"The Supremes Have Made Their Decision, Now Let Them Enforce It," Says Senate

[Louis XXIV]

That's part of the problem. I also some a film of an operation in Afghanistan where they went to the house of a suspected weapons dealer. After a long search, they didn't have much luck finding the weapons. Than they took the guy captive to be send to a holding center run by the US Military (I don't think he was being sent to Guantanamo at that point). There was also several people from China who couldn't be sent back after the military cleared them of terrorist involvement (like this guy).

 

[mdwh]

The conventions and treaties we are discussing were all implemented after WWII.

In which case, by your logic, this happening [resistance fighters being shot/imprisoned] in WW2 would have been something you agreed with, because there was no convention/treaty outlawing it.

 

[mdwh]

Actually I think the Bush adminstration position is that it has this constitutional power for US citizens too (to declare them enemy combatants) but I don't remember for certain.

Fair enough, though if this is true, I disagree with it too. Just because it might be lawful doesn't mean we have to agree that it's right.

OF COURSE the US is in some special position in the world.

You misunderstand me. Of course the US is in a special position in the sense of being a superpower, or having a special position in the UN. My question was in terms of the right to take hostages - do they have some special moral right to do this, whilst other countries don't?

Does the UN support Guantanamo Bay? (Even if they did, that wouldn't mean that it is morally right, although would mean it is no longer America's fault alone - but I wasn't aware of the UN having anything to do with it anyway.)

So if you want to complain about special position of US, you have to complain same way for China, France UK and Russia.

This thread has nothing to do with the special position of having veto power in the UN! What has that got to do with anything?

US also has special position in Americas; she is leader of the Americas; premier country in Americas;

Nor has it got anything to do with having a "special" name! America is special in some ways, therefore it should have special moral rights in all ways? (And I suspect most people call it America short for "United States of America", not because they think it is special or superior, just like United Kingdom is actually short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Can I claim that that makes the UK special?)

 

[mdwh]

If they could have caught German spies and executed them inside Germany, they would have.

The original claim was "Pretty generous considering German soldiers in WWII who were captured out of uniform were summarily executed." If we can now agree that instead we are claiming to some hypothetical event in WW2 that people might have wanted to happen, but *never happened*, then that is fine.

Anyway, this is all irrelavent as Al Qaeda are not spies - they are terrorists.

Link to news about the trials, please.

And for the most part, my understanding was that they're not even suspected terrorists, but instead members of the Taliban.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1318702,00.html

"According to Christino, most of the approximately 600 detainees at Guantánamo - including four Britons - at worst had supported the Taliban in the civil war it had been fighting against the Northern Alliance before the 11 September attacks, but had had no contact with Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda."

Also worth reading: http://www.latimes.com/la-na-gitmo22dec22,0,2294365.story

But let's not concern ourselves with sorting the innocent from the guilty, the non-terrorists from the terrorists, easier just to lock 'em all up and let God sort them out!

Not at all. But if you're running around in the desert of Afghanistan shouting "Jihad agains the Great Satan!" then I'm willing to bet you're a terrorist.

Cool. Well if people like youare sitting on the jury, and they have evidence of them saying these things, what have you got to fear by holding a jury? They'll get found guilty, and all the pesky freedom-believing people like myself will shut up.

I presume you're also okay with locking Bush up too, who calls for a crusade against the axis of evil?

I highly doubt the US just grabs random people off the street and sends them to Guantanamo. Give our military at least a little credit.

You'd be happy to do away with courts for US civilians? After all, give the police some credit.

And where should this "fair trial" take place? Paris? No matter how we treat them you know we'll be accused of rigging the trials or torturing confessions out of them, or some crap like that.

By this logic, holding fair trials for anyone is impossible. But we manage to do that for many, from US civilians to dictators. Just because some may criticise whether a trial is fair or not doesn't mean that a trial is comparable to none at all! "Someone will probably accuse us of torturing them or not holding a fair trial anyway, so it's morally okay to torture them and not have any trials" - what sort of logic is that?

The whole point of the concept of a POW was so that war was a little more civilized, and countries didn't just execute their enemies prisoners when they captured them. Everyone won out from this. But this doesn't work with terrorists;

And how do you know they are terrorists?

sure you don't just execute them, but you are not at war with a country that you can invade and set up a new government in - you're at war with an organization that fights all the harder when it's men are captured or killed, instead of otherwise.

Erm, these people were captured when the US invaded Afganistan, which is a country, not an organisation. They invaded, captured those who fought against them, and set up a new government.