Japan in WW2

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
The US doesn't really have much right to lecture anyone on human rights.
You're making a complete sham of it yourselves right now.

http://www.humanrightsmonitor.org/article491.html

---

:p I'll bet I am. Can't you see how blinded you've become? I had not once mentioned the US in any of my posts this thread. I'm from Canada. I explained what human rights abuses we had performed during WW2. And you call me a sham. Great. I might not have agreed with you earlier, but now you've lost my respect. Have a nice day.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
So you have x reasons for not giving a **** if they are badly treated and you don't care what happens to them.
They have x reasons for hating America, and don't care what happens to Americans.

So why is September11th such a big deal then ?
They're only treating you with the same apathy you are treating them.

---

I hate to break it to you Jamie, but this thread is about Japan during World War 2, not how the US are treating their little guests.

Jamie is the person who is secretly out to derail as many threads as possible. :p

The thread started out over Japan, but it has veared away by now. After all, the original question was for the Japanese perspective, and there hasn't been one.

The current thread, veered though it has, is still valid. My understanding is that the group held in Cuba (I can't spell that base name) is largely terrorists, and terrorist related. I was surprised to see in this thread that some people feel that they are not POW's, but held under criminal code. I don't know, can somebody confirm this? I thought it was the other way around. They are clearly in violation of US ciminal code, though we have often treated detained foreign nationals with a kind of confused inconsistency.

In short: What are those people classified as, and under what code are they being held?

I was also surprised by people who hold that they are not being harmed by perpetual imprisonment. We hold that to be punishment in this country. Is perpetual punishment acceptable for somebody just becuase they might have done a bad thing, or happened to be associated with an organization that has done bad things? Members of a certain church in the US fit the latter category, would it be justified to lock them all up indefinitely until we decide some essential indecidable issue?

Shaggy Hiker, to answer your questions:

The place: Guantanamo Bay (Camp X-Ray)

From an article online:
That's because these detainees aren't soldiers, but part of a murderous gang that exists outside all civilized strictures. The Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda members, since they did not, as required by the convention to qualify for its protections, wear proper uniforms, answer to a responsible chain of command, and abide by the rules of war (or sign the treaty, for that matter). They are war criminals. Now, the administration has yet to say clearly whether it considers Taliban as well as al Qaeda prisoners unlawful combatants. If it does not, it is obliged to hold hearings to sort out the legitimate prisoners of war.

Still confusing though...lol.

Amen to that!

I don't feel that we are a just society unless we deal with those who break the laws in a consistent and fair manner. These folks aren't being handled that way. Partly that is because we really don't know what to do with them, but I feel that part of it is a lack of leadership at the top. Not that the pack of cowboys in charge don't know what to do with them, just that they are allowing them to slip through the cracks simply because they see them as evil and don't want to give them fair treatment. They will be treated humanely, but not fairly. Most people would prefer predictability, good or bad, rather than limbo.