Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
Can't you read?
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.
When have ANY of the 800 or so illegal detainees at Guantanamo Bay ever had their status determined by a competent tribunal?
This is why, therefore, your explanation:
The only question is whether he is a 'neutral' or an 'illegal combatant.' Since we know that the 'boy' attacked a sailor, he is classified as an 'illegal combatant' and, thus not eligible for the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention.
is complete and utter garbage.
Please read these things before you continue posting this nonsense.
Oh...and BTW - you still haven't explained how any of this makes him a "terrorist".
So what has been the status of the 800 or so men who have been held illegally at Guantanamo Bay and when was their status determined by a competent tribunal as required by Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention?
No - you are completely wrong. There detention is not lawful unless there is something that makes it lawful.
You say:
The only requirement is that they be adjudicated by a military tribunal, who determines their status -- POW, detainee, neutral, or illegal combatant.
Genius!!!! That is the whole freaking point! They have not had their status determined by a competent tribunal as required by Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention? They are being held illegally.
Where did I make any attempt to give you my definition of torture? What on earth are you talking about?
You asked the question:
Maybe, then, you can provide us some proof of mistreatment of prisoners that violate the Geneva Convention.
I gave you exactly that. A list of examples of mistreatment of prisoners that violate the Geneva Convention - specifically Article 17 of the Geneva Convention. That you may not think that using various types of coercion to question prisoners of war is not torture is completely irrelevant
Why don't you go back and read Article 17 carefully. You will see that it doesn't mention only torture - but any form of coercion of a PoW to gain information is not allowable.
Did you actually read my answers before posting this rubbish?
Try actually reading the answers I am posting. You might learn something
|
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.