FredLC said:
I honestly apologize, even though I was trying to sound ironic...
(the fact that you said you are not a legal expert, but your father is a judge, and that your knowledge of legal issues - and possibly terms - come from him, as you said in your las post)
...rather than condescending.
I did read that part of your post. well, so, are you willing to let them free until the US is prepared to give them such trial, as "in dubio pro reo" demands?
Well, we both seem to be misunderstanding each other's jokes today.
Catch and release, you mean? No thanks. That hasn't worked on the Southern Border with Mexico, and I highly doubt that it would workwhen dealing with terrorists, or even potential terrorists. Keep them there until a trial can be prepared, then try them. If they are found guilty, send them back. If they are found innocent, then release them. But honestly: If we let them go, and then asked them to come back to be tried, do you really think they would come back? If two of the several hundred there came back to face the charges, I would be surprised by such a high number.
Certainly, members of other nations should not attack US citzens or troops. This goes both ways.
And by all means, fire at will in self defense. Kill as many as needed to prevvent the loss of life in a shootout. I don't ask you people not to fight for your lifes, what would be insane.
Stop at once when opposition surrenders. I don't approve summary executions.
Whoever you capture, you shall trial or set free.
This procedure quite reasonable to me.
I don't think there is much I disagree with here. I would only stipulate that there are some prisoners that, for security and informational reasons, cannot be tried for some time, if ever. For example, if they ever caught Osama Bin Laden, I would expect them to interrogate him, and try and wring out as many contacts of his as possible. But those contacts would run if they knew that he'd be captured, was alive, and was talking - in the interest of saving lives, it would be best to deny Osama his "right" to trial.
As far as irony goes, you are missing something here.
When US goes to an area that is under foreigner administrative control, your citzens and forces must obey the laws of the foreingner lad; when in foreigner areas under US administrative control - military bases, embassys, international waters - you should obey US laws.
Now without irony, ask your father about the doctrines of personal institute and land institute of public international law. savigny and Hans Kelsen are the names to study in that field.
Which US laws should be obeyed? It is not part of any US state, thus State laws cannot be followed. It makes sense, for me at least, to say that as Guantanamo Bay is a US military base, it should be run by the law of the US military - that of the Universal Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ. What else would you propose we follow?
Why do you think depriving people of freedom withou a chance to defend themselves before a court of law is something good, or acceptable, is something I'll never understand. There is no human rights that is okay to ignore, the way I see things, elrohir. None at all.
I wasn't talking about ignoring rights, I was talking about ignoring laws. Perhaps my use of generic terms led to confusion. Allow me to post that portion of our conversation:
FredLC said:
I don't know why you guys feel so confortable with the idea that all your army has to do to be able to ignore the laws of your nation is to travel abroad. Perhaps the gaps in our mentality standards are too far away - I would certainly dislike quite a lot that Brazilian armies could ignora Brazil's laws in the moment they step into Argentina or Paraguay...
They are not ignoring the ones that they have to - basic human rights - but they are ignoring the ones they don't have to. If they were torturing them at Guantanamo, I would feel differently. But locking them up in what is a relatively (Compared to most US prisons) a cushy prison doesn't fit under my definition of torture. Even holding them without trial wouldn't count.
What revision? It's not like these days everybody thing guantanamo is fine and dandy, and in te future people will have to alter what is happening in order to dennounce it.
Prisions without trial are enough to classify Guantanamo as a disgrace, no matter evcen if there is no torure and people there are are given cells of gold and filet mignon with champaigne in every meal.
The US is breaking laws in Guantanamo. There is no way around it. You said it yourself, they are ignoring "the rights it can", though I don't know in what you base the distinction. And pleade do search, and read, the universal declaration of human rights, which I have already mentioned, and try to find a way around the classification of these people as biological human beings, what would take to put them beyond the provisions of that document.
regards .
Going into the historical revisionism going on in the US would take us off topic considerably. I'll just mention the whole situation with California mandating that their history textbooks contain information about gay, lesbian, and transsexual historical figures, and their accomplishments.
What laws are the US breaking in Guantanamo? As far as I can tell, you're saying that is merely your opinion. I haven't seen proof that any laws have been violated. You seem to very much like the concept of innocent until proven guilty; I do too. Shouldn't we give the USG the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they aren't part of some vast conspiracy to torture innocent people, unless proven otherwise? (That's hyperbole, of course, but I'm sure you see my point)
Rambuchan, I can't access the documents on that site either. The error says "In case you use personal firewall, please adjust the privacy settings for this web site." I turned my firewall completely off, and I still couldn't access it. Thanks for trying though. Do you know of any alternate links that have evidence for torture at Guantanamo Bay?
EDIT: Nevermind Ram, I finally got the original BBC PDF to work. Let me read it for a bit, then I'll respond.
.
) anyways, before this is blown out of propertion what I mean is that we are trying our hardest to secure the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would be like shooting ourselves in the foot if we just release these men so they can go back to the Middle East and take up arms against us again.
