Man, your memory is faulty and your logic is twisted ......

IF you recall, and apparently you don't, Bush initiated military tribunals for the GITMO detainees, and it was stopped by your beloved Democrats who were screaming to ignore the law and move into the civilian court system. They have been stalled while your beloved Democrats dither and dather in order to have the issue remain unresolved until after the election. Does that make their detention "illegal"? Hardly .... let's compromise, and call it 'unresolved because the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Democrats want to play political games with them."

Why a terrorist? I guess I need to put it in smaller words -- ok, slowly now -- he - is - not - a - soldier --- he - is - not - a - neutral --- all together now, what does that make him? Yessssssss -- an illegal combatant. Very good. You win a sucker. And, now for the hard one -- what do we call illegal combatants today? Nooo, bugalugs, we don't call them innocent victims. We call them -- slowly now -- terrorists! Yessss!

If you need further help, please stay after school.

As for your Article 17 argument -- it borders on silliness, and is undeserving of a response. Grow up. Join us in the real world.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

WTF?!?!? When have I ever sad anything about "Democrats"?
Stop making things up. I am not American mate. I couldn't care less what party your idiot polititians belong to. Don't drag me into your petty political squabbles.

The fact remains, over a period of some 6 years, there have been almost 800 men illegally detained at Guantanamo Bay - none of whom have had their status as prisoners determined by a competent tribunal as required by the Geneva Convention.

One - David Hicks - was sentenced under the MCA - but since his trial accepted as evidence testimony received by coercion, it is very debatable that that military tribunal would satisfy Article 5's requirement as "a competent tribunal".

I was under the impression that a terrorist was somebody who had committed an act of terrorism.

When did you decide that what we call illegal combatants today is a 'terrorist'? When did fighting against an invading force become an act of terrorism?

What dictionary are you using? I suggest you have another look. "Terrorism". You'll find it under "T"

Not that it matters, even if there is evidence that this boy has committed an act of terrorism - you are still talking rubbish

From the International Red Cross commentary on the 4th Geneva Convention:
Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention.
Either they are PoWs and must be treated as such.
Or, they are not civilians and if suspected of a crime, should be charged and tried for that crime. Bottom line is - if he is a terrorist, charge him with the crime and try him. (NB - you will note though that the boy in question has not been charged with committing any act of terrorism)

Illegally imprisoning hundreds men without charge for up to 6 years is not something that you expect civilised countries to do.


Could you please explain why it borders on silliness?

You asked the question:
Maybe, then, you can provide us some proof of mistreatment of prisoners that violate the Geneva Convention.

I gave you a very clear answer.

Article 17 states very unambiguously that a PoW may not be coerced into providing information. It is not limited to just torture (though that is specifically forbidden) but also "any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

No water boarding, no sleep-deprivation, nothing.


Here is the complete text if you like:
Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Please explain what exactly borders on silliness, and is undeserving of a response. Or was that just a little dummy spit because you are fully aware that no-one takes you seriously?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

Wow! Do I ever apologize!!


Given your penchant for strident histrionics and fixation on manipulation of facts to it a preconceived conclusion, I automatically assumed you were a Democrat.

But, now that I know you aren't, and in fact, aren't from the US, I must be totally honest. I don't really care what you think .... your opinion is irrelevant to me.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Perhaps you could give an example of where I manipulated facts to a preconceived conclusion? Or are you just going to tell a lie and run away?

I have answered every question you have asked with detailed examples and references to the relevant sections of the treaty being discussed.

You have given me nothing but petulance and uninformed nonsense.

- You think that a person who has been caught firing on invading armed forces should be labelled a "terrorist". That is just complete rubbish and demonstrates a profound lack of ability in even the most basic of English comprehension.

- You have made arguements about the Geneva Conventions which fully demonstrate your complete ignorance of even the most basic provisions of that document.

- You continue with your incorrect assumption that there is some sort of legal basis for the detentions without charge at Guantanamo Bay - yet when question on this several times, you cannot provide reference to any legal statute or precedent that provides this legal basis.

- You have told me that my citing of Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention as an example of how the USA have violated the Geneva Convention "borders on silliness". Yet you cannot explain why this is so. Why is it that the use of coercive interrogation in prisoners who have a legal right not to undergo coercive interrogation is justified? Why does my suggestion that it isn't "border on silliness"?

And why is it that the opinion of a non-American is irrelevant to you? (apart from the obvious fact that the opinion of this non-American has exposed your gross ignorance of the subject).

THe USA is holding non-Americans illegally at Guantanamo Bay. Many non-Americans are also bound by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions - the treaty that the USA has not complied with.

So, why is it that you feel that the opinion of a non-American on this matter is irrelevant, and again, perhaps you could give an example of where I manipulated facts to a preconceived conclusion?

Or have you realised that you have been proven to be completely wrong on almost everything you have said, and so you just going to tell one last lie and run away?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

Oh no --- I'm still around.

But, my position stands. Your opinion is irrelevant to me. I can't think of any good reason to try to educate you, despite your misperceptions. This is an internal US issue, and will be resolved as such.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Terrorists and their organizations are not privy to the Geneva Convention...they are not uniformed soldiers nor are they soldiers of any nation.

__________________
There shall ye find Light

Be thou faithful unto Death
And I will give thee a crown of Life

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

Oh cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

Oh I see.

You tell a deliberate lie - you say I manipulated facts to fit a preconceived conclusion - then you spinelessley squirm out of owning up to the fact. You gutlessly throw out an unsupported accusation, then run away.

You prefer the childish approach as dummy-spit back with a "Your opinion is irrelevant to me"

I have manipulated no facts - but I have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of the subject:

- You think that a person who has been caught firing on invading armed forces should be labelled a "terrorist".

- You do no understand the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, in particular Articles 5 and 17 of the Third Geneva Convention.

- You cannot cite a legal basis for the detentions without charge at Guantanamo Bay

Breaking international law is not "an internal issue" 2 Australians were illegally detained and allegedly tortured at Guantanamo Bay - so it is most definitely an Australian issue. A Canadian child has been illegally detained and allegedly tortured at Guantanamo Bay - so it is most definitely a Canadian issue too. It is an issue for every nation that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

You are a classic example of why many people in the world consider Americans to be ignorant and stupid. You know nothing about the facts ofthe issue - and instead of learning them - you close your eyes and put you fingers in your ears.

No many answers coming from you, are there. Your last few posts have been pathetic posturing; talking about "educating" me and my "misconceptions". How about some details?


Why do you think that a person who has been caught firing on invading armed forces should be labelled a "terrorist". What is your definition of a "terrorist"?

- How has the USA satified the provisions of Articles 5 and 17 of the Third Geneva Convention?

- What is the legal basis for the detentions without charge at Guantanamo Bay?

Any answers? Or just more evasion?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

No - you are wrong.

Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Almost 800 men have been illegally imprisoned without having their status determined by a competent tribunal. Hence these men are protected by the Geneva Convention.

And how many of the men illegally imprisoned at Guantanamo are actually terrorists? How many have actually been accused of any act of terrorism?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P