Another one Bites the Dust

[ballbuster]

HOORAYYYY
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4766120/

[Ex-FB]

Witnesses said there were three people in the car at the time of the explosion. Five pedestrians were also wounded, hospital officials said.

The bodyguard was identified as Akram Nassar, 35. Rantisi’s dead son was 27-year-old Mohammed, hospital officials said. Rantisi’s wife was in the car, but her condition and location was not known, hospital sources and Hamas said.

Well, I'm not going to bite. Suffice to say that your admiration of terrorism is pretty sad. Maybe you should go live with your boyfriend Osama Bin Laden. He loves people who "think" like you.

[ballbuster]

Maybe you should go live with your boyfriend Osama Bin Laden

I'm having a devil of a time locating him

your admiration of terrorism is pretty sad

No, my admiration of counter terrorism is pretty glad. You're the one that's sad.

Witnesses said there were three people in the car at the time of the explosion. Five pedestrians were also wounded, hospital officials said.

Terrorists have a habit of hiding behind civilians. Hey, those bums invented this style of war.

[Ex-FB]

Ah - sooooo it's counter terrorism if it's killing people without a trial and taking out bystanders....


....mmmm. So by your argument, the world trade centre attack was fair game.... after all, I'm sure there were a few IRA sponsors in the building. Seems to me they got what they deserve, and by your arguments everyone else is fair game.

You really are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

[ballbuster]

You really are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

ur raising my blood pressure

So, israel is supposed to hold trials for terrorists during a war while hamas can bomb anyone at will.

[Xcoder]

so its fair to keep people in guantanamo bay literally hostage without trial away from their countries and being processed by the US justice while not even being in US territory? they at least deserve a fair trial by an international jury like the one in Holland...

but of course youre pissed...you cant have an objective point of view..so its pointless to keep this discussion...

[Xanith]

The US Supreme Court is deciding this right now. However my opinion is that they are what they are, enemy combatants held while the war on terror continues. If anything they should be put in front of a Military Tribunal due to their status. They are not eligible for process under the US justice system because they are not citizens.

As far as bringing them up for trial in an international court I cant see any other county bringing their enemy combatants to trial in international court so why should the US?

X

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by ballbuster
ur raising my blood pressure

So, israel is supposed to hold trials for terrorists during a war while hamas can bomb anyone at will.

No, both are as bad as each other. Both are terrorists. If we are in a war against terrorism, we shouldn't be siding with any of them.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Xanith
The US Supreme Court is deciding this right now. However my opinion is that they are what they are, enemy combatants held while the war on terror continues. If anything they should be put in front of a Military Tribunal due to their status. They are not eligible for process under the US justice system because they are not citizens.

As far as bringing them up for trial in an international court I cant see any other county bringing their enemy combatants to trial in international court so why should the US?

X

But no other country has ever heard the term "enemy combatants" before, it was made up by the US gov. to get around the Geneva convention.

All other western countries hand prisoners back at the end of a war or send them to international court for war-crimes. They don't hold them without charge indefinetly.

As for enemy combatants, at least they've freed a number who were obviously nothing to do with the conflict (after a couple of years internment), but I wonder how many other innocents are still there. Without giving them their day in court you are denying them a basic human right. If we can so easily ignore one of the foundations upon which we build our society (i.e. innocent until proven guilty), are we really a serious about upholding those values?

I say, put them on trial and let them have their day in court. If they truelly are guilty, then let's worry about that then. At least you'll get the process moving. At present, the lack of basic human rights is embarressing for the US at best, and hardly helping them "win the hearts and minds" of the muslim world.

As an aside, in the second world war a number of nationals from neutral or non-participating countries fought alongside Britain. Does anyone know what happened to them if captured (just curious - I'll try and find something on the web, but just incase anyone here knew). After all, this is the equivelent of "enemy combatants" as they like to call them.

[Xcoder]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
But no other country has ever heard the term "enemy combatants" before, it was made up by the US gov. to get around the Geneva convention.

All other western countries hand prisoners back at the end of a war or send them to international court for war-crimes. They don't hold them without charge indefinetly.

As for enemy combatants, at least they've freed a number who were obviously nothing to do with the conflict (after a couple of years internment), but I wonder how many other innocents are still there. Without giving them their day in court you are denying them a basic human right. If we can so easily ignore one of the foundations upon which we build our society (i.e. innocent until proven guilty), are we really a serious about upholding those values?

I say, put them on trial and let them have their day in court. If they truelly are guilty, then let's worry about that then. At least you'll get the process moving. At present, the lack of basic human rights is embarressing for the US at best, and hardly helping them "win the hearts and minds" of the muslim world.

As an aside, in the second world war a number of nationals from neutral or non-participating countries fought alongside Britain. Does anyone know what happened to them if captured (just curious - I'll try and find something on the web, but just incase anyone here knew). After all, this is the equivelent of "enemy combatants" as they like to call them.

I totally agree, in my personal opinion, it looked like the US just captured as many prisioners as they could, and without any concern they were labeled as guilty until proven innocent, which is of course an outrage....

Another matter are the public trials, why are they held private in this case? the public opinion has the right to see how this is being taken care, and what about Human Rights!? and still US has the nerve to discredit Cuba for the same thing!!!

[demotivater]

But no other country has ever heard the term "enemy combatants" before

They've heard it now, and I'll bet they'll remember it.

On a side note, many German and Italian prisoners were held after the war ended. There were some 15,000 of them held in the state where I live. A few camps were actually right around town here. You can still find some of their work stamped with a "contstructed by PW", such as sewer lids, under bridges etc. Pretty interesting.

[Xanith]

But no other country has ever heard the term "enemy combatants" before, it was made up by the US gov. to get around the Geneva convention.

The war on terror is a different kind of warfare with no borders and no organized armies. Things change in the world so it’s really hard to classify such people under the Geneva conventions because it didn’t account for such a thing.

All other western countries hand prisoners back at the end of a war or send them to international court for war-crimes. They don't hold them without charge indefinetly.

Traditional wars this is the case you are correct but as I mentioned before the war on terror is a war without borders or a central country to be fighting. Also the war is not over yet is it?

As for enemy combatants, at least they've freed a number who were obviously nothing to do with the conflict (after a couple of years internment), but I wonder how many other innocents are still there. Without giving them their day in court you are denying them a basic human right. If we can so easily ignore one of the foundations upon which we build our society (i.e. innocent until proven guilty), are we really a serious about upholding those values?

Those rights are given to every citizen of the US and don’t apply to those held it Gitmo. While I agree that a fair trial should be a right of everyone it doesn’t exist as a universal/human right in many countries across the globe. You don’t exactly put on trail every captured enemy PoW do you? So why should you give an enemy combatant a trial? Like you said in your point above they are usually given back after the conflict is over and I wouldn’t call the war on terror as being close to over would you?

I say, put them on trial and let them have their day in court. If they truelly are guilty, then let's worry about that then. At least you'll get the process moving. At present, the lack of basic human rights is embarressing for the US at best, and hardly helping them "win the hearts and minds" of the muslim world.

I wouldn’t classify this as a human rights violation and if it wasn’t the US holding these people it wouldn’t be an issue at all. The people who are really concerned with Human Rights go to where true human rights violations are being committed like China and North Korea, this is simply a political tool used by those who oppose the current US foreign policy and nothing more.

X

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Xanith

Those rights are given to every citizen of the US and don’t apply to those held it Gitmo. While I agree that a fair trial should be a right of everyone it doesn’t exist as a universal/human right in many countries across the globe. You don’t exactly put on trail every captured enemy PoW do you? So why should you give an enemy combatant a trial? Like you said in your point above they are usually given back after the conflict is over and I wouldn’t call the war on terror as being close to over would you?

How can you say that it's okay for your country to treat people differently on a human rights basis based on whether they are an American or not? Everyone deserves to be treated with a certain amount of decency until they have been found guilty of something. If you went to Britain, would it be okay for Britain to hold you without trial indefinetely under suspicion that you might be a terrorist. After all, hey, you're not a British citizen, therefore they don't have to treat you with respect.

As you already mentioned this is not a conventional war. the war against terror will never be over. So does that mean you hold these people forever?

Originally posted by Xanith
I wouldn’t classify this as a human rights violation and if it wasn’t the US holding these people it wouldn’t be an issue at all. The people who are really concerned with Human Rights go to where true human rights violations are being committed like China and North Korea, this is simply a political tool used by those who oppose the current US foreign policy and nothing more.

X

Sorry. Much as I agree that a number of people jump on every band wagon to condemn US foreign policy, this is quite clearly a human rights issue. I believe you to be wrong when you say that "if it wasn't the US holding these people it wouldn't be an issue." People struggle throughout this world to stop incarceration without trial, regardless of whether it's China, South Africa or the US doing it. To point at China and say "well they do it, so it's okay for us to do it." seems to me to be horribly wrong.

Quite simply: These are not enemy soldiers caught wearing enemy uniforms. These are people picked up from a war zone by very dubious means (come on - paying the locals $25,000 for every Al-Quieda operative they find, but not making them prove that's what they are - who didn't see that coming). These people are not being held as prisoners of war and yet, they are not being treated as other prisoners entitled to a trial. Your government is cheapening itself in the eye's of the world.

I could even sit on the fence if I thought there was a good reason for denying having hearings for these people, but there isn't, and that's what makes it a travesty of justice.

[Xcoder]

You dont justify illegal actions by saying this is a different kind of war. If laws arent clear about how to handle terrorism the why US has determined whats law without the consent of the UN?

War isnt over, thats true, but Ill respond you back with your own arguments, this is a different kind of war, these people deserve to be judged in a fair trial, with the capacity of defending themselves with the help of a lawyer of their choice...and this is called civil rights, and are part of the human rights even if this war isnt over...

be frog, think frog

[Shaggy Hiker]

Also, these folks are being held in Cuba solely because the US government knows that if they are brought to US soil, they gain certain rights under our legal system. It is to avoid the law that they remain in gitmo.

As for enemy combatants: When the US came ashore on D-Day in WWII, one unit captured a handful of soldiers who spoke a language that nobody could understand. After considerable difficulty, it was determined that they were Korean. Their story went something like this: They had been mercenaries fighting in the Japanese army (I think, it might have been Chinese), and were captured by the soviets. They then signed up with the soviets, and were subsequently captured by the Germans. They then signed up with the Germans, and were captured by the US. If I remember the story correctly, we then sent them back to Korea.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
The war on terror is a different kind of warfare with no borders and no organized armies. Things change in the world so it’s really hard to classify such people under the Geneva conventions because it didn’t account for such a thing.


Traditional wars this is the case you are correct but as I mentioned before the war on terror is a war without borders or a central country to be fighting. Also the war is not over yet is it?


Those rights are given to every citizen of the US and don’t apply to those held it Gitmo. While I agree that a fair trial should be a right of everyone it doesn’t exist as a universal/human right in many countries across the globe. You don’t exactly put on trail every captured enemy PoW do you? So why should you give an enemy combatant a trial? Like you said in your point above they are usually given back after the conflict is over and I wouldn’t call the war on terror as being close to over would you?


I wouldn’t classify this as a human rights violation and if it wasn’t the US holding these people it wouldn’t be an issue at all. The people who are really concerned with Human Rights go to where true human rights violations are being committed like China and North Korea, this is simply a political tool used by those who oppose the current US foreign policy and nothing more.

X

Or more likely a suitable tactic for the US to enforce its own policies using the military force? More like it's war on terror similar to insult on injury? The US terrorizing weaker and smaller states, and if they resist, declares war on them? It's simply disgusting and another example of the US arrogance.

.