You can throw grenades at Americans, but you can't take tinkling on yourself?

[Provost Harrison]

The whole mercenary aspect of the situation changes that though...

[Wezil]

Perhaps the evidence against Khadr is as solid as that used by Powell at the UN......

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yeah of course he should be tried...however it does sound like the rest of the family should be tried too...

Armed soldiers on the battle field who do not wear recognizable military uniforms are unlawful combatants who are explicitly striped of all protections under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. He was armed, he was a combatant, he murdered medical personnel who were fulfilling their duty to care for the sick and injured, and he was not in a military uniform. This case is open and shut.

Under the Geneva Convention he could have legally been lined up against a wall and shot. Instead he has been given prison until the end of hostilities and that's pretty damn generous.

[Jaakko]

Somehow, that article manages to wipe all disgust I had towards that kid's actions. At least he's not an American Conservative.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Armed soldiers on the battle field who do not wear recognizable military uniforms are unlawful combatants who are explicitly striped of all protections under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. He was armed, he was a combatant, he murdered medical personnel who were fulfilling their duty to care for the sick and injured, and he was not in a military uniform. This case is open and shut.

Is Guantanamo on or not on US soil? The SCOTUS has ruled in the past that Constitutional protections extend to non-citizens on US soil. Among the Bill of Rights is a provision that says there is a right to a speedy trial. Yeah, it is open and shut, but in a different way than you think.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Try him or let him go. I mean they have plenty on him, what's the reason for not trying him?

Because legally we don't have to and we don't want to set a precident which would force us to let the more dangerous terrorists lose? If you're caught on the battle field then the Geneva Convention applies including the clauses you don't like about unlawful combatants.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Armed soldiers on the battle field who do not wear recognizable military uniforms are unlawful combatants who are explicitly striped of all protections under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. He was armed, he was a combatant, he murdered medical personnel who were fulfilling their duty to care for the sick and injured, and he was not in a military uniform. This case is open and shut.

Under the Geneva Convention he could have legally been lined up against a wall and shot. Instead he has been given prison until the end of hostilities and that's pretty damn generous.

So the best thing to do is to lock him up and abuse him until "hostilities" are over, and then what? Release him? I'm sure he'll be a model citizen after that, and love the US with all his heart and soul.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Is Guantanamo on or not on US soil? The SCOTUS has ruled in the past that Constitutional protections extend to non-citizens on US soil. Among the Bill of Rights is a provision that says there is a right to a speedy trial. Yeah, it is open and shut, but in a different way than you think.

According to the terms of the lease Gitmo is part of Cuba that the US military gets to use. Therefor it is not part of the US.

[Wezil]

The US gov. has got to stop saying one thing and doing the other. Credibility = 0 and it is no wonder.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
According to the terms of the lease Gitmo is part of Cuba that the US military gets to use. Therefor it is not part of the US.

SCOTUS says otherwise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
According to the terms of the lease Gitmo is part of Cuba that the US military gets to use. Therefor it is not part of the US.

It is leased by the US, therefore I'd consider that to be US soil. It'd be different if we kept them in US occupied Afghanistan, but this is legally transfered land to the US for a period of (IIRC) 99 years. Any crimes at Gitmo are heard by US military tribunal, not Cuban courts, for one.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kontiki
So the best thing to do is to lock him up and abuse him until "hostilities" are over, and then what? Release him? I'm sure he'll be a model citizen after that, and love the US with all his heart and soul.

I disagree that he has been abused. Can you site any evidence that he has been abused? Him pissing himself is hardly conclusive and that is the worst his own lawyer could come up with. When exactly did this occur? On a 20 hour flight from Afghanistan? We don't know so it would be premature to comment.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


SCOTUS says otherwise.

Please site where the SCOTUS has said unlawful combatants are entitled to the same protections as citizens.

[Last Conformist]

che was responding to the claim Guantánamo isn't American soil.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Any crimes at Gitmo are heard by US military tribunal, not Cuban courts, for one.

The reason Cuban courts don't get a say is because the US doesn't recognize nor does it maintain diplomatic relations with the Communist government of Cuba. Granted military courts have always had rule there since the US military took charge of Gitmo but legally it is not the US nor even a US territory and instead is a Cuban territory which the US is authorised to use. I would be for granting Geneva rights to uniformed Taliban soldiers but they seem to be as rare as diamonds.