in the Third Geneva Convention, Article Four, Section Six. Thus, they receive Geneva Convention protections.

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.

Because you are unwilling to accept the logical conclusion - that keep them arrested indefinitely, with a trial not only pending, but uncertain to ever happening, is to fraud their right to trials in the first place.

But that is not my position at all. I think this is something like the fourth time I've said this, it's the last time, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I believe we should give the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay trials. There may be a certain few who cannot be given immediate trials for security reasons, but they should still get a trial eventually.

Now: I don't know how that was such a complicated statement, but somehow you keep misunderstanding it. I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing over and over; if you don't get it this time (That I'm not against trials for the Guantanamo Bay detainee's) then I'm just going to leave it alone. Sometimes it's just not worth the effort to tell people they're wrong; namely when they won't listen.

Man, protection from arbitrary arrest - there is, one determined without proper procedures - is among the basic human rights. You have simply selected out one of the basic rights you think you support in order to feel able to keep saying that noble and shiny sentence.

Quite frankly, it is exactly the same as if the US had as a policy the summary execution of surrended enemies on site, the international community complained, and you aswered: "but we are not torturing or imprisioning them arbitrarily, so we are respecting the basic rights".

Somehow, I doubt that the American Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan arbitrarily picked names out of a phonebook, and just arrested who their fingers rested on first. The arrests were for, I imagine, a reason - like maybe they're actually guilty!

You consider leaving them without a trial to be the moral equivalent of executing them? You can see no moral difference between the two?

Please, comment these articles and than re-adress your notion that "you are respecting the 'basic' human rights".

I don't see anything there violated by my position. Could you spell it out for me?

 

[jameson]

I don't want to get into the legalities discussion (agree with FredLC there), but the statement that

Somehow, I doubt that the American Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan arbitrarily picked names out of a phonebook, and just arrested who their fingers rested on first. The arrests were for, I imagine, a reason - like maybe they're actually guilty

.

is just wrong.
Only 5%, 1 in 20, of Gitmo detainees were arrested by American forces ( Seton Hall study, the source just keeps on getting ignored). Moreover, the other 19 out of 20 detainees were detained at a moment when the US was offering bounties for capturing 'enemy combatants' - and with no way to determine who actually was.

 

[Kyriakos]

There is no rule of war for insurgents, much like with special forces. Some small group of Us marines will not engage openly either; should they be regarded as terrorists too?

No one in their right mind would "engage openly" when the other side has superior forces. They would ofcourse use assymetrical warfare (guerilla tactics).

It is very easy to see that it was a very bad idea to invade Afganistan and Iraq, supposedly in the aftermath of 9/11. The correct line of action would have been to try to find out who was responsible, and then try to capture him (or them). The cowboy response was to invade two countries.

 

[FredLC]

But that is not my position at all. I think this is something like the fourth time I've said this, it's the last time, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I believe we should give the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay trials. There may be a certain few who cannot be given immediate trials for security reasons, but they should still get a trial eventually.

Vast majority? One person that is kept without trial is one person more than what is acceptable. All should get trials.

And allegedly security reasons is a completely phony excuse. Trials can be held without publicity, don't you know that? Judges review the arrests, decide what's what, and the files can be kept secret untile the end of hostilities. Don't you think you can trust that information to the magistrates of your own nation?

My friend, I know what is your discourse which you spelled several times. Only that it has quite a few holes in it, making the practise quite dissimilar. Everytime we point them out, you cover your eyes and ears and pretend you are not seeing them.

Now: I don't know how that was such a complicated statement, but somehow you keep misunderstanding it. I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing over and over; if you don't get it this time (That I'm not against trials for the Guantanamo Bay detainee's) then I'm just going to leave it alone. Sometimes it's just not worth the effort to tell people they're wrong; namely when they won't listen.

That's quite an ironic statement considering our roles in this debate.

You seen to think you stand for the trials; nonetheless, you have no problem at keeping people in jail without them until your government consider convenient to conduct these such trials.

I have to ask: What if the US goverment decide that, for "security reasons", the trials can only be held 50 years in the future? Will it be OK to keep people arrested without charges for over half a century?

You say you are ok with trials, but fails to see that trials can't be postponed. This is an abomination, a travesty of justice, and kills your discourse entirely. In fact, please indeed do stop repeating what you were saying. You are lying, to others and to yourself, and you can't even perceive it.

Somehow, I doubt that the American Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan arbitrarily picked names out of a phonebook, and just arrested who their fingers rested on first. The arrests were for, I imagine, a reason - like maybe they're actually guilty!

This is just silly, and shows a true misunderstanding of logistics of legal procedure, individual guarantees and about the division of three powers.

Elrohir, an arbitrary prison does not even have to be a wrong prison. An arbitrary prison is one which does not follow the correct procedures - one such as these that happened in Guantanamo.

And the prerrogative to determine these belongs to the judiciary, alone. The executive branch can't invade that prerrogative, over risk of destroying the logistic of the division.

Nobody, nobody, can accumulate the roles of judge and executioner. Doing so makes an act taken be full of vice, even if it is an correct act that would be upheld by a correct procedure, if the correct procedure were observed.

The prisions in question are arbitrary even if there were no dispute about these people being terrorists, and that were 100% sure. It is arbitrary because it is done by a power which lacks legal competence to determine it. It is an act in pair with a judge invading Bush's office and start taking decisions that belong to the president.

Maybe some, maybe ALL, people detained in guantanamo are guilty. Maybe none are, too. We just must not trust the executive on that, and we must not take that for granted until these people presents their own version for what have happened.

You trust the actions of your executive branch so much, you should be one of these pushing for trials ASAP - that way, you'd be able to shut up all of us critiques.

You consider leaving them without a trial to be the moral equivalent of executing them? You can see no moral difference between the two?

No. They are both equally immoral. They both are a travesty of justice. They both are abominations. Now, killing is more harmful, and perhaps deserving a bigger penalty... but both killing and these arrests are absurd violations of human rights, and both should be stoped immediatly.

I don't see anything there violated by my position. Could you spell it out for me?

It's becoming hard to make it more obvious.

The document directly states that all human beings in the world are protected againt arrest, and that all should get a chance to defend themselves before a neutral judge.

People in Guantanamo are held arrested without jury or chance of defense for several years now; the only thing they have is an omnous promisse of an eventual trial, in a date yet to be determined.

That you think that this small promisse, and the executive call of "security reasons" for not granting trials now, is enough to garantee the demands of the Declaration shows a complete unwillingness to understand the spirit and goals of the document, and a quite biased and convoluted understanding of it. Now, I don't want to sound harsh, but I can't find softer words to express myself in this - my friend, you are completely ignorant of what human guarantees are and what purpose they serve.

Did you know that "national security" is the favourite charge in arrest orders in all dictatorships in the known world? Do you know that arrests without judicial revision are so as well? Do you know that these articles were written exactly so that executive powers would stop doing what the US is doing today - considering the enemy "too dangerous" to be given a chance of speaking what they want to say?

You don't have to opt out, elrohir. I do that. Whatever you answer here, I'll not reply. I feel I have stated my case, and the obviousness of it didn't even required as much elaboration as I have used. Nonetheless, it is spelled out, as you requested. If you choose not to acknowledge it, it is your prerrogative to do so - and feel free to judge my understanding as surreal and convoluted, if you wish. I think we feel mutually about each other, so i opt to leave this to the judgement of our readers.

Still, Elrohir, I sincerely hope that you will never have to face a situation when someone puts your rights on hold until a conveninet time appoears to judge them. It might give you a completely new overview of this entire talk we just had.

Sincerely.

Best Regards .