Torture in India

[si_the_geek]

How does not giving them a fair trial change that?

The punishment that is given (based on the trial) could presumably be equivalent to what they are getting anyway - so why not have a trial?

[FunkyDexter]

That's funny, as the exact same things were being said about America long, long before anyone ever heard of Guantanamo Bay.

There are many people who will never be satisfied no matter what America does. I sometimes wonder why we even bother to try anymore...

True and true... but it used to be extremists and nutters who were saying that. The rest of us just thought it was funny to poke fun at the fact you can't pronounce cofee and that guys carry purses in America (I wish I had that gay smiley to hand right now ). The vast mass of us might occasionally have been a bit jealous and we might have disagreed with the occasional policy but ultimately we respected you. Now we fear you.

That might sound melodramatic but it really isn't - I, as a middle class, white, christian (well, nominally christian, it's what I write on forms anyway), Englishman actually fear you. Particularly when you extradite our StarTrek Geeks for hacking and our bankers for embezzlement instead of allowing them to be tried in this country - that tells me that one day your eye may turn on me and, if it does, I have, in recent years, had an extremely disturbing vision of the justice system I might find myself being tried (or not) under.

Now, if I feel that way, imagine how a perfectly respectable muslim living in, for example, Pakistan, must feel about you at the moment; they must be absolutely terrified! If I were them I probably would be reaching for the nearest weapon of specifically localised destruction right now and doing all I could to put a stop to you. American foreign policy and the siorts of opinions you're expressing has been the single greatest recruiting sergeant for anti Americanism the BinLadens of this workld could possibly have hoped for. Terrorists aren't the greatest threat to America right now, America is.

...decided by a treaty called the Geneva Convention... It was the terrorists who have expressed utter contempt for these rules, not the United States

No, it was the United States. You declared that the prisoners at Guantanamo wouldn't be covered by the convention or any other human rights law. At the same time you decided they weren't covered by your domestic law either. They therefore had no rights at all. This was probably the single most Orwellian piece of double speak I have encountered in my entire life and was condemned by Amensty International along with just about every other significant human rights organisation in the world. Even your own supreme court has raised serious questions about it (I seem to remember they declared it illegal but I'm a little hazy and can't bothered to look it up right now so take that with a pinch of salt). Not to mention that the vast majority of people who were originally locked up in Guantanamo have ultimately been found to be innocent and released with no compensation for their wrongful and illegal imprisonment.

I find it utterly ridiculous that the US has undertaken it's recent actions in the name of democracy while suspending human rights law and the presumption of innocence, two of the most basic principles of democracy. The US has, throughout most of it's history, had a very real claim to being the most democratic nation in the world. No more, I'm afraid.

[homer13j]

The punishment that is given (based on the trial) could presumably be equivalent to what they are getting anyway - so why not have a trial?

In America prison sentences are not handed down arbitrarily. We have sentencing guidlines and laws against excessive punishment - laws meant to protect American citizens - not enemy soldiers.

guys carry purses in America (I wish I had that gay smiley to hand right now ).

Only in New York, San Fransisco, and a city we affectionately refer to as "Flakewood." Most places in America a guy carrying a purse would be looked at as a total freak.

No, it was the United States. You declared that the prisoners at Guantanamo wouldn't be covered by the convention or any other human rights law.

You conveniently edited out my comment about the Geneva Convention's rules of engagement - the treaty specifically says the Geneva Convention does not apply if you are captured in battle without a uniform or purposefully targeting civilians. You should read the document - its very interesting.

[si_the_geek]

In America prison sentences are not handed down arbitrarily. We have sentencing guidlines and laws against excessive punishment - laws meant to protect American citizens - not enemy soldiers.

It's the same in many countries, and what I had expected there too.. I don't know whether or not apt sentences could be introduced, but even if not it doesn't mean that it is OK to not have a trial.

There are various other options rather than US law, such as a proper war crimes trial, or using the law of a different country (perhaps the one where they supposedly committed the offence), or something else.

Refusing a trial doesn't make sense to me, and seems to be against the principles that your country is trying to spread.