Quote:
Originally Posted by Spare
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."
|
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spare
Why a terrorist? I guess I need to put it in smaller words -- 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, kids, what do we call illegal combatants today? Nooo, bugulugs, we don't call them innocent victims. We call them -- slowly now -- terrorists! Yessss!
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spare
As for your Article 17 argument -- it borders on silliness, and it undeserving of a response. Grow up. Join us in the real world.
|
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?