Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)

[Michael Kalus]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote:
>
>> According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are
>> "unlawful enemy combattants".
>
> I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's
> judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs.
>

I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this 
assessment personally.


>>
>> The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus 
>> they
>> should be released, no?
>
> Oh, we are back to their being POWs.  Fine.  In that case, the answer 
> to
> your question is no.
>
> The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the
> murder of 3000 people in New York City.  Is this war over?  Not 
> according
> to tapes attributed to al Qaeda.  They still profess to be at war with
> the United States.
>

Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their 
fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these 
you could construe as an act of war.


> Is the war in Afghanistan over?  Not according to news reports.  Osama 
> bin
> Laden remains free.  The Taliban remain active.

But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was 
the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed 
(with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it "done deal". 
Same in Japan. So what's different this time?


>
>>                        If they are terrorists and they have proof of
>> this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should
>> be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since
>> when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties).
>
> Please make your mind up.  Now they are terrorists again.
>

I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if 
they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see 
above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, 
than they should be tried no?


> Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion?
>

Our "enlightened" western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to 
know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those 
"primitive" cultures in the middle east).

> The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law.  It is to 
> defend
> the United States.  They seem to be doing a good job at the moment.
>

Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this 
because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the 
airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than 
enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody 
really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course 
the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and 
added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next 
time someone gets blown up.


> In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce 
> the
> law in their jurisdiction.  There is no US police force with
> responsiblities in Guantanamo.  US law does not apply to Cuba.

Nifty, isn't it? "Well people, we see your point. But you have to 
Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though 
Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really 
do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be 
in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good 
guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest."

If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So 
let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them 
according to the gospel that we preach.

>> But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged
>> with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually
>> convict them?
>
> By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide
> that I am not a POW and walk free.

That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs 
and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free.

>
> In what war has this been common practice?

See above.

>> Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states.
>> International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to 
>> be
>> allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I
>> might require. This right has not been given.
>
> What "International Law" says that unlawful combatants get to contact
> their governments in this manner?
>

The term "unlawful combatants" doesn't exist either. So the question is 
mute. Let's say "Human being" instead.


> What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer
> that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held 
> as
> a prisoner indefinitely?

Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor 
Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, 
after they found out, were allowed to talk to their people.


>
>> Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US
>> constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly 
>> violated
>> as well.
>
> What's so clear about this?  Do you actually have any knowledge at all
> of customs and practices in countries in the region?  Do you care at 
> all
> about the opinions of local people, about their customary practices?  I
> think not.

It is not only about people from Afghanistan, it is also about other 
countries, see my text above.

>>
>> Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have 
>> been
>> brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least
>> appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did
>> anything wrong.
>
> Do you know for a fact that there are US citizens held at Guantanamo?  
> If
> so, who are they?
>

There have been several reports. What about John Walker? Whatever 
happened to him?

>>>
>> It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans
>> should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not 
>> happening?
>
> Perhaps the Afghan authorities don't want them back.
>
> Hello?
>
Perhaps you just look for the easy way out?

Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBP+DwTmlCnxcrW2uuEQL6iwCeOK5U56u8xVB9aT1SAqj+yi7OULcAoOd0
bml/UV9L7YtJFFoAq77OCilk
=aXZZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----