Guantanamo bay

[Whaleboy]

It is not unconstitutional to violate a treaty. It is a treaty violation

You are mistaken, it is. If the US signs up to a treaty, any violation by the US is henceforth a constitutional violation. Read the constitution, its a very interesting document.

However, my question was how does the Geneva convention require the US to apply its constitution to foreign nationals

I have explained that the constitution (not entirely sure if its all of it, but most certainly the human rights if not civil) applies to protectees of that constitution, example includes Guantanamo prisoners.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah


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).

Catch-22 then.

Why should the US release CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION just to satisfy the whims of people who don't even have the law on their side?

[Dis]

I just had a thought.

Why doesn't Cuba invade Gitmo and set these prisoners free?

Sure it would draw them into a war with the U.S.

But it is the right thing to do.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by elijah
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).

You don't get it do you? If you are in a war zone and you have a weapon in your possession then you can legally be considered a combatant. You don't get a trial, you don't get an attorney, and if you weren't in uniform then then can and should be summarially executed.

That's war and the Geneva & Hague conventions spell all of this out in plain simple English.

[The Mad Monk]

Being on the battlefield, with weapons, is not enough for you?

You probably argued that Blackbeard was just a well-armed merchanter, then.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
According to the Geneva and Hague conventions these people are unlawful combatants

They aren't unlawful combatants until a competent and impartial board says they aren't. So far the US hasn't done that. There was an executive decision to label anybody belonging to Al Qaeda an unlawful combatant. There was then a board which decided behind closed doors which prisoners belonged to Al Qaeda and which didn't.

[Whaleboy]

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?

Its true, read the thing! The ambiguity lies in the fact that the UN did not oppose the war via a resolution, and that is in fact the reason I dont adopt that claim. However, it is a strong argument.

letting terrorists go is not a good thing

Prove that they are terrorists, and then chuck them in jail.

That's my point! It doesn't.

Does too!! Read the thing.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Technically (according to some) it does not apply to Guantanamo Bay prisoners because they are on Cuban sovereign territory.

That's what makes it the perfect spot for this type of thing. Makes me wish we'd bury the hatchet and lift the embargo on Cuba.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah


You are mistaken, it is. If the US signs up to a treaty, any violation by the US is henceforth a constitutional violation. Read the constitution, its a very interesting document.

Which article and section? I've read it several times, and don't recall it requiring that?

I have explained that the constitution (not entirely sure if its all of it, but most certainly the human rights if not civil) applies to protectees of that constitution, example includes Guantanamo prisoners.

Where does it say it applies to non-US citizens? HOW would it apply to non-US citizens. The Guantanamo prisoners didn't decide to accept the contract that is the US constitution, thus it does not apply to them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by elijah
You are mistaken, it is. If the US signs up to a treaty, any violation by the US is henceforth a constitutional violation. Read the constitution, its a very interesting document.

Elijah: This is just plain wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Its true, read the thing!

I have. That's the reason for my statement.

[Whaleboy]

Why should the US release CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION just to satisfy the whims of people who don't even have the law on their side?

Because a fair trial precludes intelligence info. I have yet to see proof of claims that such evidence is critical intelligence.

But it is the right thing to do

Castro is an idiot and a coward, but he's not quite that dumb.

You don't get it do you? If you are in a war zone and you have a weapon in your possession then you can legally be considered a combatant.

But they must prove that they are unlawful combatants, and then try them for the crimes committed while under that status. So far, the US has done neither, except spuriously claim the former to be true.

Being on the battlefield, with weapons, is not enough for you?

Prove it! Theres no evidence of that, certainly none that will stand up in a court of law.

Lets not forget that these people are human first, possibly terrorists later. I disagree with the US and sympathise with the Arabs, does that make me a terrorist?

There was an executive decision to label anybody belonging to Al Qaeda an unlawful combatant.

So not only have they failed to show that they are unlawful combatants, they have failed to show they are Al Qaeda members, and they have failed to show they are guilty of supposed crimes for which they are incarcerated now!!

[Whaleboy]

I'll dig out US history textbook and PM you.

Elijah: This is just plain wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
Because a fair trial precludes intelligence info. I have yet to see proof of claims that such evidence is critical intelligence.

STUPID. If they tell you what it is, don't you think that would get rid of the entire point of keeping it secret?!

But they must prove that they are unlawful combatants, and then try them for the crimes committed while under that status. So far, the US has done neither, except spuriously claim the former to be true.

No, the Geneva convention says they DON'T have to prove it.

Prove it! Theres no evidence of that, certainly none that will stand up in a court of law.

Again, THEY DON'T HAVE TO!

So not only have they failed to show that they are unlawful combatants, they have failed to show they are Al Qaeda members, and they have failed to show they are guilty of supposed crimes for which they are incarcerated now!!

They haven't proved to YOU. What makes you so special, that you must pass judgement on anything before it is true?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
I'll dig out US history textbook and PM you.

No, post the article and section HERE. Here's a link to the US constitution http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ion.table.html

Tell me where it is in there. PROVE IT