FEOS wrote:
Who says? Try those who wrote and signed the GC, for starters. You really should try reading it. You'd find the language in there that states that belligerents must be treated according to the tenets of the GC until they do not follow it themselves, whether the parties involved are signatories or not. Specifically, signatories must follow the tenets until the other side doesn't, then all bets are off. If you would've read it, you would know that.
Essentially, any treatment those people at GITMO receive is exactly what they are warranted under the GC, since they were fighting in a way that violated the tenets of the GC to start with.
Your argument might hold some force were it certain that they (Gitmo detainees) really were/are 'combatants'. However since many were innocent or held without trial you can't be certain about anything. So since they're there as 'combtatants' they should imo be treated as such. Your argument agains shows how morally hypocritical you are. You may as well say 'the GC are a load of shit so if they other side don't follow them we sure won't'. It might have missed your attention that the US is supposed to be some massive beacon for life, liberty, freedom etc etc. Then you do shit like this. So...who's the failure?
FEOS wrote:
Whatever gave you the impression that GITMO was some sort of rehabilitation center? It never was. Was never advertised as such. Was never intended to be one. So no...it wouldn't mean that it failed, as that was never its intended purpose.
Well, like I asked, and feel free to answer my question - if ONE ex-detainee who was innocent and turned into a fundamnetalist by being in Gitmo then comitted a terrorist act - AS A DIRECT RESULT OF BEING IN GITMO - then, surely, Gitmo is a failure. If the aim of Gitmo was to consolidate anti-US feeling across half the world then yes, it succeeded admirably.
FEOS wrote:
Clearly, if it weren't for GITMO, every one of those guys would've been raising kittens and painting pastoral landscapes instead of trying to kill Coalition soldiers and innocent civilians. Geez, man! That's fucking obvious.
Because that's as idiotic as the position being taken by you and some others here. Seriously, educate yourself on the topic at hand and go off fact-based, rather than emotion-fed, opinion.
It's not emotion-fed, why should it be? my position isn't idiotic - it's based on fact. Here are some for you:
That some (perhaps the majority?) of detainees in gitmo were innocent. That's the basic fact.
Also, people have been tortured in gitmo.
Deaths at gitmo have occurred (through torture?)
Most people there were held without trial, often for several years.
Many consider Gitmo to be illegal and the ignoring of the GC also to be illegal.
Anti-US sentiment has increased across the world as a direct result of Gitmo.
Now you and others might like to argue that locking up and torturing innocent people is OK. That's another reason why the US has lost a lot of its moral force, because you've been duped into thinking that the US can do anything to keep its position as world superpower and follows differnt moral standards than other countries. You want to invade another country illegally, kidnap innocent people and jail them for years without trial? Fine, don't be surprised when they dog you've beaten comes back and bites you in the ass. Gitmo has created more 'terrorists' than have been locked up. That's pretty much a fact also. By what measure of success was Gitmo a 'success', cos I can give you a list of ways it was a failure. But if you want try giving me some 'facts-based' arguments (totally unlike your last little bit I quoted above by the way) that Gitmo was another American policy coup.
Oh and have you hear about the lawsuits now taking place against deaths in US custody...in Guantanamo. Yep, you must be proud to have such an excellent use of your tax dollars. Well done.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-26 00:30:15)
