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.

.