Guantanamo bay

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but they haven't shown how it violates the Geneva convention. They've said that it violates the US constitution.

[Whaleboy]

It's called a "jail". Most countries have them

See privacy thing. Also most jail cells are larger than a single-figures of feet across.

You want to give a terrorist (even suspected) privacy?

I want to give someone their full human rights until their guilt has been proven objectively beyond all reasonable doubt. Its called the law. Right now, guantanamo is an American police "state".

From whom? (the reports that is)

Santa Clause, who do you think!! The people with guns for heavens sake!

First, I'd like to know what the situation on this sort of thing is in normal prisons. Even so, I don't see who this is really a bad thing. Sucks for them

The right to pray and to exercise ones religion is a basic human right, respected most certainly in all British prisons, and most likely all US ones too.

you mean bored? It is now barbaric not to AMUSE people?

I mean lack of intellectual stimulation being a logical extension of torture, even some defintions of torture also include the active denial of that opportunity iirc.

Huh?

Everytime they are let out of their cages, they are hooded (which is torture), restrained by numerous shackles making walking a significant difficulty, being practically dragged by a number of guards.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by skywalker
Yes, but they haven't shown how it violates the Geneva convention. They've said that it violates the US constitution.

You have to show it applies in a given situation before you can say if it has been violated or not.

[Whaleboy]

How so? The constitution is a contract between US citizens and the US government.

And the protectees of that constitution

[Dis]

because they will get off if they are tried in civilian courts.

That is the truth. The fact is many of these guys didn't do anything. They are only held because they are terrorists or associated with terrorists.

They would be set free in civilian courts, hence why they aren't being tried there.

[Whaleboy]

Yes, but they haven't shown how it violates the Geneva convention. They've said that it violates the US constitution.

The USA signed up to that, and the constitution of the US states that the US has to abide by such conventions as they are integrated into the constitution. Thus if the US breaks GC, it is acting unconstitutionally. Thats part of the reason some argue the Iraq war to be unconstitutional, since it didnt have UN backing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah

From whom? (the reports that is)

Santa Clause, who do you think!! The people with guns for heavens sake!

I was asking who made the reports.

The right to pray and to exercise ones religion is a basic human right, respected most certainly in all British prisons, and most likely all US ones too.

How were they denied the right? Were the being questioned during that time, or were they just not provided with some sort of facility (I don't know what they need to pray).

I mean lack of intellectual stimulation being a logical extension of torture, even some defintions of torture also include the active denial of that opportunity iirc.

It's still stupid. You do not have a right not to be bored.

Everytime they are let out of their cages, they are hooded (which is torture), restrained by numerous shackles making walking a significant difficulty, being practically dragged by a number of guards.

Where have you heard this? I doubt it, simply because it's a darned INEFFICIENT way of doing things.

[Dinner]

According to the Geneva and Hague conventions these people are unlawful combatants meaning they didn't wear uniforms and are not fighting as part of a recognized national military. Thus, according to the Geneva and Hague conventions, they are entitled to absolutely no civil or military protections and can legally be summarily executed without trial or tribunal. The US has been much more gracious to these people then they legally have to and has agreed to at least let them have a tribunal which is exactly the same as any member of the US military would get if they were court martial.

[Whaleboy]

They would be set free in civilian courts, hence why they aren't being tried there

If they are innocent, set them free

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah


The USA signed up to that, and the constitution of the US states that the US has to abide by such conventions as they are integrated into the constitution. Thus if the US breaks GC, it is acting unconstitutionally. Thats part of the reason some argue the Iraq war to be unconstitutional, since it didnt have UN backing.

It is not unconstitutional to violate a treaty. It is a treaty violation. However, my question was how does the Geneva convention require the US to apply its constitution to foreign nationals.

[Whaleboy]

According to the Geneva and Hague conventions these people are unlawful combatants meaning they didn't wear uniforms and are not fighting as part of a recognized national military

It has yet to be proven that this is the case! It has yet to be proven that any of them were combatants (although I personally think some are, the US still needs evidence).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You have to show it applies in a given situation before you can say if it has been violated or not.

That's my point! It doesn't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Thats part of the reason some argue the Iraq war to be unconstitutional, since it didnt have UN backing.

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Seriously. Can you point out someone who normaly expects to be taken seriously that argued that point?

[Dis]

you whacko lefties want to set terrorists free like Bill Clinton did.

it's no wonder most people have no respect for you.

and no, I'm not a right-winger. I'm a person who uses common sense- a moderate.

letting terrorists go is not a good thing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by skywalker

barbaric treatment

examples?

ustice, and fair, open justice is essential to the integrity of a fair democracy, that, constitutionally, America should be proud of.

Exactly. These people are not American citizens (or even residents), so at least on a technical level it does not apply to them. However, it DOES mandate the government working "for the common defense".

Huh? The constitution applies to all those in the custody of the US justice agencies on US soil. It recognizes no conditions as to US citizenship or residency. Technically (according to some) it does not apply to Guantanamo Bay prisoners because they are on Cuban sovereign territory.