1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

US forced to drop charges against two Gitmo detainees-may have to do same with all

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Samson, Jun 4, 2007.

  1. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,533
    Location:
    Cambridge
    To be honest I do not know enough about the details to be sure this is really significant, but it seems that way to me. Someone (MobBoss?) can tell us if it is as important as this articale makes out;

    from New York Times

    And some more from my new favourate news outlet (hope it works, I have not tried this before)
     
  2. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Not that big of a deal, inho. They will probably have a review board reclassify them in accordance to the Judges directives....i.e. have their status changed from 'enemy combatants' to 'unlawful enemy combatants'.

    Which in turn actually gives them more leeway in dealing with the prisoners. 'unlawful enemy combatants' get far fewer perks than just 'enemy combatants'.
     
  3. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    Oh, thank god that there are still some people commited to moral integrity and itnernational law in the US.
     
  4. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,533
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Do you have any idea what the definitions are, ie. what law you break in a combat arena? What is the level of proof required?
     
  5. amadeus

    amadeus めっちゃしんどい

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    32,508
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    Remember David Hicks, the Australian Taliban? Well, three years ago, his attorney petitioned against having this judge (Col. Brownback III) preside over his case due to his close personal relation with John D. Altenburg, the Pentagon official that appointed Brownback to be the judge for this trial.

    I just thought that maybe you should know...
     
  6. cubsfan6506

    cubsfan6506 Got u

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    6,266
    Location:
    Awesome Land
    No way. tan
     
  7. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    It doesnt have to do with that...it has more to do with what defines a ligitimate enemy combatant and an unlawful enemy combantant. Basically, unlawful enemy combatant are people that shoot at you that wear no uniform or nation/state identifying marks. There is more to it, but essentially, enemy combatants are usually POWs and have much more rights than spys/saboteurs and terrorists that are generally unlawful enemy combatants.
     
  8. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,533
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Presumably it is defined by the geneva convention then? Got a link by any chance (to save me a bit of googling).
     
  9. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Its been awhile since I looked it up myself. It can be burdensome to poke around in that too so good luck. Basically, its supposed to signify the difference between prisoners of legitimate armed forces from a state from all the spies and sabotuers which are considered illegal under the law of war.
     
  10. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,533
    Location:
    Cambridge
    I shall have a look. One would have to wonder how many members of recent wars would be covered, but I guess it is a bit of pretty old legislation.
     
  11. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,024
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    wiki

    The Geneva Conventions define people captured in combat as either civilians or enemy combatants (POWS). The USA decided to introduce a new category so it could treat people it didn't like any way it chose, deny them their rights etc.

    The US claims historical precedent for use of the term 'illegal combatant', however there is precedent in international law stating specifically that this is not an option:
    So, once again we have the US lawyers (at least, those that work for the administration) saying 'this is legal' and everyone else pointing out that it isn't.

    Edit: The US govt even decided that people fighting for the Taliban (who were, let's remember, the government in Afghanistan) were illegal. Let's just make up the rules as we go along huh?
     
  12. Che Guava

    Che Guava The Juicy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    Hali-town,
    Interesting comments. I actually posted this story a little while ago here...
     
  13. King Alexander

    King Alexander Universe explorer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Thessaloniki, Hellas
    A camp that's illegal by it's own nature and doesn't answer to any laws, finds illegal the procedure used to file charges against the animal they keep(it surely isn't a man, since it has no rights at all, not to say that even animals have some rights). They're all illegals, everyone there. :eek:

    Normally, we shouldn't even discuss about the whole issue, since we're discussing about illegals here. Someone should arrest all of them for their illegal activities or just nuke them; who would care about the fate of illegals, anyway? :rolleyes:
     
  14. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6720315.stm
    Fan-bloody-tastic.
    If the people in charge don't have enough moral integrity to call the whole thing a sham, then leaving it to the legal system is jsut as good.
     
  15. Xanikk999

    Xanikk999 History junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,232
    Location:
    Fairfax county VA, USA
    Nevermind my post.
     
  16. Godwynn

    Godwynn March to the Sea

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    20,492
    We suspended Habeas Corpus to convict one guy with an English name to only 9 months?

    Close it down.
     
  17. GoodEnoughForMe

    GoodEnoughForMe n.m.s.s.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,286
    Location:
    new alhambra
    Gitmo is such a disaster. It's a black stain on our record, and makes us look like hypocrites in the international community. And then there's the fact that it's wrong.

    But hey, we got one guy found guilty in 5 years, that's got to count for something right? Anyone?
     
  18. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    Meh. Just kill 'em all and let God sort them out.
     
  19. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    I guess that's kinda what happened on 9/11?
     
  20. Godwynn

    Godwynn March to the Sea

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    20,492
    Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to them?
     

Share This Page